Sitting of 25 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough, of Great Grimsby, in the room of George Doughty, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Mr. William McArthur.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. [H.L.]
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and Referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto (have been complied with, namely—

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  MESSAGE TO ATTEND THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
  The House went, and, being returned,
  MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to—
  Societies' Borrowing Powers Act, 1898; Canals Protection (London) Act, 1898;
  1106
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners) Act, 1898; Post Office (Guarantee) Act, 1898; Poor Law Unions Association (Expenses) Act, 1898; Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898; Ex-Officio Justices of the Peace (Scotland) Act, 1898; Statute Law Revision Act, 1898; Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1898; Pharmacy Acts Amendment Act, 1898; Greenwich Hospital Act, 1898; Union of Benefices Act, 1898; Land Drainage Supplemental Act, 1898; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Act, 1898; Education Department Provisional Orders Confirmation (Barnes, etc.) Act, 1898; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1898; Commons Regulation (Runcorn) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Edinburgh Improvement Scheme Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Military Lands Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1898; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1898; Leith Burgh Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 14) Act, 1898; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Gas) Act, 1898; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Housing of Working Classes) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders, Confirmation (Poor Law) Act, 1898; Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Londonderry and

  1107
  Lough Swilly (Letterkenny to Burtonport Extension) Railway) Confirmation Act, 1898; Aberdeen Corporation (Tramways) Act, 1898; South Western Railway Act, 1898; Staines Reservoirs Act, 1898; Belfast Harbour Act, 1898; Blackpool Improvement Act, 1898; Sheringham Gas and Water Act, 1898; Carmarthen Improvement Act, 1898; Northam Urban District Water Act, 1898; North Warwickshire Water Act, 1898; London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Act, 1898; Gainsborough Gas Act, 1898; Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway Act, 1898; Southend Waterworks Act 1898; Southwark and Vauxhall Water Act, 1898; Saint Thomas, Southwark, and Saint Saviour, Southwark, Act, 1898; Yeovil Corporation Act, 1898; Bideford and Clovelly Railway Act, 1898; Ilford Improvement Act, 1898; Great Eastern Railway Company and Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint Committee Act, 1898; Great Eastern Railway (Pensions) Act, 1898; Cranbrook District Water Act, 1898; Crawley and District Water Act, 1898; East Ham Improvement Act, 1898; Wishaw Water (Additional Supply) Act, 1898; Liskeard Corporation Act, 1898; Norwich Electric Tramways Act, 1898; Cardiff Corporation Act, 1898; Dundee Corporation (Tramways) Act, 1898; Buenos Ayres Northern Railway Company's Act, 1898; Colonial Bank Act, 1898; Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Act, 1898; Cromer Gas Act, 1898; Drogheda (Corporation) Gas Act, 1898; Wigan Corporation Act, 1898; Dover Harbour Act, 1898; London Building Act, 1894 (Amendment) Act, 1898; Crystal Palace Company's Act, 1898; Plymouth Corporation Act, 1898; Turnchapel Quays and Wharves Act, 1898; Stirling Gas Act, 1898; Barry Railway Act, 1898; London County Council (Acton Sewage) Act, 1898; Mumbles Railway and Pier Act, 1898; London, Chatham and Dover Railway Act, 1898; Halifax Corporation Act, 1898; Folkestone Water Act, 1898; City of Norwich Waterworks Act, 1898; Corporation of Foreign Bondholders Act, 1898; Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Act, 1898; Hamilton Water Act, 1898; Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Act, 1898; Kettering Water Act, 1898; Clergy Mutual Assurance Society Act, 1898;
  1108
  Kew Bridge Act, 1898; Bacup Corporation Water Act, 1898; Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water (Amendment) Act, 1898; Dublin Southern District Tramways Act, 1898; Glasgow and South Western Railway Act, 1898; Matlock Urban District Council Act, 1898; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Act, 1898; Felixstowe and Walton Water Act, 1898; Midland Railway (West Riding Lines) Act, 1898; Newtown Water Act, 1898; Great Northern Railway Act, 1898; Blackburn Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Act, 1898; Bristol Tramways (Electrical Power, etc.) Act, 1898; Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Act, 1898; Neath, Pontardawe and Brynaman Railway Act, 1898; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Act, 1898; Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Act, 1898; Walker's Estate Act, 1898.

BILLS ADVANCED.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION GAS BILL
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LEYTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  On consideration of Lords' Amendments to Dublin Port and Docks Bill—

  CLAUSE 14.
  "Page 10, line 38, after 'services,' insert 'as he may render in connection with the preparation of such lists and the signing and delivery thereof.'"—(Mr. Carew.)
  MR. CAREW: I beg, Sir, to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed to be added stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL. [H.L.]
  MR. H. LEWIS: I wish to offer a few remarks before this Bill is accorded a Third Reading, although I may say that I do not intend to oppose the Third Reading. This is the second of two Bills introduced for the purpose of widening a portion of the Chester and Holyhead line, and relieving
  1110
  the congestion of traffic. In itself that is a most desirable undertaking, and if carried out with due consideration for the interests of the traders of North Wales and those of the local authorities in the districts where the widening of the line interferes with public rights no one could raise any objection to it. The Bill in its original form lacks several necessary provisions to secure the rights of the road and other authorities whose interests are affected. Prolonged negotiations have taken place between those bodies and the railway company, with the result that fairly satisfactory arrangements have been arrived at. The Flintshire County Council has, however, had an immense amount of trouble to secure free and unimpaired access to Mostyn Quay, one of the most important ports on the river. It is essential that nothing should be done to prevent free and fair competition between the sea and the railway, and had it not been for the action of the county council the facilities of access to that port might have been very seriously curtailed. But there still remains unredressed an undoubted grievance on the part of the general body of traders on the Chester and Holyhead section of the London and North Western Railway. In 1896 an attempt was made by the county councils of Flintshire and Carnarvonshire to obtain a reduction of the maximum rates charged on this section. There can be no doubt that the rates that prevailed were more appropriate to a branch line than to one of the main lines of the London and North Western Railway Company, and a number of witnesses were brought to London to give evidence as to the high rates charged on this section of the railway. It is a remarkable and significant fact that, rather than face that inquiry or the action that might follow that inquiry, the railway company decided to withdraw their Bill for that year, and the evidence was therefore never published. The Bill was reintroduced in 1897, and in the meantime the company, having made concessions to individual traders, although not to the general body of traders, and the local authorities being unable to undertake the great cost of a fight on rates, and a great and powerful company has an enormous advantage over a small community

  1111
  in this respect, did not raise the question, nor has it been raised in connection with the Bill introduced this Session. But before the present Bill passes into law I think it right that a protest should be made against the existence of higher maximum charges for the carriage of goods under Table A than are charged on other portions of the main line, up to North Western Company's system. Here is a company whose traffic on a section of its line is so heavy that it is obliged to lay down two extra pains of rails, insisting upon maximum charges which up to 20 miles are 25 per cent, higher than on other portions of the main line up to 50 miles, 32 per cent, higher, and beyond 50 miles, 60 per cent, above the charges on many other parts of the main line. The Chester and Holyhead section is the most profitable line of the company. It carries the enormous Irish traffic of the company, and if there were neither goods nor passenger trainee on this railway, it would be well worth their while to maintain it for the sake of the Irish trade alone. In the early history of this railway it was right and proper that it should be allowed to charge exceptional rates; but the justification for such an imposition upon traders and the public has long ago ceased to exist. I have listened very carefully to the reasons given by the counsel who appeared for the company in 1896, why these exceptional rates should be maintained, and to every statement made on behalf of the company since then, but they have entirely failed to establish a case for special rates. The first reason assigned for their maintenance was that the question had been settled by the Joint Committee of both Houses which sat in 1891. Unfortunately the North Wales traders were not separately represented in a collective capacity before that Committee; only one trader appeared, and his interests were chiefly those of a branch line in Carnarvonshire. The traders on the Chester and Holyhead Railway were not represented, and a perusal of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee of 1891 will show that there was no adequate presentation of their case before that Committee. The next argument was that the gathering ground of the Chester and Holyhead Railway was on one side of the line only, and that the
  1112
  sea prevented the company from having that amount of traffic which it would receive if it passed through the interior of the country. I will deal with that reason, and very briefly. ["Hear, hear" from the Ministerial benches.] Yes, but this is an important matter to North Wales, and I am trying to deal with it with every possible consideration to the London and North Western Railway. There are reasons which, in the case of the Chester and Holyhead Railway, make this argument absurdly inapplicable. The fact that the railway runs along the coast line has induced manufacturers to establish large concerns which would never have been started but for the convenience of water carriage, and those concerns have added very largely to the land traffic of the London and North Western Railway. Moreover, it is the presence of the sea which has caused the rapid rise of watering places on the North Wales Coast, which contributed largely to both the local and the through traffic of the line, and the very ruggedness of the coast lime, which the company put forward as a reason for exceptional rates on account of the increased cost of construction and maintenance, is an inducement to tens of thousands of holiday seekers to use their railway. But the question of exceptional cost of construction does not really arise, because the line has been bought by the company at a low price, and because the company has been allowed to charge very high rates for a very long period. Owing to the construction of the line along the coast the North Western has obtained all the positions of vantage, and it has become difficult for any other company to construct a parallel line along the sea front. Moreover, this line forms the chief connecting link between England and Ireland. It confers upon the North Western. Company the largest and most lucrative share of the Irish traffic. The fact that the company has come to Parliament for powers to widen their line shows that the volume of traffic has increased enormously; it also indicates that they are determined, if possible, to preserve their monopoly in North Wales. It is too expensive an undertaking for any public body in North Wales to fight the question of rates with a powerful and wealthy

  1113
  monopoly like the London and North Western. It is quite evident that the public are helpless in the matter, and that the only hope of removing a grievance from which the public of North Wales will continue to suffer is the entrance of a competing company into this very promising field. That event may not, perhaps, be very far distant, and it will probably be very considerably hastened by the determination of the company to maintain the maximum rates under Table A in the present unfair position. A conference of representatives of North Wales county councils has taken place, at which other great railway companies have been urged to extend their systems into North Wales, and that is only one of many indications of public opinion in the same direction. I speak without any feeling against the company, from whose officers in the country I have invariably received every consideration. It is simply a matter of business between the company and the public, who through Parliament have granted the company an extremely valuable and lucrative monopoly. I do not intend to vote against the Third Beading of the Bill, because the widening of the line is necessary to relieve the congestion of traffic. My only object in speaking is to protest against the continued existence of excessive maximum rates on the most profitable section of the main line of the London and North Western Railway.

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  Motion made—
  "That Standing Order 73 be suspended in the case of the Military Lands Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.], and that the Examiners have leave to sit and proceed forthwith."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY (BRADING HARBOUR AND RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LEICESTER FREEMEN BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  PAISLEY CORPORATION (LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Motion made—
  "That, in the case of the Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill [H.L.], Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237, be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed forthwith."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  CHELSEA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Motion made—
  "That, in the case of the Chelsea Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.], Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed forthwith."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to

  ST. MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I shall not call upon the honourable Member for Carnarvon to move his Instruction, as I understand that the Committee has already reported the Bill to the House. Neither can I, for the same reason, call upon the honourable Member for Bolton.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon): I rise, Sir, to a point of' order. I understood when I came down to-day that this Bill had been passed through the Committee stage on Friday last. II submit to you, Sir, that that is a very unusual proceeding—even if it is

  1115
  not against the rules of the House; but I should like to get your ruling upon that point. There were two Instructions down which were placed on the Paper on Wednesday. They were on the Paper on Thursday, and the promoters of the Bill knew perfectly well that they were on the Paper. An appeal was then made to the honourable Member for Marylebone, who is in charge of the Bill, as to whether he would postpone the discussion upon the two Instructions until Monday—that is to-day. He very readily assented to do so, and he exhibited the utmost courtesy in the matter. In the meantime—and I trust without the knowledge or consent of the honourable Member for Maryiebone—the promoters of the Bill have passed it through Committee; in the face of the fact that these Instructions were down for discussion, they passed it through Committee as an unopposed Bill. I submit, Sir, that the action is contrary to precedent, that it is against the rules of the House, and, in any event, I venture to characterise it as a thoroughly disreputable trick which is only possible to, and is generally associated with, ecclesiastical proceedings in this House.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I desire to say that I have had nothing whatever to do with the Bill since it was read a second time in this House. Of course I have no control over the forms of the House, nor, indeed, should I have attempted to have done anything to hurry the Bill through out of the ordinary course. I must confess, however, that I am surprised at the language of the honourable Member with regard to the course the Bill has taken, which I understand to be the usual and natural course.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I should mention that I quite understood that the honourable Member for Carnarvon was not referring to any Member of this House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly, Sir. I expressly disclaim any intention whatever of referring to the honourable Member.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I must remind the honourable Member that the Instruction was put down on Thursday's Paper, but not having been on the Paper before, it
  1116
  could not, of course, be taken on that day. In the ordinary course it would have been taken on Friday, and it was by the desire of the honourable Member himself that the Instruction was deferred from Friday till to-day. I can only say that, so far as I am personally concerned, I look upon it as simply deplorable that this Bill should be obstructed in the manner in which it is being obstructed at almost every stage, and I should like to ask the House to allow the Bill to proceed in as rapid a manner as is possible, having regard to the rules of the House.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I entirely acquit my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone of having had anything to do with this proceeding.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of private arrangement, and has nothing whatever to do with the question as to whether these Instructions can be moved now. It is quite clear that they cannot be moved now, because the Committee has reported on the Bill. As regards the alleged private arrangement made between the honourable Member for Carnarvon and the honourable Member for Marylebone, I can only say that if there has been any misunderstanding it is unfortunate, and if the honourable Member considers that he has a grievance in this respect there is no other way of bringing the matter again before the House except by moving to re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading. He may have that opportunity, if he chooses to avail himself of it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already given notice of that.
  MR. BOULNOIS: Is the Instruction standing in the name of the honourable Member for Bolton in order?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The proper time to decide that will be when the Instruction is called on.
  MR. HARWOOD: I shall give notice myself to move to re-commit the Bill on that Instruction.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (CONFIRMATION) (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 10 of the Bill, to insert in the Schedule—
  "Plan No. 10.
  "A piece or parcel of land situate in the parish of St. Giles, Camberwell, in the county of London, and comprising eight houses, forecourts, gardens, and premises on

  Names.

  Owners or reputed Owners.

  Lessees or reputed Lessees.

  Occupiers.

  Mrs. Esther Estella Johnson

  …

  …

  …

  Alexander Brodie

  …

  …

  …

  Francis William Pixley, trustee

  …

  …

  …

  Cumberland Henry Woodruff, trustee

  …

  …

  …

  Edwin Lovell

  …

  …

  …

  Thomas Robinson

  …

  …

  …

  John McMillin

  …

  …

  …

  James Edward Peryer

  …

  …

  …

  Edward Lindsell

  …

  …

  …

  Mrs. Miriam Watson

  …

  …

  …

  George James Holton

  …

  …

  …

  Mrs. Eliza Job

  …

  …

  …

  Arthur Manger

  …

  …

  …

  Matthew Macateer

  …

  …

  …

  Henry Ambrose webber

  …

  …

  …

  Charles Biddle

  …

  …

  …

  Mrs. Marian Lovell

  …

  …

  …

  Mrs. Jessie Carnie

  …

  …

  …

  Edward Cheney

  …

  …

  …

  Daniel James Elliott

  …

  …

  …

  MR. LOUGH: In connection with this Bill there is a Motion in my name on the Paper which I desire to call attention to, because there seems to me to have been rather a flagrant breach of what we understand to be the Rules of the House. I have endeavoured to get some explanation of the circumstances which I am about to explain to the House, but I can get no information at all, and therefore I am forced to make the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name. The Bill is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order moved by the London School Board, and approved by the Education Department, for the acquisition of 30 sites for new schools in the neighbourhood of London. It was introduced into the House of Lords on
  the north-eastern side of, and being Nos. 29 to 43 (odd numbers), both inclusive, Cuthill Road. House, garden, and premises (with entrance-way) No. 11, Love Walk, situate at the rear of the last-mentioned premises. Also a house, garden, stabling, and premises known as 'Cornwall House,' in Love Walk, the whole containing 48,680 square feet, or thereabouts, as the same is described in the Plan No. 10, and distinguished by the Nos. 1 to 11, together with all and singular the messuages and tenements and buildings now standing or being thereon with their appurtenances. The names of the owners, or reputed owners, lessees, or reputed lessees, and occupiers of the said piece or parcel of land and hereditaments, are as follows—
  the 1st of May, and passed through, amended as regards one site only, on the Motion of Lord Wandsworth. No Motion was made in the House of Lords with regard to the site No. 10, dealing with land in St. Giles, Camberwell, and in Love Walk, for the reinstatement of which site I now move. The Bill was unopposed in the House of Lords, and passed through all its stages, and came up to the House of Commons on the 1st of July. There was no opposition to the Bill in this House on its Second Reading. No petition whatever was presented against the Bill, and therefore it was at once referred to the Unopposed Bills Committee. It came before the Committee dealing with unopposed Bills last Tuesday. On that occasion the

  1119
  representative of the London School Board attended, but there was no opposition whatever to the Bill, and it passed through that stage also without any Amendment. On the next day (Wednesday) the Bill appeared on the Paper which deals with the proceedings of this House with this statement—
  "It was reported to lie on the Table as amended,"
  and it was to be considered on Thursday. Now, Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Bill had not been amended neither on the Second Reading nor when it was before the Committee, and what the origin of this Notice was, which appeared on the Paper for the first time last Wednesday, the London School Board has been entirely unable to ascertain. The Bill was called on Thursday, and then it was arranged that it should be taken this day. No explanation has been given as to when this site No. 10, which is referred to, was struck out of the Bill, and it is an explanation of that that I wish to obtain from the Education Department today. I ask the House to think for a moment upon the circumstances I have described. The Bill started as long ago as eight months, when it was brought by the School Board before the Education Department. It passed entirely without opposition through the House of Lords, and also through this House practically unopposed. I must, however, here refer to one exception. On the 16th of July there appeared on the Proceedings of this House a notice by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich with regard to this site. The Motion was that the Bill should be re-committed, so far as sites Nos. 10 and 23 were concerned. This Motion never came on, the Bill was not re-committed, and nothing more has been heard of any discussion with regard to either of the two sites, and when it came before the Committee again there was no discussion there as to the possibility of striking these two sites out of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain what became of his Motion, of which nothing more was ever heard. I have put the House in possession of all the facts, and I say that the only mention of site No. 10 in this House was in connection with the Motion of the noble Lord, and that was never dis-
  1120
  cussed by the House. I think, Sir, that on the facts that I have stated and brought before the notice of the House I have established a case of some very serious defect in the procedure of the House. If this sort of thing can be done behind our backs, I do not see the necessity of the House enforcing private Bills to go through all the various forms which they are now made to go through. The Motion I have put down on the paper is that site No. 10 be re-inserted in the Bill. The details of this site are given on page 27 of the Order Paper, so that I need not explain them beyond saying that they give the details of the site of a school in the parish of St. Giles, Camberwell. My only object in bringing this forward is to call attention to the way in which the Bill has been treated, and in order to give the Vice-President of the Council an opportunity of explaining these matters to the House; and the House will know how to treat his explanation. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir J. GORST,): This site No. 10 was struck out of the Bill by the Government, who were in charge of the Bill. I do not know whether the honourable Member is satisfied with that statement.
  MR. LOUGH: Certainly not.
  MR. SIR J. GORST: The School Board knew perfectly well what was done, and it was done. This is not the first year in which this particular site has appeared on the School Board Papers. It was put into a Bill in a previous year, and at that time a very great deal of discussion and consideration was given to this particular site, which was proposed and supported by the London School Board. The matter was very fully considered and discussed, and then the Education Department decided that the site must be struck out of the Bill, and that the School Board for London should open a temporary school in the neighbourhood, and that the temporary school should be carried on for a year or two, and then we could see whether there was any necessity for a school on the site that was struck out of the Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: Who by?
  MR. SIR J. GORST: It was struck out by the Government who had charge of the Bill. The London School Board did open a temporary school at this place, but they also inserted this particular site which had been struck out in the previous year. In their Bill last year there was no opposition of any kind to it, although, the parties received notice in accordance with the law; but they were told that they might rely with perfect confidence on the word of the Education Department that they would be allowed to remain quiescent. There being no' opposition to the Bill this year, the fact of the site having been re-inserted was never brought to the cognisance of the heads of the Education Department; they came to the conclusion that they were bound by their decision of the previous year not to allow this site to be acquired by the London School Board until the temporary school that had been established had been there a sufficiently long time to satisfy the Education Department that a permanent school was wanted or not; accordingly, as soon as ever the heads of the Education Department were aware that this site had been put into the Bill they directed it to be struck out.
  MR. BUXTON: I do not think that the explanation given by the right honourable Gentleman is very satisfactory. What we complain of is not so much of this particular site being struck out of the Bill, but that this House has never had an opportunity of discussing the question as to whether or not this site should be struck out. The explanation given by my right honourable Friend is this: that this Bill, up to the very last stage, was treated as an unopposed Bill. As a matter of fact, I am informed that it actually passed as an unopposed Bill, and I am also informed that the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means actually signed the Bill as an unopposed Bill before this Amendment was made. What we object to is, not so much that the Education Department, who are entitled to have a voice in these matters, should have struck out the site after consideration and discussion of the matter with the London School Board, but that without acknowledge of the School Board them-
  1122
  selves, without any opportunity of allowing this House to have any voice in the matter, the site is struck out. I am bound to say that on the merits of this case it seems to me that the Education Department has not behaved very well to the London School Board. The right honourable Gentleman said that the School Board knew perfectly well why the site was struck out. I have here a copy of a letter written to the Education Department by the School Board under their authority, stating that they have no knowledge as to why this site had been struck out, and that they were surprised to find at the last moment that this site to which they attached some importance should be struck, by the Government, out of a Provisional Order Bill. I must say that" whatever may be the merits of this particular case, whether the site ought to be included or not, I for one strongly object to the system which-is being used as a precedent, under which the Education Department, acting on their own initiative and without any control of any sort or kind, strike a site out of a Bill. After all, the Education Department have themselves sanctioned this site. 'The London School Board is an elective body, and apparently the electors of London are to be treated in this hole-and-corner way. I cannot accept the explanation of the Vice-President as in any way satisfactory. I very much regret that the Education Department, either through ignorance, through mismanagement, or through some other reason, should have got themselves into such a position as they have by striking this site out of the Bill. I repeat that the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President is not at all satisfactory, and I very much regret to find the right honourable Gentleman placed in the position in which he is.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I submit, Sir, that what has been done on this Bill not only should not be done, but cannot be done. It contravenes the rules of the House. First of all, as I understand, the Bill passes through Committee as an unopposed (Bill. After it has passed through Committee,' an Amendment is effected in it by some authority, I don't know who, but not by the Committee. The Bill has been reported as an

  1123
  unamended Bill to the House after it has left the Committee.
  MR. SIR J. GORST: No! That is not so.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I submit that, as a matter of order, it is not competent for any authorities afterwards to amend the Bill in any sense.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: May I say that the honourable Member is completely mistaken. The Bill did not pass through the Committee as an unamended Bill, but it passed through Committee with an Amendment, and it was reported to the House. The honourable Member will see, if he looks at it, that it is reported to the House with Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not this Amendment.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Yes, with this Amendment.
  MR. LOUGH: The point taken by the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Committees is the same point as that taken by the Vice-President. Some representative of the School Board was before the Committee last Tuesday, and no opposition was made at all.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The point is whether this Bill was reported with Amendments; that is all I can look at.
  MR. LOUGH: Is not this the question, if I may be allowed to say so, is it not a question as to what was the origin of this Amendment? At any rate, that is what I want to get your ruling upon.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member must see that I cannot give a ruling upon a disputed account of an occurrence.
  MR. LOUGH: The fact is not disputed that the Bill passed without Amendments through the Unopposed Bills Committee on Tuesday last.
  MR. LORD H. CECIL: I will not detain the House on the merits of the question, but I understand that the honourable Member, in the course of his speech, seemed to think or to suggest that there was something suspicious
  1124
  about the Motion which I put down with regard to two of these sites. But if he had read it he would have seen that it was a proposal to re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading, and in consequence it has not been brought, and could not be brought, till the Third Reading came on. Practically, the Government in Committee struck out one of the plans to which my objection was directed, and I, naturally, in the ordinary course, withdrew my Motion for the re-committal of the Bill, which was not to have arisen until the Third Reading. I must ask the honourable Member for Poplar, was this done in a hole-and-corner way, and did it prevent the House from having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it? On the contrary, I say that it was literally and strictly the only way by which the House could have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon, the matter. If it had been struck out before the Bill was presented to us, nothing more would have been heard about the matter at all, and the only way by which the House could have been able to put the site into the Bill is by its having appeared in the Bill and been struck out in the Committee stage, and thus having the attention of honourable Members directed to it. So far from the Government having adopted any hole-and-corner method, they have adopted the only method by which the matter could be brought to the notice of the House. I desire to acknowledge very fully the very great fairness and justice which the Government have shown in striking out this plan, against which a very strong case could, I believe, be made out, and to say that I feel sure that the friends of Voluntary schools all over London will recognise that they have exercised a fair and impartial judgment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: After the statement of the right honourable Gentleman we do not seem to be in a position to say what has happened. I understood that this Bill had actually passed through Committee without any Amendment, and that this Amendment was inserted afterwards, if I understand the Vice-President of the Council aright, by the Education Department.
  MR. SIR J. GORST: The Amendment was struck out in Committee on the Bill on application to the officials of the House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The defence of the right honourable Gentleman is that this is a Government Bill. Technically, of course, every Provisional Order is a Government Bill, but really it is not. Provisional Orders are promoted by municipal corporations, by local authorities, by boards, and so on. Nominally, they are promoted by the Local Government Board or the Education Department, but really they are promoted by the persons who are responsible for them and not by a Government Department. It is not the Education Department which retains counsel in order to defend them; it is not the Education Department upon whom the expense falls. In this case that will fall upon the London School Board. Supposing this Provisional Order were being opposed by some landowner, by the lessees, or by the owners of property which he has proposed to take. In that case it would not be the Vice President of the Council that would defend the Provisional Order, it would be the School Board for London, who would instruct their solicitor, who would retain counsel and get together the evidence. Substantially, the parties who are responsible for the promotion of these Orders are not the Government at all, but the local authorities, and the Vice-President, when he gives that answer, is not giving an answer which is perfectly sincere, because he knows perfectly well that these local authorities are responsible; and yet, without consulting the School Board for London, and whilst that body were under the impression that the Provisional Order was unopposed, without communicating with them in any way, the Vice-President takes it upon himself to withdraw this clause from the Bill Why? The noble Lord has let the cat out of the bag. This is done in the interests of the Voluntary schools. I say it is a very serious thing indeed for a. Government Department to allow themselves to be nobbled, bullied, and terrified by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich is doing things which I venture to say no Government Department has ever done before in a private case of this kind. I say that neither the Local Government Board, nor the Board of Trade, nor the Education Department has a right to insert provisions of this
  1126
  kind, or to omit them without giving notice to the promoters of the Bill. It is done in the interests of the Voluntary schools, and is another little ecclesiastical trick.
  MR. BANBURY: I am afraid that the honourable Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Last year or the year before a large number of people in Camberwell, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, objected to the site in question being taken, and it was cut out of the Bill. It was scheduled again this year, but my constituency knew nothing about it. As soon as they knew that the site had been reinserted in the Bill, they approached me on the matter, and I pointed out to the Vice-President that this very site had been struck out two years ago, and that therefore it was an irregularity to reintroduce it without some strong reason being shown for so doing. The striking out of this site has nothing whatever to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Voluntary schools.
  *SIR C. DILKE: A curious point was raised by the last speaker. I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees whether or not the usual notices were given in this case; otherwise I do not see how it could have been brought forward.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I presume that the Bill went before the Examiners in the ordinary course.
  *SIR C. DILKE: The honourable Member has made a statement that no notice was given.
  MR. SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a most important point in the proceedings of this House, and I think we are entitled to a fair statement upon the matter now in question. Here is a Provisional Order. Who is the promoter of that Provisional Order? I understand it is alleged that, practically speaking, the School Board for London are the promoters of this Provisional Order. If that be so, it undoubtedly is a thing that requires explanation, more especially if it be also a thing, as alleged, that this Bill has been altered in a

  1127
  material particular without any notice to the promoters. That is a point upon which I should like to have information, because in it the whole procedure of the House is involved. I should like to hear from the right honourable Gentlemen the Chairman of Committees and from the Vice President of the Council whether that is or is not a correct statement of the facts; because, when promoters of a Bill in the responsible position of the School Board for London have a clause in a Bill which affects their pecuniary interests, and those whom they represent, altered in a material particular, without notice, in order, as the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich says, to oblige the Voluntary schools, that is not a proper proceeding; and if those are the facts we ought to know why this irregularity has been committed. We ought also to know if they are not the facts; but we certainly ought to have some authoritative explanation which will clear up the Parliamentary situation.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I will not deny that there may be some difficulty in always being certain as to who the promoter of a Bill is. But it has always been the custom to treat the party which introduces the Bill, and whose officer comes before the Unopposed Committee, as the promoter of that Bill. In that way all the Local Government Board Provisional Orders are brought before me by an officer of the Local Government Board, and I make Amendments in those Bills at his request. In the same way, in regard to the Board of Trade, the Home Office, and the Education Department. The officer of the Education Department appears before the Unopposed Committee, and at his instance Amendments are made, if they are made, in the Education Department Provisional Orders.
  MR. SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I must address my question to the Vice-President of the Council. If the Education Department is to be treated as the pro-

  AYES.

  Allen, W. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Curran, T. (Sligo, S.)

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Brigg, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Brunner, Sir John T.

  Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Burt, Thomas

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Dunn, Sir William

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Colville, John

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Caldwell, James

  Crombie, John William

  Fenwick, Charles

  moter of this Bill, I must ask the Vice-President whether he gave any notice at all to the London School Board, who are substantially the promoters of the Bill, that he intended to make a substantial alteration in the Bill.
  MR. SIR J. GORST: It is always understood that the Provisional Order Bills are entirely in the power of the Education Department. In this case the alterations were made in the Bill at the instance of the Education Department, and no notice was given to the London School Board.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I am not rising to prolong the discussion, but I should like to ask the Vice-President, as a matter of Parliamentary procedure, in reference to what he has just said, who pays the fee in the cases to which the right honourable Gentleman refers? I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that his, Department technically is the promoter of this Bill, but, as I understand the practice, it would be the School Board for London, whom the matter concerns, for it is the School Board for London which pays the fee. Are we to understand from the answer of the Vice-President that, because he is technically the promoter, he may, without any consultation whatsoever with the solicitors to the London School Board, and their Parliamentary agents, alter the Bill to such an extent as the alteration has been made in this Bill?
  MR. SIR J. GORST: I cannot, answer that question without notice; but I understand that the Education Department has the power to alter a Bill.
  Question put—
  "That Plan No. 10 be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 80s; Noes 168.—(Division List No. 245.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

  Spicer, Albert

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  McEwan, William

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Maden, John Henry

  Steadman, William Charles

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J.W. (Yorks)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harwood, George

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hazell, Walter

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Holburn, J. G.

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, Charles H. (Hull)

  Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

  Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

  Woodall, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Mr. Lough and Mr. Brynmor Jones.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Souttar, Robinson

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc.,SW)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Aird, John

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

  Ambrose, W. (Middlesex)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leighton, Stanley

  Arnold, Alfred

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Baird, John George A.

  Drucker, A.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Finch, George H.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Flower, Ernest

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm N)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fry, Lewis

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Bethell, Commander

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Goulding. Edward Alfred

  Monk, Charles James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Brassey, Albert

  Gunter, Colonel

  Newdigate, Francis A.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Butcher, John George

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs)

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Howard, Joseph

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Colomb, Sir John C. R.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lafone, Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart.M.H. (Renfrew)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  1130

  1131

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Usborne, Thomas

  Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wylie, Alexander

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)

  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
PETITIONS
  DOGS' REGULATION BILL.
  Against: From Woolwich; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Gorton, Halifax (11), Penrith, Redland, Bristol (2), and East Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
  In favour: From Norwood; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Newcastle; to lie upon the Table.
  SANITARY DWELLINGS FOR THE POOR.
  From Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, for alteration; to He upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  From Hull, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1894 (VESSELS DETAINED).
  Copy presented of Return of all Ships ordered by the Board of Trade, or its Officers, to be provisionally detained as unsafe, together with Summaries, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND REQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Fifty-third Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (ESSEX).
  Copy presented of Resolution of the County Council for Essex dividing the Tilbury Polling District into two Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented of two Orders in Council of 18th July, 1898, entitled respectively "The Africa (Acquisition of Lands) Order in Council, 1898," and "The East Africa (Acquisition of Lands) Order in Council, 1898" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented of Order in Council of 18th July, 1898, fixing the Engineering Establishment of the Trinity House [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented of two Orders in Council of 18th July, 1898, approving Pilotage By-laws made by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Berwick Harbour Commissioners respectively [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PRIZE COURTS ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented of Order in Council of 18th July, 1898, approving Rules of Court touching the practice in Prize Proceedings to be observed in Vice-Admiralty Courts and Colonial Courts authorised to act as Prize Courts, with Forms and Table of Fees [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Registrar General, being for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST).
  Copy presented of Annual Report of the President for the Session 1897–98 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHINA (No. 2, 1898).
  Copy presented of Dispatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, forwarding Copies of the Notes exchanged with the Chinese Government respecting the non-alienation of the Tang-tsze region [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 10, 1898).
  Copy presented of Accession of the Republics of Honduras and Salvador to the Convention signed at Geneva, 22nd August, 1864, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field; 16th May, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1898–9).
  Supplementary Estimate presented of the further Amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1899, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 315.]
  PERMANENT CHARGES COMMUTATION.
  Copy presented of Return of Permanent Charges on the Consolidated Fund or Votes of Parliament which have been redeemed in the period between 1st April, 1893, and 30th June, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  Copy presented of Report of the Ark-low Harbour Commissioners and Statement of Accounts for 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF CARMARTHEN).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 10th February; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 316.]
  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD (SCHOOLS CLOSED).
  Return ordered "of all Schools belonging to the London School Board which have been closed, giving the names and dates of closing."—(Mr. Tallot.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the Nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Order included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill."—(Mr. Bitchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 317.]

  VIGOR'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce. Bills, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Vigor's Divorce Bill [H.L.], together with the Documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords; and that the Clerk do carry the same.—(Mr. Attorney General.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL
  without Amendment;

  CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL,
  with Amendments.
  Amendments to—

  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  MIDLAND RAILWAY (WEST RIDING LINES) BILL. [H.L.]
  NEWHAVEN HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  without Amendment.

  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act relating to National Monuments in Churches."
QUESTIONS

  VACCINATION BILL.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether public vaccinators, as such, are entitled to superannuation on pension terms, under the present law; and, if not, whether they will be entitled to it if the Vaccination Bill becomes law; what is the number of public vaccinators in England and Wales; and, in the event of them becoming entitled to a superannuation allowance under the Vaccination Bill, would their previous service be taken into consideration in fixing the amount; how is it intended that the public vaccinators shall be remunerated, whether by fee per visit, or by salary, or by each vaccination and will such remuneration be payable by the local authorities; and, if so, what powers will they have to fix and alter the remuneration; whether the obligation to satisfy two magistrates as conscientious objection to vaccination, as set forth in the Bill, means that this obligation must be undertaken by the father, or that it may be fulfilled either by father or mother; and whether, if by the father alone, a child, whose father is absent from his home during the period allowed for this formality, could be contracted out of the obligation to be vaccinated by the mother appearing before two magistrates and stating her conscientious objection?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. The number of public vaccinators in England and Wales is about 3,000. With respect to the third paragraph, no matured decision has been at present arrived at, nor is it necessary, for the Act is not drawn to come into operation until 1st January nest. What is contemplated, however, is some arrangement like this: Remuneration by two methods—first, by a payment based on the number of births to cover the general duties; and, secondly, by a payment in each case of successful vaccination; the amount of these payments to be a matter for arrangement in the first instance between the public vaccinator

  1137
  and the guardians by whom the payments will be made, subject, as in the case of all the principal officers of boards of guardians, to the approval of the Local Government Board. In answer to the last two paragraphs, the obligation should be undertaken by the person in custody of the child, whether father or mother. If the father is prevented by absence or other unavoidable cause, then the duty would naturally fall on the mother.

  EX-RELIEVING OFFICER FOR BRENTFORD.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Brentford Board of Guardians refused Mr. Parsons, the late relieving officer of the union, the superannuation allowance claimed by him under the Act of 1896, on the ground of alleged misconduct; and whether the Local Government Board has overruled this decision; and, if so, on what grounds?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: Mr. Parsons held the office of collector of poor rates for certain parishes in the Brentford Union, and not that of relieving officer. He recently resigned his office, and at the time of his resignation was in his 70th year, and had filled the office of collector for 30 years. The guardians having refused to entertain an application from him for a superannuation allowance, he appealed to the Local Government Board under the provisions of section 18 of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896. The Board fully considered the matter, and were of opinion that the circumstances under which he had resigned were not such that he should forfeit his claim to a superannuation allowance under the Act.

  GALWAY HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS' LETTINGS.
  MR. CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for Galway, I beg to ask the Secretary to
  1138
  the Treasury if he is aware that the Board of Works refused to sanction a letting of premises by the Galway Harbour Commissioners to Mr. James Behan, and assigned as their reason for so doing that the premises had not been advertised; if the Board of Works in any case of letting previously had ever suggested or insisted upon due advertisement; if yards were let without advertisement, with the approval of the Board of Works, to the Congested Districts Board, Messrs. Hutchison, the Galway Bay Steamship Company, Mr. Worthington, Mr. John Lynch, Mr. John O'Donnell, and Mr. Holland; whether he is aware that Mr. Behan's yard was vacant, without even a gate, when he got possession; and that he is paying the same rent as the previous tenant, £20 a year, while the Congested Districts Board have theirs for £5; if he is aware that this decision of the Board of Works tends in the direction of creating a monopoly of the coal trade of Galway; and whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table a copy of the correspondence between Messrs. Hutchison and the Board of Works?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R W.HANBURY,): The Galway harbour undertaking is in the hands of a receiver for the Board of Works. The Board refused to sanction the letting of a portion of the premises to Mr. Behan, because they were informed that other persons were willing to tender, and they considered it desirable, in the interests of the harbour revenue, that tenders should be invited as the best means of ascertaining the true value of the premises. The Board have not previously had occasion to insist upon tenders being invited; in some cases the Harbour Commissioners have taken that course spontaneously, and in other cases there have been special circumstances which rendered it unnecessary. Of the cases cited in the third paragraph, the leases to the Limerick Steamship Company (not the Galway Bay Company) and to Mr. Holland were granted after tenders had been advertised for; Messrs. Hutchison's was not a new lease, but a sub-lease under an existing tenant; and the lettings to the Congested Districts Board and to Mr. Worthington were in connection with works of public

  1139
  benefit to the locality. The circumstances of the other two cases cannot be stated without further inquiry. It is true that Mr. Behan's predecessor paid the same rent, £20 a year, and that the Congested Districts Board pay only £5 a year for their premises; but these facts afford no proof that £20 is the full letting value in the present instance. I cannot regard insistence upon open competitive tender as being the way to create a monopoly. Messrs. Hutchison are creditors of the harbour undertaking under a judgment summons, which they cannot enforce while the Board's receiver is in possession. Consequently, that firm have a distinct interest in the financial working of the harbour, and they were quite within their rights in protesting against the course which the Harbour Commissioners proposed to take. If, as appears to be alleged, they have also a private interest in opposition to Mr. Behan, that merely shows how ill-advised the Commissioners have been in their action. The only objection to publishing the correspondence which has passed is that it is not of sufficient importance or general interest.

  PRISON SYSTEM IN JAPAN.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the prison system of Japan; and whether any steps can be taken to ensure the treatment, in concurrence with European customs, of British subjects who may, after the coming into operation of the revised Treaty, be arrested in Japan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON, Lancashire,): Yes, Sir; the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been especially called to the question. More than a year ago the Japanese Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the mutter, and there is no doubt that they are alive to the necessity of providing suitable accommodation for European prisoners when the new treaties come into force.

  KING'S COUNTY AND TIPPERARY COUNTY BOUNDARIES.
  MR. CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Tip-perary, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any arrangement has been come to by the Local Government Board with regard to altering the boundary between King's County and the county of Tipperary in relation to the poor law divisions of Carrig, Clohaskin, Rathcabbin, Redwood, and Riverston, situated in the county Tipperary and at present attached to the Birr Union in King's County; whether he is aware that the guardians of these divisions, both elected and ex officio, have expressed themselves in favour of their being attached to the union of Borrisokane, in their own county, as being more convenient for them and also in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers concerned; and if he will have inquiry made with the object of having such an arrangement carried out, in accordance with the provisions of clause 44 of the Local Government Bill?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND(Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No change is proposed in the Parsons-town Union, the portion in King's County and the portion in county Tipperary, each forming a rural district. This arrangement, which has the advantage of leaving existing boundaries unaltered, is subject under the Bill to an appeal by parties interested.

  VACCINATION IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if it is intended to propose legislation to extend to Scotland any part of the provisions of the Vaccination Bill now before Parliament?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The system in regard to vaccination carried out in Scotland has hitherto worked successfully, and the Secretary for Scotland cannot at present come under any obligation to propose legislation on the subject.
  MR. SIR C. DILKE: Are there not many now imprisoned in Scotland whose case would be met by the conscientious objection clause?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I must ask for notice.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it not the case that the defaulters in Scotland represent 3 per cent.?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am not aware of the number, but there is no practical difficulty in working the Act, and that being so, there is no necessity to make any change.

  CANADIAN CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether for the last six years there has been a single case of infectious or contagious cattle disease in the Dominion of Canada; and, if not, whether he will now consent to remove the restriction upon the importation of store cattle from that country into Great Britain and Ireland?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of saying whether the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. With regard to the second, the law leaves me no option but to secure that all animals brought to this country from abroad are slaughtered at a foreign animals wharf at the port of landing.

  TUBERCURRY CIVIL BILL SESSIONS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Leitrim I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, is he aware that up to the present no civil bill sessions have been held in Tubbereurry, county Slige, although more than a year ago the Privy Council made an Order that such Sessions should be held in that place; can he explain the cause of the delay; and will he see that effect is given at the earliest
  1142
  possible date to the Order of the Privy Council?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The fact is as stated) in the first paragraph. Representations, however, were made as to the inadequacy of the accommodation in the existing petty sessions court-house. The matter was brought under the notice of the grand jury by the Government, but the grand jury have declined to make a presentment for the building of a new court-house, being of opinion that the expenditure involved was not a matter for them to engage, in, and that the question should be deferred for the consideration of the county council to be created under the Local Government Bill. In the absence of adequate accommodation, and having regard to the representations received by the county court judge, a further Order in Council has been passed postponing the holding of a civil bill court at Tubber-curry until the Hilary Sessions, 1899.

  SUFFOLK HUSSARS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Leitrim I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether fee is aware that some troopers of the Suffolk Hussars were recently severely censured for taking part in uniform in a procession in connection with St. Benet's Roman Catholic church at Beccles; whether his attention has been directed to the fact that on Monday, the 18th instant, at Southwold, in the same county, a procession of Freemasons to the Protestant church was headed by the band of the Volunteer Artillery corps; and whether the regulations will in this case also be enforced?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): Some troopers of the Suffolk Hussars were reprimanded for taking part in uniform in the proceedings referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. In the other ease permission to attend the demonstration in uniform was given under a misapprehension of the regulations. The matter has been properly noticed.

  "DISTINGUISHED CONDUCT IN THE FIELD" MEDAL.
  MR. CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if, when the medal for "distinguished conduct in the field" was first granted, it carried with it a gratuity of £15 to a sergeant, £10 to a corporal, and £5 to a private soldier; whether the gratuity has since been reduced to £5 for all ranks; and, if so, from what date this change took place; and how many of these medals have been issued during the past five years?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: By a Royal Warrant of 1854 this medal was instituted for, and only for, service in the then war with Russia, with the gratuities mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question. By a warrant of 1862 the medal was made (applicable to service generally, but without any gratuity. The warrant of 1887 attached to the medal the issue of a gratuity of £5, which arrangement still holds. Thirteen such medals have been issued during the last five years.

  MR. BILLINGE TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in reply to a request from the urban district council, the postal authorities undertook in May, 1897, to establish a telegraph office at Billinge, and if he can state when this will be effected?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the case that the Postmaster General, in May, 1897, arranged to establish a telegraph office at Billinge. There is a difficulty with regard to way leave in connection with the extension. As soon as this is adjusted instructions will be given for the work to be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

  ARGENTINE CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any and what means have been employed by Her Majesty's
  1144
  Government to induce the Argentine Government to make regulations to ensure the better treatment of cattle and sheep shipped from Argentina to Great Britain; and whether, in view of the fact that the loss of cattle shipped to this country from the River Plate during 1897 amounted to 80 per 1,000, and of sheep to 36 per 1,000, whilst the loss on shipments of cattle and sheep from Canada was only about 8 per 1,000, he will insist on more efficient inspection and more stringent regulations as to fittings and ventilation of ships, and to the abolition of covered or between deck cargoes of animals, with the object of lessening the sufferings of these beasts on the voyage from the Argentine provinces, which, owing to heat and length of voyage, must always be fairly large?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: We have for some time past been in semi-official communication with the representatives of the Argentine Government on this subject, and I believe that they fully realise that it would be to the interest of all concerned that the trade should be placed on a more satisfactory footing. It should, however, be remembered that the character of the cattle carried and the nature of the voyage differ very materially in the case of Canada and the Argentine, and too much weight must, therefore, not be attached to the comparison drawn in, the Question. I am in full sympathy with the object which the honourable Member has in view, and we shall spare no pains to bring about a diminution of the losses referred to. But I do not think that the solution of the matter lies in any of the directions which he is good enough to indicate.

  REPORT ON FRENCH MATCH FACTORIES
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there can be circulated to Members before Friday the Report of the distinguished expert, Dr. Oliver, on the chief match factories of France, alluded to by him on 15th July?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I will see if this can be done.

  PAUPER LUNATICS IN IRELAND.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1890, for the boarding out of pauper lunatics have been largely availed of in England and Scotland, to the great advantage of both the lunatics themselves and the ratepayers, the Government will, when the Irish Local Government Bill is passing through the House of Lords, cause to be inserted the fifty-seventh section of that Act among the Acts the provisions of which may be made applicable to Ireland by an Order in Council?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid the Government cannot undertake to introduce Amendments of the general law affecting lunatics into the Local Government Bill.

  REVOLVER ACCIDENTS.
  MR. E. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a man named Richard Southey, who was received into the Armagh County Infirmary a, few days ago, suffering from a wound in the hand, caused by a shot from a revolver which he had been brandishing to the public danger; and can he state whether this man had a licence to carry firearms; and, if not, what steps does he propose to take in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is true that the person named in the Question was under treatment for a couple of days at the infirmary in consequence of an injury to his hand caused by the accidental discharge of a revolver, but there is no foundation for the statement that he brandished the weapon to the
  1146
  public danger. The place where the occurrence took place is some 200 yards from a public road, and is moreover surrounded by a wall. The man did not require an Arms Act licence, as the locality is not proclaimed under the provisions of the Act, nor did he require the ordinary gun licence, as the spot where the occurrence took place is within the curtilage of the dwelling where he was lodging.

  BICYCLES FOR THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. PURVIS: On behalf of the honourable Member for Walsall I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction has been expressed by cycle manufacturers who were not asked or allowed to tender for the supply of the 300 bicycles recently ordered by the-Post Office; and will care be, taken in future either to make the competition entirely open or at least to allow to all well-recommended manufacturers the opportunity of tendering?
  MR. HANBURY: The machines required by the Post Office are not ordinary stock machines, but have to be made to a specially prepared specification, and the Postmaster General does not think it desirable that a contract of this description should be entirely open. He will, however, carefully consider whether on the next occasion the competition can be enlarged, and, in the meantime, will take note of the names of all well-recommended manufacturers who may wish to tender.

  COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the item of £10 in the Additional Estimate, Class VII., under the heading "S. Eateen: Compensation for wrongful conviction," will he state under what circumstances this compensation is paid?
  MR. HANBURY: Samuel Eateen was convicted on a charge of stealing coal and underwent imprisonment for 14 days in default of payment of a fine. It was subsequently established that the conviction had been obtained by perjured evidence. Eateen was granted a free pardon, and the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, agreed to award him a sum of £10 as compensation for wrongful conviction. The money was applied for Eateen's benefit under direction of the Secretary of State.

  NEWGATE PRISON SITE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of his letter to the Corporation of the City of London, embodying the terms upon which a new sessions house is to be built on the site of a portion of Newgate Prison?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The negotiations between the Government and the City have been as to the terms on which the City should acquire the site of New-gate Prison. The question has been a financial one only, and is now arranged. The correspondence is not of sufficient interest, I think, to lay on the Table.

  METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any of the Metropolitan boards of guardians, and, if any, which of them, have passed resolutions in favour of the first sub-section of clause 1 of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund Bill, which empowers any such board to increase the salary of any of its officers on account of exceptional merit or long service, above the amount sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and to pay such increase entirely out of the rates of the union, without any claim to repayment from the Metropolitan Common Poor
  1148
  Fund; whether he has taken any steps, and if so what steps, to bring the Bill to the notice of the Metropolitan boards of guardians; and whether he has received any representations that the proposed sub-section will operate very unfairly to the poorer districts of London, and is inconsistent with the principle on which the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund was established?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board has not received from, boards of guardians, since the Bill was brought in, any communication either in favour of, ar adverse to, the Measure. Prior to the introduction of the Bill, however, communications were received from several boards of guardians, including Fulham, Hampstead, Kensington, City of London, Mile End, Paddington, Stepney, Wandsworth and Clapham, West-minster, Whitechapel, and Woolwich, in favour of the principle embodied in the clause. On the other hand there were some that did not favour the proposal. The Bill was delivered nearly a month ago. It is not the practice of the Board to bring specially under the attention of boards of guardians Bills in which they may be interested. No exceptional course was taken as regards the Bill in question.

  TRAWLING ON THE NORTH-EAST COAST.
  MR.FENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the line fishermen of the North-east coast are continually subject to loss of property by the action of trawling vessels; and, if so, whether he will consent to the appointment early next Session of a Select Committee to consider the question with a view to further legislation on the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): At a meeting of representatives of sea fishery authorities over which I presided last month, reference was made (by the

  1149
  chairman of the Coquet district) to losses inflicted upon some of the Northumberland inshore fishermen 'by the action of the crews of vessels trawling in contravention of local by-laws, but I have not received any other complaints on this subject. The representation made at the meeting appeared to be not so much in favour of further legislation as in favour of more vigorous enforcement of existing by-laws. In these circumstances, I do not think that there is any need for the appointment of a Committee, but, as promised at the meeting, the means by which the by-laws of the Fishery Committees may best be enforced will receive careful consideration in each case.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) BILL.
  MR. C. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the new clause to be proposed by him in Committee on the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Bill, when he will be in a position to announce the new scale and regulations which are to be made by the Board of Trade for the carrying of boys by British merchant ships, without which information it is impossible to estimate whether the proposed remuneration is adequate. Perhaps I may also be allowed to ask the right honourable Gentleman when he intends to proceed further with the Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD TRADE: I anticipate being able, when the Bill next comes before the House, which I hope may be Wednesday, to indicate the general nature of the scale and regulations which, if the Bill passes, I shall propose for the concurrence of the Treasury.

  BRITISH COMPENSATION CLAIMS AGAINST TURKEY.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Embassy at Constantinople has
  1150
  yet sent a reply to the note received from the Porte repudiating all responsibility for the demand's made on behalf of British subjects for losses sustained by them during the Armenian massacres; whether he is aware that the reply recently given by the British Government to the representatives of these British subjects on this subject has caused much dissatisfaction; and in view of the serious interests involved, the British Government will insist upon the settlement by the Porte of the demands made?
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government will consider the desirability of obtaining satisfaction in the claims of British subjects in respect of the losses sustained during the Constantinople massacres of 1896, either by laying an embargo on the Greek Indemnity money, as France is doing, or by deducting the sum required from the money which will accrue to the Ottoman Treasury from the conversion of the Guaranteed Loan of 1855?
  MR. CURZON: The reply from the Porte has only arrived to-day, and I have not yet had an opportunity of considering its contents. The assurance given by Her Majesty's Government to the claimants was to the effect that they would use their best endeavours to obtain for British claims as favourable a treatment as is accorded to those of other nationalities. It is not possible to go beyond that statement at the present moment. But I cannot see why it should have caused much, or, indeed, am' dissatisfaction. In reply to the honourable Member for Eye I have to say I am unable to make any statement as to the particular method which may be adopted by Her Majesty's Government to procure satisfaction from the Turkish Government for the claims in question.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Do I understand that the British or any other Government have any right to interfere with the Greek Indemnity or the Guaranteed Loan of 1855?
  MR. CURZON: That raises a difficult international question, and I must ask for notice.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  MR. LOUGHhad on the Paper the following; Question: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education at what stage of the Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation Bill (London), and at whose instance, the plan No. 10, which, had been approved by the Education Department, and had passed the Committees of both Houses of Parliament, was struck out of the schedule without notice to the House or to the parties interested; and why the Bill, although it 'had passed the Unopposed Committee on the afternoon of Tuesday last without any Amendment, was reported to the House on the evening of that day as an amended Bill? On its being reached the honourable Member said: After the Debate this afternoon, I will simply ask why notice was not given to the parties interested?
  MR. SIR J. GORST: I must ask for notice of that.

  PRISONS CLERICAL STAFF.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the promotion of the clerical staff in prisons to posts similar to that of deputy governor may be taken to imply that these appointments will rank along with that of deputy governors for promotion to fourth class governorships according to date of creation, as in the case of Mr. Bartle referred to?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The class of governor storekeepers to whom the honourable Member refers rank with deputy governors, and will be promoted to higher grades if they prove themselves qualified for the more responsible charge.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE INSPECTORS.
  MR. A. H. A. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as the ser-
  1152
  geants and constables of the Metropolitan Police are provided with a uniform of a light material for summer wear, he will be good enough to inquire if a similar provision could be made in favour of the inspectors, who are at present obliged to wear both in summer and winter alike the same thick regulation uniform?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Inspectors are supplied with a light serge jacket for office wear, and the question whether it can be adapted for outdoor duty as well, during the summer, is being considered.

  NEWBLISS MAGISTERIAL BENCH.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the vacancy recently caused in the Newbliss, county Monaghan, magistracy, by the death of Mr. Daly, who was a Roman Catholic, was filled by the appointment of a Roman Catholic, or was Mr. Daly's successor a Protestant?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that there has not been any justice of the peace named Daly in the Newbliss petty sessions district. With respect to the general question raised by the honourable Member, I can only say that such appointments are governed not by considerations of religion, but of fitness for the office.

  WELWYN TUNNEL FATALITY.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fatal accident to a man named George Freeman in a tunnel near Welwyn, Herts, on the Great Northern Railway; whether he is aware that the deceased was booked on duty for 12 hours at a stretch, which the majority of the coroner's jury considered too long; and whether he will take proceedings; under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893,

  1153
  to prevent such protracted hours of duty on railways?
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the circumstances disclosed at the inquest held on George Freeman, an employee of the Great Northern Railway Company, on Tuesday last whether it is the fact that Freeman, in discharge of his duty as flagman to bricklayers repairing Welwyn Tunnel, was on duty for 12 hours in the tunnel without relief; whether the Board of Trade was represented at the inquest; and whether, having regard to the facts disclosed, and the opinion expressed by the jury that 12 hours in a tunnel without being visited was far too long, he will take action under the Act of 1893 to have the hours of such railway servants reasonably reduced, and recommend further precautions to the company concerned?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I will reply to the two Questions together. The Board of Trade have not yet received the coroner's return, but should it turn out that Freeman was a servant of the railway company, and that the facts are as stated, the Board will communicate with the company under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893. The Department was not represented at the inquest, as the coroner did not ask for the assistance of an assessor. Since I have been in the House I have received a communication from the company to the effect that Freeman had been off duty for 36 hours previous to commencing work at 6 p.m. on the 17th instant. There was no mental strain upon him, and no complaint had ever been made by him that the hours were too long. Consequent upon this accident having occurred, the company have under consideration the steps best adapted for preventing the recurrence of a similar accident.

  CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, seeing that the Crown right of reply whether witnesses are
  1154
  examined or not is in England confined exclusively to the law officers of the Crown, and its exercise is subject on the responsibility to Parliament attaching to the holders of law offices of the Crown, he will direct for the future that the Crown's right of reply by both the law officers and their representatives now in force in Ireland be not exercised by the representatives of the law officers in Crown cases when witnesses are not called for the defence?
  MR. ATKINSON: The right of reply mentioned is in Ireland only claimed or exercised where the Attorney General or Solicitor General conducts the prosecution in person, or where it is conducted by some person appointed by the Attorney General, and for whose conduct the Attorney General is responsible. This has always been the practice in Ireland, and, in my opinion, a change in it is not desirable.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the fact that prosecutions in Ireland are uniformly conducted by the Attorney General or his representative, and that private prosecutions are unknown?
  MR. ATKINSON: It is so generally, but not always.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Could you mention two such cases?
  [No Reply.]

  ASHELDHAM (ESSEX) POOR RATE.
  MR. MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the Rating Act the Treasury undertakes to pay half the poor rate on land, and that for the parish of Asheldham, Essex, the half amounts to £19, half-yearly; and why it is that only £9 10s. has been received instead of £19?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: In reply to the honourable Member's (Question as to the discrepancy between £19 and £9 10s., the £9 10s. does not take into account the share of

  1155
  the parish of Asheldham in the grant paid to the county council, although the charge for county rate is included in the £19. Again, the poor rate in the parish for the year is not the same in each half-year. It is higher during the current half-year than it was in the last half-year. The grant, on the other hand, is a fixed one, based upon the rates taken to be raised in the year before the passing of the Agricultural Rates Act, and it is paid twice a year in equal instalments. Further, the grant being a fixed one, any increase in expenditure falling on the parish since the 31st March, 1896, has to be paid in full without aid from the grant. For instance, there was an increase in the expenditure of the guardians for the union of £395, and of the rural district of £966, of which the parish of Asheldham has to bear its share. It is also to be remembered that there is no grant in respect of the overseers. The honourable Member will find, I think, that in this way the discrepancy is practically accounted for.

  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF IRELAND.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, will he explain why the Report of the Trustees of the National Library of Ireland is presented to the Department of Science and Art in January, but does not reach the public until August; and if he will take steps to secure in future that this Report is published within a shorter time of its presentation?
  MR. SIB J. GORST: The Report in question forms part of the annual Report of the Science and Art Department, and cannot, therefore, be published before that Report. The annual Report for this year is already published.

  PROPOSED PIER AT RENARD POINT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  1156
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an application was made to the Congested Districts Board by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to build a pier at Renard Point, near Cahirciveen; that negotiations have been going on since the railway was opened; and that the railway company offered a substantial amount towards the completion of the pier; and whether the Government will give a grant in aid for this work, seeing that there is no accommodation for the deep sea fishing boats for landing their takes at a place where railway transit is available?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A proposal was made to the Congested Districts Board by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in 1893 relative to the construction of a pier at Renard. The board offered to contribute a sum of £1,000 towards the erection of a pier, provided the balance of the cost were contributed by the neighbouring proprietors and the county authorities. The railway company, however, considered the board's offer inadequate, and as the board declined to increase it, the negotiations fell through. There has been no communication with the railway company on the subject since January, 1894.

  CAHIRCIVEEN AND DINGLE BAY FISHERIES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what was the result of the application to the Congested Districts Board for the building of a boat-slip at Rhodes, Cahirciveen, which application was to be considered by the Congested Districts Board at their meeting on Saturday, 16th July? I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that repeated applications were made to provide a pier for the fishing boats at Kells, Dingle Bay, to which the answer was given that the matter was under consideration, he can state if it is likely to be commenced at once?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No decision has yet been arrived at by the Congested Districts Board in the matter of the suggested construction of boat-slips at Rhodes and Kells.

  TELEPHONES IN GUERNSEY.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Guernsey States Telephone Committee has declined to connect their telephone exchange system with the head post office in Guernsey in consequence of the refusal of the Postmaster General to allow such a connection, if made, to be used by telephone subscribers located outside the town of St. Peter Port, for the purposes of telephoning telegrams for transmission over the post office telegraphs, for telephoning messages to be written down and posted as letters, and for calling for the services of express messengers as provided for by section 7 of the Treasury Minute, dated 23rd May, 1892; and whether, seeing that such refusal is a denial of the facilities authorised by the said Treasury Minute to all the telephone exchange subscribers except those in St. Peter Port, he will take steps to have this connection made?
  MR. HANBURY: The States of Guernsey have not up to the present time connected their exchange in St. Peter Port with the head post office, and it may be that they are influenced by the reason mentioned by the honourable Member. There is no desire to exclude from the facilities at St. Peter Port any subscribers outside the town directly connected with the exchange there, and the States have been informed that subscribers are at liberty to use the facilities. But what it is understood that the States require is, that subscribers connected with other exchanges in the island should enjoy these facilities at St. Peter Port instead of at their own local postal telegraph offices. This would not be in accordance with the practice which has hitherto obtained throughout the United Kingdom, and the Postmaster General is reluctant to alter the existing practice in
  1158
  any respect until he has had the advantage of considering the Report of the-Committee of this House which is now inquiring into the whole subject.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, on what date the National Telephone Company applied to the Postmaster General for permission to attach wires to the post office from, the telephone exchange they commenced to erect in St. Peter Port, Guernsey, in, 1896, and on what date the permission to do so was granted; and on what date the States of Guernsey Telephone Exchange applied to the Postmaster General for the same privilege, and on what date he granted it?
  MR. HANBURY: The National Telephone Company applied to the Postmaster General on the 18th May, 1896, for permission to connect their exchange in St. Peter Port with the head post office, and permission was granted on the 20th May, 1896. The first formal application from the States of Guernsey for permission to connect the exchange which they were constructing in St. Peter Port with the head post office is dated the 31st May, 1898, and permission was granted on 28th June, 1898, but the letter conveying this permission also dealt with the question of the establishment of a postal telegraph office at the White Rock Pier, and with the rules which governed the use of the proposed connection with the head post office—matters about which the States entertained views which were not in harmony with those of the Department, and about which there had been separate correspondence.

  ARMY RECRUITING.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the highly unsatisfactory state and outlook of recruiting, the Government will bring on the Army Estimates at an early day, and under such conditions as will allow of a full discussion of the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my honourable and gallant Friend I have to say that, as I think I stated in the House on Friday, we shall take the Army Estimates on Thursday next. In giving this reply I ought to guard myself from any supposition that we agree with the gloomy forecast the honourable and gallant Gentleman has made with regard to recruiting.

  FOREIGN OFFICE VOTE AND THE CHINESE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Report on the Foreign Office Vote will be taken; and if the Government propose to make any statement to Parliament as to the position of the China negotiations?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: While we are perfectly prepared to defend our action and policy in China if it is called in question, we do not contemplate making any statement in Parliament or laying any Papers on the Table before the Session closes other than those relating to the agreement as to the Yang-tsze provinces. The reason of this is that negotiations are still in progress and have not reached a stage when either a statement or a communication of Papers is possible.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is not the fact that no Papers on China have been laid before Parliament since the month of April? Does the right honourable Gentleman not propose to give us any Papers relating to affairs in China generally during the months of May, June, and July, before the rising of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD UF THE TREASURY: No, Sir, I gather that there have been no Papers relating to China, except such as refer to pending negotiations.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the House to understand that no further information will be given to the House before the recess either as to the Government's intentions in regard to Wei-hai-Wei, or as to the French opposition to the opening of Nan-ning as a free port?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There are no Papers to be laid before the House, but if questions are put to me, or to my right honourable Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, they will be answered, so far as it is compatible with the interests of the public service.
  MR. GRETTON: When will the Papers relating to the Yang-tsze assurance be presented?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right honourable Friend informs me that the Papers have already been laid in dummy, and he hopes that they will be circulated either to-morrow or the next day.

  LOANS TO CHINA.
  MR. YERBURGH): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to undertake the sole responsibility of guaranteeing a loan of 16 millions to the Chinese Government; whether there is any precedent for such a guarantee, and with what object it was to have been given; and whether, if the Government were prepared to guarantee such loan, they will, in view of the vast importance to our trade in general and to the trade of Lancashire in particular of developing and opening up markets in the Yang-tsze region, guarantee such schemes of railway enterprise by British subjects in that region as they may be advised are requisite?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Papers already presented to Parliament contain full information as to the character and objects of the loan which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to make to China in January last. Such a loan would be much more

  1161
  secure than any guarantee of a railway on foreign soil could be, and having a national character, it would be on a different footing from the guarantee of a railway undertaken by private enterprise.
  MR. YERBURGH: Can the right honourable Gentleman answer the second paragraph and say whether there is any precedent for such a loan?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not remember at this moment any precedent.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The Turkish loan?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, yes; I suppose the Turkish loan would be.
  MR. YERBURGH: But on the sole responsibility of the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That, I am afraid, makes no difference.

  CHINESE INTERNAL WATERWAYS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to inform the House as to any further facilities granted to foreigners in respect to internal water communication within the Chinese Empire?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin has reported by telegram that the amendments demanded by him have now been agreed to by the Chinese Government, and that revised regulations are in course of preparation, and will be promulgated very shortly.

  TELEGRAPHIC RATES FOR PRESS MESSAGES.
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state in what part of the Parliamentary Regulations, as presented
  1162
  to this House in 1879, the Post Office is authorised to charge the full rate to each newspaper in a multiple address message, even when a separate pass is handed in for each newspaper; whether he is aware that the regulations provide for the full charge being made only in eases where a single pass is handed in and the other addresses are paid for in cash or stamps; and whether he will undertake that the full rate will not henceforth be charged on multiple addresses when a separate pass is handed in for each address, especially in view of the fact that when cash is paid the reduced rate is allowed?
  MR. HANBURY: The authority to charge the full rate to each newspaper in a multiple address message when a separate pass is handed in for each newspaper is given by Regulation 19 of the Press Message Regulations of 1879. The honourable Member has not accurately interpreted the regulation referred to in the second paragraph. As regards addresses for which there is no pass, the messages must be paid for at the full rate. The Postmaster General, as at present advised, does not see his way to give the undertaking the honourable Member asks for.

  COMMERCIAL ATTACHES ABROAD.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Commercial Attaches appointed by Lord Salisbury to assist British commerce in the principal countries of Europe are entitled to correspond freely with all persons interested in the trade of the countries to which they are accredited, as well as with chambers of commerce, and are provided with properly equipped offices wherein they are readily accessible to British manufacturers, merchants, and their agents, independently of the social and epistolary ceremonies of diplomacy?
  MR. CURZON: The Commercial Attaches are not only entitled, but are instructed to correspond freely with all persons interested in trade. Accommo-

  1163
  dation is provided for them in Her Majesty's Embassies to which they are attached.
  MR. COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the post of Commercial Attach to the Embassy at St. Petersburg is now vacant, and has been practically so for some time past, although the salary has been voted by Parliament; and, in such case, if, having regard to the damage resulting to British trade in Russia by the growing competition of France, Belgium, and Germany, steps will be taken to appoint to this important post a person thoroughly conversant with British commerce and its opportunities in all the Russia from the Vistula to the Pacific?
  MR. CURZON: The post of Commercial Attaché, held by Sir E. Law, which was not confined to Russia, but included some of the smaller European States, has now fallen vacant owing to his appointment to another office; and Her Majesty's Government are considering what steps can best be taken in the interests of British trade in the countries concerned, in connection with the filling of the vacancy.

  COLONEL LANGTRY.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Colonel Langtry has been passed over for promotion to the rank of major-general, although he has 37 years' good service, and is eligible under the terms of the Royal Warrant, 1897 (paragraph 44); whether lie is aware that Colonel Langtry took part in the Abyssinian Campaign, both advances to Kandahar, operations in Yarkistan, and the Boer Campaign, was selected to command Sir Michael Biddulph's escort for the first reconnaissance into the Zhob Valley, and was strongly recommended) by the various generals under whom he 'served; whether purchase officers, among whom was Colonel Langtry,' were assured that they would not suffer either pecuniarily or in promotion;
  1164
  whether one colonel who has superseded him has never commanded a regiment; and whether, looking to these facts, further consideration will be given to Colonel Langtry's claims?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Colonel Langtry was not promoted major-general because he was not considered by the Army Board to possess the qualifications required in a general officer. Colonel Langtry was a captain when purchase was abolished, and has no claim to promotion to the rank of major-general on that score. I regret that I cannot hold out any hope that his case will be reconsidered.

  1ST BANFF VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what sum Gunners H. Watson and T. Downie, of the 1st Banff Volunteer Artillery, must pay before they can obtain their discharge applied for on 29th January last; and, if they do not pay, whether it is the intention of the War Office to retain them as Volunteers against their will for an indefinite time?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The officer commanding the 1st Banff Volunteer Artillery has dismissed Gunners Watson and Downie for absence without leave from the annual inspection. If the fines due from them, to cover the loss to the Corps occasioned by the non-efficiency, be not paid by the 1st December, proceedings will be taken to recover them before a court of summary jurisdiction in accordance with the corps rules made under the Volunteer Acts.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he is aware that those two gunners hold certificates of proficiency, and are willing to serve in a rifle company?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I should say not, because through their inefficiency the corps lost money.

  RENARD AND WATERVILLE RAILWAY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations were in progress between the Government and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to extend the recently constructed light railway from Renard to Waterville, through a district in which Government relief works have been opened this year; whether he is aware that resolutions in favour of this extension have been unanimously passed by the presentment sessions, the poor law boards, and grand jury, and that all classes of the community in the district demand it; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will immediately consider the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No negotiations have taken place between the Irish. Government and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on the subject of the extension of the line of railway from Renard to Waterville. Upwards of two years ago, however, proposals were made to Government in this direction by a number of gentlemen locally interested in the project, and the decision of Government was communicated to the honourable Member for South Kerry for the information of those interested.

  CARLISLE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the difference between the percentage of higher grants in the Carlisle district as compared with that in the north western division as a whole, and to the allegation frequently made in the Carlisle district, that this is due to the abnormally high standard adopted by the local inspector, he will favourably consider the suggestion that the senior chief inspector should visit the Carlisle district, in order to secure greater uniformity in assessing the Government grants?
  SIR J. GORST: The chief inspector of the district has been directed to make inquiries into the matter.

  IMPROPER ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MR. CHANNLNG: I beg to ask the MR. Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the facts disclosed in the recent trial of Doctor Collins, and in many previous trials of similar character, and the use made in the St. Neot's case of a notorious advertisement; whether he is aware that an enormous number of advertisements inciting to criminal offences of this nature are regularly being inserted in the metropolitan and provincial Press, and that a vast amount of social mischief and crime is alleged to arise from these advertisements; and whether he will introduce or support effective legislation to prevent the insertion in the Press or other distribution of advertisements of this class, and strengthen the law in dealing with incitements to these offences?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am fully aware of the character of these advertisements, but legislation on the subject would be a matter of great difficulty, and I am not prepared at present to give any undertaking to introduce it. I will, however, bear the matter in mind.
  MR. CHANNING: In consequence of the reply of the right honourable Gentleman I beg to give notice that at the earliest opportunity next Session I will myself introduce a Bill on the subject.

  LOANS TO COLONIES.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Aberdeenshire I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury which, if any, of the Colonies, protectorates, or protected States to which the Colonial Loans Bill applies has had practical difficulty in recent years in obtaining loans on reasonable terms under the present system;

  1167
  and what loans have been raised by these Colonies or States, and on what terms, during the last 30 years?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not possible, within the limits of the answer to a Question, to enter into the conditions under which particular Crown Colonies have borrowed during recent years, but it may be stated, generally, that they have suffered material disadvantage from the system of individual issues of comparatively small amount, which are distinctly less marketable than any form of combined stock. The information asked for in the second part of the Question could be given in the form of a Return, but it will take some time to prepare.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it intended to proceed with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund Bill to-night?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: And with the Vaccination Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not propose to take either of those Bills to-night.
  MR. SIR H. H. FOWLER: Will the whole of Thursday be given to Army Estimates, or is the latter part of the evening to be devoted to the Post Office Vote?
  MR. BRYCE: When will the Board of Trade Vote be taken?
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: Do the Government intend to proceed with the Lunacy Bill, which has been sent down from the House of Lords?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot give an answer as to the last Question at present With regard to Thursday, I hope to take other Votes besides the War Office Vote—the Post Office Vote and some others. I cannot at present say when the Board
  1168
  of Trade Vote will be taken. I do not see any chance of taking it this week; but I will put it down on Friday.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Do the Government intend to proceed with any Scotch Bill to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No Scotch business will be taken before to-morrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill and the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill be taken to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; I do not think we shall be able to proceed with either of these Bills.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the Shops Club Committee be moved to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We must see what progress we make with business.

  NORTH AMERICAN COMMISSION.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the protest of Canada in October, 1890, against Newfoundland being allowed to negotiate separately with the United States upon the fisheries questions, and the then admitted importance of obtaining unity of action on the part of the Colonies interested, Newfoundland is now to be represented on the Commission for the settlement of questions pending between the United States and Canada, so far as these include the subject of the North American fisheries?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBEBLAIN,): The answer to the right honourable Member is in the affirmative. It has been arranged that Sir J. S. Winter, the Premier of Newfoundland, shall represent the Colony at the proposed conference.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL. [H.L.]
  The House entered upon the consideration of this Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Add after the names of the commissioners the words 'and two other persons to be appointed by Her Majesty.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
  MR. HARWOOD: I rise to move the Amendment that stands in my name in regard to the constitution of the Commission. The London University is undoubtedly a great examining organisation, which at the present time examines more than 6,000 candidates a year. The London University receives its candidates not merely from England, but from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and the House will therefore realise the delicacy of the problem. We are dealing with a great problem, and we have to look first to the authority which is to deal with this problem. It has been said that the powers and duties of these authorities are very directly laid down, and that therefore it is not a question of persons as of carrying out the instructions. But anyone who considers the matter will find that that is not so at all. The Commissioners are empowered to carry out the recommendations of a Report, which is a Blue Book of 60 pages. The 10 recommendations are omitted from the Bill altogether. I ask the House to realise the importance of having a Commission thoroughly capable and adequate. I do not mean for one moment the question personally of the commissioners. There are seven men, some of whom I know by repute are persons admirably qualified for the task which is committed to them. But six out of the seven are associated with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and I question whether these gentlemen, saturated with the traditions of the old universities, are the best men by themselves to deal with problems not on the lines of Oxford and Cambridge, and properly to treat the existing London
  1170
  University, which is doing so great a work. I ask the House whether this number of seven is adequate to perform this function? I ask the House to add two names, and I suggest that those who are proposed should not be so closely bound to the traditions of the old untversities.
  SIR J. GORST: The number of commissioners is a matter that has been carefully considered, and the Standing Committee support the Government in thinking that the numbers in the Bill were the best. I quite admit the difficulty of the task, but I do not think it is so difficult as the honourable Member suggests. I do not know that it necessarily follows that the appointment of a larger number of commissioners will decrease the difficulty. I hope the House will endorse the number proposed in the Bill.
  SIR H. FOWLER: I wish to say one word on this question, and that is with reference to the constitution of the Commission. Nobody would say a word against the seven names mentioned in the Bill, but there is a feeling that the legitimate claims of Nonconformity have not been recognised in the constitution of this Commission, and that at least one member of that Commission should have been selected from the ranks of the very distinguished men who have won very high honours in the University of London, as representing the denominational colleges outside the Church of England. Of course, if the Government say "No," we have no power. I only wish to state that I hope, before the Government and the right honourable Gentleman give a final "No," they will reconsider that point, whether there is or not that representation of English Nonconformity which I think there ought to be, having regard to the original founders of the London University, and its present constitution.
  MR. HALDANE: There was considerable discussion on this subject, and no suggestion was made that the representation of Nonconformity wanted any special addition. It, is an idea that occurred later, but it did not occur to anyone who took a part

  1171
  in the formation of the Commission. I point out to my honourable Friend that there is no serious danger in not having any more representatives of Nonconformity on it. This Commission is not a roving Commission; it is a Commission to carry out certain very definite instructions given to them. I do not think it is a good thing to appoint a Commission representing conflicting interests. The Government have done wisely in forming a workable Commission of a judicial character, and I believe that it will be found that every point, of view which ought to be represented will be adequately provided for.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT: In the Committee I moved an Amendment to increase the number of the Commission, and I still think, having regard to the importance and the difficulty of the work entrusted to this Commission, and to the absence of any direct representation of the external students, that it would be desirable to have some additional representation. The answer to that made by my honourable Friend opposite is that it has been a matter of compromise. I am quite sure that no one could give greater force to a compromise of this sort; but, after all, the point before the House is, whether that compromise arrived at is a right one, and whether it would not be in the interests of the university to enlarge the Commission. Only one gentleman it assigned as at all representing the external students. Now, of the chairman of convocation not a word can be said in regard to his general qualifications; but it should be remembered that convocation is a composite body composed of many persons connected with the various colleges which form part of the university. The chairman of convocation himself is a member of one of these colleges—namely. University College; at any rate, he graduated from one of the colleges. On the other hand, I would like to point out that the vast majority of the students of the university are distinctly at present external students, yet only one such representative yet can be said to be assigned to them by the compromise. The crux of the whole problem is undoubtedly the possibility of reconciling the interests of the external and the internal students. That is the great question that has been
  1172
  the subject of conflict in convocation, which, I say, is by no means composed of external students. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter on behalf of an important element—namely, the present university external students.
  MR. GRIFFITH: The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has referred to the Nonconformist aspect of the question, and the honourable Member behind me has spoken of a compromise, and stated that it must stand in the Bill. He has said that he has settled the matter by this compromise, but who gave the honourable Gentleman authority to settle the question? This House has not. There is this additional point: in its initiation this was a Nonconformist university; it was the only university where Nonconformists could take their degree in the old days of tests. We want to maintain this aspect of the University in full force. I think there ought to be some safeguard in the interests of Nonconformists in this matter. The honourable Gentleman has referred to the present external students. It is admitted that upwards of three-fourths are external students, and that only one member of the Commission represents external students, but I doubt whether that is so. There is no one among these seven commissioners who represents the external colleges, and why in the world should they not be represented in this Bill? Again, there are the teachers in our elementary schools, who have a, great interest in this Bill. Hundreds of them owe their position to the benefits they have derived from this University, and there is nobody amongst these commissioners who represents in any special way the teachers in our elementary schools. Therefore I hope the Vice-President will see his way to come to an agreement on this point.
  MR. BRIGG: I venture to support what has been said. A very large proportion of those who have been students in the London University come from the provinces, and their representation is exceedingly meagre, if they are represented at all. I do think the Vice-President might have seen his way to admit a larger represen-

  1173
  tation of those who we may call country people, I could very easily add three or four names to that body of men who would have some knowledge and business capacity, and know what is going on in the outside world. I think that, out of deference to those who form the bulk of the students of the University, there ought to have been a stronger representation given to them. It is rather a suspicious circumstance that the very people who have the largest interest in this University should be scarcely represented at all. Therefore I very strongly recommend the right honourable Gentleman, as far as he has the power, to take that course. I believe in Committee upstairs it was felt that the Government have no power. I do not know exactly what may be the weight of that statement, but if they have the power I certainly, looking at it from the outside point of view, and as representing a very large number of country people who are now dreading the loss of the university, think the least we can do is to take What power we have in our hands and see that their representation on the Commission is increased. I beg to support the Amendment.
  SIR W. PRIESTLEY: A great deal of sympathy which has been expressed for what are called external students is due to the erroneous supposition that the majority of people in the country who have taken great pains to qualify themselves for the examinations of the University of London are private students. But that is really not the case, because I gather from the memorandum which I hold in my hand, which is drawn up by the Registrar of the University of London, that in 1897, of 140 candidates who graduated II.A., 45 were entered under private study only (most of these were certainly tutorial), whilst 81 were entered under some college or school. Of 98 candidates who graduated B.Sc., only 10 were entered under private study; and of 133 candidates who graduated M.B., not a single one was a private student. Therefore, a very large proportion of the students who come up to the University of London have undergone more or less collegiate education,
  1174
  apart from mere private study. I hold that the external students proper are amply represented on the Commission. It should not for one moment be supposed that the Interests of internal and external students are antagonistic, nor are the Commissioners, I take it, likely to regard the interests of one class of students in preference to those of the other.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: My honourable Friend who has just sat down tells us that at a given examination there were out of 140 candidates only 45 who were private students, and he assumed, therefore, that these were the only external students. Under this Bill the external students will not only be those entering under private study, but all the students in country colleges. At the present moment the University of London examines candidates from as many as 200 institutions scattered all over the country, and except a small minority from certain London colleges these will all be external students. Now it is because the University of London differs so very materially from the other universities that I think it is important that there should be mi the Commission a larger number of Gentlemen who are cognisant with the manner in which the university is conducted. I agree with all that has been said about Mr. Busk and Professor M. Foster: but the majority of the present Commission, however eminent, have not the same special knowledge, and I hope the Government will add two other Commissioners, not to represent any special interest, but thoroughly conversant with the affairs of the university.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I wish to take this earliest opportunity to associate myself with the honourable Member who has moved the Amendment, although I rather prefer an Amendment of a similar nature which stands lower down in the Paper in the name of an honourable Gentleman representing a Yorkshire constituency [Mr. Brigg], but which will, I understand, be excluded from consideration.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): I wish to reiterate the complaints which have been made of the

  1175
  non-representation, of Nonconformists on the Commission. I observe that the representation includes one of the most eminent of the bishops. For my part, I should prefer that no ecclesiastic should be a member of this Commission, in order to avert all suspicion. But if it is necessary to appoint a bishop I should have thought it would have been much better not to have appointed the Bishop of London, because he is officially connected with King's College, which is a sectarian institution. The Noncon-
  formists, Sir, are largely interested in this University of London; very many of their ministers have obtained their degrees there; they are proud of the university because of its unsectarian character, and they are naturally anxious that nothing should happen which would deprive the institution of its unsectarian character.
  Question put—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 186.—(Division List No. 246.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Henderson, Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hornby, William Henry

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Howard, Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc.,SW)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Smith, James P. (Lanark)

  Drucker, A.

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Smith, Hon.W. F. D. (Strand)

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Leighton, Stanley

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewelyn, SirDillwyn- (S w'ns'a)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Pinch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lowles, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Flower, Ernest

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fry, Lewis

  McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm N)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Monk, Charles James

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

  Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William George

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Gunter, Colonel

  Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Newdigate, Francis A.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FPR THE NOSE—

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir William Walrond and

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 26, after 'London' insert 'and two graduates of the University of London to be recommended by convocation.'"—(Mr. Henry Labouchere.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: On behalf of the honourable Member for South West Bethnal Green, I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in his name. I have no personal objection to any of these gentlemen, and possibly they know a great deal about the subject. But, Sir, with the exception of one gentleman, they really have no connection whatever with this university. Now, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Univer-
  1178
  sity of Edinburgh has told us that a vast number of the young men who gained degrees were educated in the university itself. I think he makes a mistake there, for I believe that the real number is about one-third.
  SIR W. PRIESTLEY: I did not make that statement.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, the honourable Gentleman gave me that impression. But that is not the question, for what we want, and what we are anxious to do, is to secure that there should be some representation of London upon the University of London, and we find that that is not the case as

  1179
  regards its present constitution, or as regards Mr. Henry Busk, Master of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, and Chairman of the Convocation of the University of London, for this gentleman has something to do with another university, and he has made himself very prominent in supporting this Bill. Therefore he cannot be said to take an absolutely impartial view on account of his status and the position he has already taken up. Therefore he could not decide impartially whether they should be examined as at present, or whether in other ways they should obtain those degrees. Sir, it appears to me that the Amendment of my honourable Friend meets the difficulty to a very great extent, and I cannot see what the objection is to it. It does seem to me that the Government ought not to use their position and power as a Government in order to induce all their followers to come in and vote against this Amendment. We know perfectly well what it moans when the Government take a Government view on the matter, because a very large number of Members will hurry into the House and vote as the Government dictates. At present the Government, I need not say with their majority, keep a House at the end of the Session, and the Government can do precisely what they want to. I believe that on this side there are a large majority of honourable Members in favour of two of these additional gentlemen being appointed. Now, we have already had one Division upon this question, and it is, therefore, all the more desirable that the Government should meet the requirements of this case by accepting the Amendment. I cannot help feeling that this is an attempt to crush out the University of London as it exists at the present time, and I cannot understand my honourable Friend from Scotland taking such an active part in this matter. My honourable Friend is an able man, but he is a Scotchman, and I cannot understand wiry he has decided to come meddling with the University of London. He, as a Scotchman, ought to say, "I will join with those who wish to maintain this as a university for the whole country." But, putting aside the interests of Scotland, he tries to turn it into a little "hokey-pokey" University
  1180
  of London. Why, you are proposing to take away the essential principle which has made the University of London what it is. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment standing in the name of my honourable Friend.
  SIB J. GORST: I desire to point out that the arguments used in the Debate on the last Amendment against increasing the number of the Commission are equally applicable to the present Amendment. But there is a still further objection to this Amendment, and that is that if additional appointments were snown to be necessary, to increase the number by appointing two graduates of the University of London, it should be increased by appointments made by the Crown. There is another question—that of allowing the University to appoint themselves. There were no grounds for that course at all, and it was not done in the case of Oxford or Cambridge, or the Scotch universities, and it is, there fore, against all precedent to do it in the present case. The honourable Member for Northampton and others have spoken with alarm as to the destructive effect which this Measure will have upon the University of London. Now, I think that if they will look into the Bill, they will find that every possible precaution has been taken to prevent such a result from ensuing. I may remind the House that this particular constitution of the Commission has been submitted to the consideration of the Senate of the University of London, and also of Convocation, and they have both approved of the Commission as at present constituted.
  *SIR C. DILKE: I am astonished to hear the right honourable Gentleman say that this was not done in the case of Oxford and Cambridge. They were by the Act almost exactly in the same position as is proposed by this Amendment. I should have thought that the treatment of those institutions formed exact precedents for this Amendment—Commissioners' vote added for each college affected. I do not know exactly what the right honourable Gentleman means by his reply.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT: I think the right honourable Gentleman has been misinformed as to there having been any

  1181
  compromise upon this point. When the question of the composition of the Commission came before the Senate of the University of London, I challenged it, and the question was reserved for decision in Parliament, and nobody was committed upon that question.
  MR. J. BRYCE: It is not the case that persons are appointed under the Bill by the general assent of the Commission. All that happened when the Commissioners who were appointed by this House were dealing with the question was that they were considering a particular policy in which property was involved, and that does not apply to the case of universities. The university authorities did not appoint any Commissioners to sit on these university affairs, and there is no parallel between these cases at all, because there is no property to be dealt with. I hope that the House will not in this case disturb the composition of the Commission, which has not only been very carefully considered, but has received the approval of the Senate of the University of London, and also of Convocation.
  MR. GRIFFITH: I cannot agree with the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen that Convocation is in favour of this Bill.
  MR. BRYCE: The question was submitted to Convocation, and they approved.
  MR. GRIFFITH: Convocation was not in favour of the Bill, and Convocation, more than any other body can, does represent the external student, whom we wish to protect. It is for that reason we say that Convocation should choose two men and add them to the Commission. If these two gentlemen are chosen they will represent not only the external student, but the colleges outside the 30 miles radius, and the interests of the teachers will also be safeguarded.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: My right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council of Education says that all the arguments against the previous Amendment apply to this,
  1182
  but, practically, the only argument brought forward was the analogy from the Commission in the case of Oxford and Cambridge. But it has been shown that in those cases any college affected was represented on the Commission. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen says that in the cases of Oxford and Cambridge the question arose of the property that was affected, but surely there is something higher than property to be considered in thesa educational matters? There is no doubt that the majority of colleges in London are in favour of this Bill, but the great bulk of the members of Convocation are in the country. [Cries of dissent.] Yes, they are; and it is the external student who will be affected by this Hill, and I agree with, the statements of the honourable Member for Islington [Sir Albert Rollit] that those who are really affected by this Bill have shown by the recent senatorial election that they are in favour of the Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: I very much regret that the Yice-President of the Council has not seen fit to assent to this Amendment. In a matter of this kind the outside students ought really to be represented, and at the present time no one on the list represents them. No one could say a single word against the present members of the Commission—one of them had great experience of teaching, and was a member of both a Scotch and an English University—but someone was wanted on the Commission to represent the teacher and the external student.
  MR. STUART: Whatever the rights or wrongs of the proposal before the House. I believe that this Amendment is a desirable and proper one.
  *MR. E. GRAY: I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Council whether a compromise has been effected. If a compromise has been effected, surely those representing the external interests ought to be parties to it. So far as I can see, Sir, the only body which can represent the interests of the external colleges and

  1183
  the external students is the Convocation of the University of London; and the Convocation has pronounced, with no uncertain voice, dead against these proposals. I should like to see this Bill deal not only with those within the 30-miles radius, but with the whole of the students who look to London as the goal of their academic career. I believe the Commission can be strengthened with advantage, and have a wider area for its activity. I happen to know that the outside colleges have a great interest in this Bill, and are looking forward to its provisions, as at present sketched out, with no little alarm. Therefore, I very

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Ambrose, R. (Mayo, W.)

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

  Asher, Alexander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Roberts J. H. (Denbighs)

  Baker, Sir John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Bowles,Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Souttar, Robinson

  Brigg, John

  Holburn, J. G.

  Spicer, Albert

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Steadman, William Charles

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leese Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Wayman, Thomas

  Colville, John

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Crombie, John William

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Maden, John Henry

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Davies.M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Norton, Capt. C. William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Duckworth, James

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Mr. Labouchere and Mr.Pickersgill.

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Mailey, William

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Aird, John

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Allhusen, A. H. E.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Arnold, Alfred

  Bethell, Commander

  Burt, Thomas

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Butcher, John George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bigwood, James

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Bill, Charles

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Birrell, Augustine

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W.(Leeds)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. J.B. (Clackm.)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Chamberlain.Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Brassey, Albert

  Charrington, Spencer

  much regret that the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment. I am bound to admit that we have been beaten; but had the vote been taken of those who heard only part of the Debate, the majority would not have been anything like what it was. When it is known throughout the country what the Bill is, and that the interests of the provincial colleges are bound up in it, there will be a considerable difference of opinion exhibited towards it.
  Amendment put.
  The House divided:—-Ayes 81; Noes 198.—(Division List No. 247.)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Hazell, Walter

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Henderson, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Holland, Hon. L. R.

  Purvis, Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hornby, William Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Howard, Joseph

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Curzon,Rt.Hn.G.N.(Lanc,SW)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lafone, Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanark)

  Drucker, A.

  LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D.(Strand)

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Finch, George H.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Leighton, Stanley

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lough, Thomas

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lowles, John

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fry, Lewis

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Garfit, William

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm,N)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcsh., N.)

  Goschen,RtHn. G. J. (St.G'rg's)

  McEwan, William

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R (Bath)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Monk, Charles James

  Wyndham-Quin. Maj. W. H.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  More, Robert Jasper

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gunter, Colonel

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Morton, A. H. A (Deptford)

  Young, Commander (Berks.E.)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Mount, William George

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL. [H.L.]

    CLAUSE 2.
    MR. HARWOOD: Sir, the Amendment I have now to propose is on section 3, clause 2, page 2, line 21, to leave out "three" and insert "five." According to the Bill, three Commissioners are to be empowered to carry out the work, but it seems to me that if the House refuses to enlarge the Commission we will be reduced to an absurdity. The great consideration is to inspire confidence in the university. We all know quite well that where three prsons are brought together—even the three most
    1186
    perfect persons—they have each a peculiar characteristic, and we do say that the public has a right to have a proper safeguard, and I do not think there should be any objection to five forming a quorum. I beg to move that "five" be substituted for "three," on the ground that "five" is quite a small enough number to inspire confidence.
    SIR J. GORST: I think the House will see that three members are not enough; It would be inconvenient to have a small quorum having regard to the amount of formal and routine work that must be done by the Commissioners. I

    1187
    think, therefore, that three is not quite adequate.
    MR. BRIGG: I really think it would be desirable that a larger quorum than three should be named. I support the Amendment of the honourable Member who moved that "five" should be substituted for "three."
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I admit that three is undoubtedly a small quorum, but I think we may fairly assume that the names of the Commissioners is a guarantee that important questions will be properly considered.
    MR. GRIFFITH: It seems to me that three is too small a number for a quorum, because it is an actual minority of the Commissioners, whereas if it was four we would have a majority of the Commissioners present.
    Question put and Division challenged.
    Mr. SPEAKERput the question the second time after Members had returned, and at this point the Amendment was negatived without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 33, leave out 'five,' and insert 'six.'"—(Mr. Brigg.)
    MR. BRIGG: Sir, I think the Amendment standing in my name is a very much more important one than the one just under consideration. Sir, seeing the importance of the work that these commissioners have in hand, and especially at the commencement of their work, and that the Statutes and regulations made for the government of the university are likely to endure for a long time, it does seem to me of the highest importance that we should have the full authority of every one of these eminent gentlemen whose names we have down; and we have endeavoured in this House to-night to increase the number of these people, and to increase the variety of the information which ought to be brought to bear in the formation of a university of this kind. Each one of these gentlemen are proposed to represent some very important branch, and in the discharge of their duty, some important function bearing upon their work, it seems to me
    1188
    a very undesirable thing that they should be reduced down to five, and still that their work should be valid. The Amendment I move is that there should be not less than six of these commissioners at the same time. I have had a little experience in a matter of this kind, and I can assure the House, as well as the right honourable Gentleman, that the rule worked exceedingly well; that is, on a very large trust having to deal with a very large amount of money. One rule is that no act of any kind whatever shall be confirmed or passed by those trustees until the full number are elected. The consequence is that when death occurs, or a vacancy arises, then immediately steps are taken to fill up the number. I think there should be the same number in this case; and I feel that, having regard to the considerable importance of the functions of these gentlemen, each of whom represents a separate function and a separate constituency, it would be undesirable that they should be allowed to dwindle down as low as five. There seems to be no special clause, as far as I have been able to ascertain, for increasing the number, and it seems that they may stand at the number five for an indefinite length of time. That seems a very undesirable condition of things. I may have overlooked a clause in the Bill providing that whenever the number is below seven they shall be increased, but I am not aware of it. At the present moment I merely suggest that there should be not less than six of the commissioners for the work they have in hand.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: Many of us feel with my honourable Friend opposite that six would be quite few enough for this Commission, upon which there is no direct representation of the external students, against which I have strongly, though in vain, protested; but we are bound to remember that the subject was fully discussed in Committee, and, if I remember rightly, we proposed to take a Division upon it. My right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council, however, met us by way of compromise, and five, I think, was generally assented to. I still retain the opinion I held on the subject, but in view of the Committee compromise I should suggest to my honourable Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment.
    *SIR. J. LUBBOCK: As the number five was a compromise in Committee which I myself suggested, and my right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council was good enough to accept it, I feel I am bound to support it. I would, therefore, support my honourable Friend the Member for Islington in expressing a hope that my honourable Friend opposite will not press the matter to a Division.
    MR. BRIGG: Under the circumstances, and having regard to what the two honourable Gentlemen have just said, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 3.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 36, leave out from 'London' to 'in' in line 38, and insert 'subject to the provisions contained.'"—(Sir Chas. Dilke.)
    *SIR C. DILKE: The Amendment which I rise to propose, Sir, raises the question of the form of the Bill, and especially the form of the schedule of the Bill. The Amendment is to be taken in connection with one on this very page, and which is consequential upon it, and which, will make clause 3 read—
    "The commissioners shall make statutes and regulations for the University of London, subject to the provisions contained in Part I. of the schedule of this Act."
    And then the next sentence would remain a separate proposal. The effect, there fore, Sir, of the Amendment is to substitute the provisions of the schedule as directions for commissioners for the directions now given, which are of a most curious and complicated character. As the Bill stands, the matter is not left to the discretion of the commissioners. They are told to carry out the Report of the Gresham Commissioners, but they are to carry it out subject to several pages of schedules, so that you cannot possibly arrive at any conception of what the commissioners ought or ought not to do, or as to the nature of the new university
    1190
    which is to be established, without reading together 63 pages of the Gresham Commissioners' Reports and seven pages of schedule to this Bill; because, if you do not read the two together, you are tripped up at every moment. This is a most extraordinary form of legislation by reference—much more serious, much worse than the ordinary form of legislation by reference1—because you have to read these two very lengthy documents together. I have found that although Members in this House are supposed to have made themselves familiar with the Gresham Report, it has; not been in very great demand in the last year or two, since this Bill has been before Parliament. On the Standing Committee we were told that no one ought to express an opinion on any point of this Bill unless thoroughly familiar with the whole of the Gresham Report. Now, Sir, I find there has been no demand for it in the Vote Office, and in the Library here, the volume containing this Report—it is a curious one, because the Report is sandwiched between one on electrical communication with lighthouses and another on horse breeding—this Report, I find, has not been in any considerable demand. Yet it is perfectly true that you have to read this Report of 63 pages and seven pages of schedule before you find out what the 33111 means. I should have thought that if the Bill is to pass, it should give clear and definite directions to the commissioners, however sketchy some of the directions may be. It will be impossible, no doubt, to give clear and absolute directions on every point, and you must leave a good deal to their discretion; but they may be, and are, directed on a great many points. But why the long Gresham Report should be Superadded to the schedule I cannot understand. Really, if we, arcs driven to the choice,—if it is impossible to reform the schedule—I would rather leave it at large to the commissioners than ask people to consider these two documents together. I beg, Sir, to move the. Amendment which stands in my name.
    SIR J. GORST: Sir, this is an Amendment which, if adopted by the. House, would require a very complicated and a very serious modification of the schedule of the Bill. I do not see that the honourable Baronet makes any alterations of

    1191
    the schedule, and if they were not made it would leave the commissioners with very incomplete instructions indeed as to the course they are to adopt. It seems to me that the Bill as it stands is perfectly clear—gives perfectly clear instructions which the commissioners are to carry out. They are to form a scheme in general accordance with the Gresham Commission. The Report of the Greaham Commission contains a very clear recommendation as to the particular scheme which the commissioners are to carry out, and, according to the Bill as it stands, the commissioners would carry out that scheme subject to the restrictions which are found in the schedule, which by no means deals with the whole of the scheme, and subject to the alterations which have taken place in public opinion in London in connection with the University of London since the date of the Commission's Report. I do not think that the instructions are quite so clear as they would be if all were set out in the schedule, but they are perfectly clear enough for the commissioners to carry out those made; and I do not think they will have any difficulty whatever in determining what it is they are to do. If the honourable Baronet's Amendment were accepted, those instructions which the commissioners would derive from the Gresham Report would be cut out altogether, and they would be required to prepare a scheme in accordance with the schedule of the Act, and that would be a very imperfect instruction. I think it is rather late in the day to have a reconstruction of the Bill in the form suggested in this Amendment, and I hope the House will not sanction it.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, it is never too late to do a good thing, and if we want to mend the Bill, surely we ought to do so. The position of my honourable Friend is this: that the House of Commons and the public outside know very little about this Measure; in fact, the only person who knows anything about the Bill is my honourable Friend the Member for Haddington. I heard something about a compromise just now, and I said, "Who compromised?" and they said, "The honourable Member for Haddington." It seems to me that this Bill is muddled up altogether between my
    1192
    honourable Friend the Member for Haddington and the Vice-President of the Council of Education. Sir, we know very little about this Bill, and we ought to know a great deal. There are a great many persons who think—and my honourable Friend the Member for Haddington rather encourages this view—that this is going to establish a great university in London, something like the University of Paris, or the University of Berlin. It is going to do nothing of the sort. It is going to amalgamate a few colleges in London, and 30 miles round, but it is not going to be a national institution. The great object we have in view is to retain this university as a great national centre of the education of the country, where anybody can go, where anybody, by passing certain examinations, and in no other way, can acquire a degree under this university. That is my honourable Friend's object; but he has muddled up his object because he allows a great deal to be done—his university degrees to be obtained and called by the same name, as is the case with men who already have them, without passing those degrees. I only point to this to show how little any of us know what the Bill is. I hope the honourable Member will specifically explain it. He has got Scotch universities on the brain, and he does not understand at all what we want in London. We have got at present practically what we want, and we do not want any change in it. That, really, Mr. Speaker, is why I support the views of my right honourable Friend. No doubt he will make an alteration in the Bill; no doubt we shall have to expand the schedule; but that is precisely what we want. The Amendment of my right honourable: Friend puts in clear and definite form the object which we are coiltending1 for at the present moment, and in these circumstances I shall certainly support the Amendment of my right honourable Friend.
    MR. GRIFFITH: Sir, the objection I have to the Bill as it stands, and this particular clause, is that it not only embodies, a schedule of seven pages, but also a Blue Book of 63 pages; and I think if anybody will look at the Gresham Report they will sec there is nothing answering to the name of

    1193
    scheme in that Report from beginning to end. If that is so, why put in the phrase that the scheme is to be in accordance with the Gresham Report? But that is not all. It will be found that in that Report there are dissentient notes. Several commissioners dissent one from the other; and when you are asking this Commission to legislate in accordance with a Report in which there are dissentient notes, you are, asking them to choose from many contradictory views. In these circumstances, I think the House has a right to be informed what part of the Blue Book is going to be inserted, and what part is going to be omitted, in the Bill. Surely we have a right to ask under what general principles this university is going to be established. As I have said, there are dissentient reports, dissentient notes; and some who have signed the: Report have only signed it subject to several modifications. No>v, have we not a right to ask the honourable Gentleman in charge of this 33111 what are the general principles on which this university is to be established? Do not let us refer, Sir, to a Blue Book of 63 pages, but put in the schedule the principles under which this university is to be established. The right honourable Gentleman has already seven pages of schedule; why should he not have more to carry out this scheme properly? There is also the additional point that once the commissioners have a Blue Book consisting of contradictory views, really there is no control whatever over anything they may do; when we give such powers to seven commissioners, I think we are entitled to ask what are the general views on which they are going to act, and the general principles on which they are going to found this university. Until these are in the schedule I think we should resist this attempt to hand over these powers to commissioners, however eminent they may be.
    MR. HARWOOD: Sir, this scheme we are told is to be in accordance with the general scheme of the Report—that is, I presume, with the scheme in this Blue Book. Well, if honourable Members will turn to the summary, in addition to the dissentient notes in this Report, they will find there are general suggestions made as to the proposed Statutory Commission,
    1194
    and I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that many of those suggestions have not been taken the least, notice of in the Bill, or in the schedule. On page 53 of the Report of the commissioners, they state—
    "We have, therefore, to recommend that the Statutory Commission should be appointed for such a period as may be thought necessary, with the following powers and duties: (1) To determine in what mode and under what conditions any property now held by the University of London should continue to be held by the university."
    But there is nothing of that kind in the Bill. When we turn to this Report, in harmony with which the commissioners are to act, the very first recommendation is about property, and yet it is urged that we have nothing to do with property. If that be so, we have a right to ask what has become of it. Is "in general accordance" picking and choosing? Out of 10 definite recommendations summarising this book, recommendations in regard to the Statutory Commission, seven of the 10 are not mentioned in the Bill, and five of the 10 are not even alluded to. I think the House has a right to protest against being led in this blindfold manner. Is this Report going to be acted upon or is it not' Are these specific recommendations going to be followed, or are they not? If they are not, which are, and which are not, going to be followed, and why are they not going to be followed? The Report also says—
    "It should also be the duty of the said Commission to make such recommendations as they may see fit in respect to any grant of funds which Parliament may provide for the endowment of the university, and for mating an adequate provision for scientific research."
    There is nothing of that kind at all—no mention of that. Then, again, there is another thing. The Commission are to determine—
    "whether any institution is to be admitted as a whole to be a school in the university; and, if not, in respect of what department or departments it is to be admitted."
    I think we have a right to know what are these institutions. There is a list in this Report, it is quite true; in fact, there are two lists, one much larger than the other. Which are we going to follow? I think we ought to have it in

    1195
    some way. The Commission are to act in accordance with, the Report, yet we find that half of the definite recommendations are not taken notice of, and many of the leading recommendations we are told are not to be dealt with. This Bill is a mere phantom, a vague, boneless Bill, and when we ask that some bones and constitution should be put into it it is refused. I do think "in general accordance with the Report" are words much too wide.
    MR. BRIGG: I agree as to the extreme vagueness of this clause, and I do think we ought to have some attempt made to give some sort of limitation to the powers we are to entrust to this body. I cannot see how anyone with a legal mind could possibly draft such a clause as this, giving as it does an exceedingly vague and roving authority. They are to frame their Statutes in general accordance—those are not exactly legal terms—in general accordance with the Report of the Gresham Commissioners, and, further, to bear in mind any other modifications which may appear to them expedient after consideration—here is another vague point-—after consideration of the changes which have taken place in London education of a university type since the date of the said Report. They are to base their regulations and statutes upon these facts. They are also to take notice of the representations1 made to them by, or on behalf of, the Senate or Convocation. Anything more free and open on the point of the powers of these commissioners it would be very difficult to conceive. I, for my part, cannot imagine any more free and open set of conditions being placed on anybody, conditions which, I may point out, may lead to trouble, for those who object to these regulations will have very good ground, inasmuch as the ground on which they are based is so extremely vague. On that account I very strongly support the Amendment of the honourable Member for the Forest of Dean.
    DR. CLARK: I do not know, Sir, why these vague words are to be put in. I suppose they are put in as a general direction; but those who drew the Bill, I take it, have not read the Report of the Commission, because in the first schedule of the Bill, or rather in Part I., you find an entirely different scheme and plan—
    1196
    not in the Report at all. I take it that as the clause is now drafted the Commission will be unable to go back to the Senate proposed by the present Commission—that they will be compelled to take the new Senate, not the old one—and that all the other changes which are made: contrary to the Report of the Commission will be tried. Why do you want to give them powers? And, if you do give them powers, will they be limited only to the recommendations of the 13 commissioners, or, rather, seven of them? Or are they to be able to carry out the views of six out of the 13, the recommendations signed by the dissentients, and not by the whole? Sir, it seems to me that these words are very ambiguous, and are tying the hands of the Commission to this Report instead of giving them freedom. Therefore, what my honourable Friend proposes is that in your schedule you shall lay down the conditions. For instance, take the most important thing. You form a Senate. Now, the Senate of the Bill is an entirely different body from the Senate of the Commission, and the Senate is the most important portion of the Bill. They recommended a very wide Senate, because they thought it still retained its imperialistic aspect, and they recommended that the commissioners should be selected to represent the Colonies, because the London University has been doing Colonial work. One was to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and another by the Secretary of State for India. There are a number of institutions here—the Royal Agricultural Society, the Institution of Civil Engineers—there are 10 or 12 persons recommended by the Royal Commission who are entirely ignored by the Bill as it stands. Under the circumstances, I think what you ought to do is to lay down in your first schedule all the things that they are to do, or rather all the things that they are not to do, and that they cannot change. In Part II. of your schedule you give them a free hand. You say among the matters for which provision must be made—
    "the adequate protection of the interests of all classes of students, whether external or internal, collegiate or non-collegiate,"

    1197
    and so on. I think these words are not required, because you have practically done the work; you have cut out all that you think is valuable in the recommendations of the Commission; you have considered that in the first schedule, and then you tie their hands. Then in Part II. you lay down the special matters they are to make regulations for; you indicate to them what they are to do; and I think in this case you ought not to tie them to the Report made by the commissioners, seeing that you have yourself cut and carved the Report, and objected to a very large part of it. You give them a free hand on the four subjects mentioned in Part II. of the schedule; they must make provision in respect of those four subjects; and 'n doing this you ought to give them a large discretion, and not tie them down to a Report which you yourself have con-

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Gretton, John

    Asher, Alexander

    Clarke, Sir K (Plymouth)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Bagot, Capt. J. F.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Hardy, Laurence

    Balfour.Rt.Hon.A. J. (Manc'r.)

    Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Balfour,Rt.Hon. J. B. (Clackm.)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hazell, Walter

    Banes, Major George Edward

    Crombie, John William

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Curzon,Rt.Hn.G.N.(Lanc,SW)

    Henderson. Alexander

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Curzon. Viscount (Bucks)

    Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)

    Beach, Rt.Hon. SirM. H. (Brist'l)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Holland, Hon. L. R.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Howard, Joseph

    Bethell, Commander

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Howell, William Tudor

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

    Bigwood, James

    Drueker, A.

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Birrell, Augustine

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

    Bond, Edward

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Knowles, Lees

    Bowles, Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lafone, Alfred

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    FitzWygram, Genaral Sir F.

    Lawrence,SirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Butcher, John George

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Foster, H. S. (Suffolk)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbvsh.)

    Fry, Lewis

    Loder, G. W. E.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Garfit, William

    Long, Col. C. W. (Eveshum)

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Lowles, John

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Gosehen,RtHn.G. J. (St.G'rg's)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Maclure, Sir John William

    siderably departed from. I support my honourable Friend's Amendment on the ground—first, because, the Report has been cut and carved in the first part; and then because in the second part I do not think you should tie them. I have much pleasure in supporting my honourable Friend, and I conceive it reasonable enough that these words should go in. By this phrase you are leading them back again to the Report, and when you go back to the Report you find out a lot of the things in that Report cannot be carried out. I think they should have a free hand, and should not be referred back to the Report of the Gresham Commission.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 44.—(Division List No. 248.)

    McArthur, G. (Liverpool)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm,N)

    Rutherford, John

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Monk, Charles James

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Sharpe, W. E. T.

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Mount, William George

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshure)

    Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)

    Pienpoint, Robert

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Smith. J. Parker (Lanark)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Stand)

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Purvis, Robert

    Souttar, Robinson

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Strutt, Hon. C. H.

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Baker, Sir John

    Harwood, George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Banlow, John Emmott

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Labouchere, Henry

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Caldwell, James

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Carvill, P. G. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Colville, John

    Lough, Thomas

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Doogac, P. C.

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Duckworth, James

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Dunn, Sir William

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fenwick, Charles

    Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)

    Dr. Clark and Mr. Brigg.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 38, leave out from 'Act' to end of sub-section, and insert—
    "Where the Commissioners contemplate making a statute or regulation under this Act abrogating, varying, or affecting the existing rights, powers, or privileges of Convocation, they shall, one calendar month at least (exclusive of the months of August and September), before adopting any final resolution in that behalf, communicate the draft of the proposed statute or regulation to the clerk of Convocation, who shall thereupon immediately submit the same to the members of Convocation, for their approval or disapproval, to be signified as at a Senatorial election.
    "No such statute or regulation, disapproved by a majority of the members so voting whereon, shall have any force or effect, and no ouch statute or regulation, approved by a majority of members of Convocation so voting, shall be subsequently alterable by the Senate without the consent of Convocation."—(Sir J. Lubhoch.)
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: The object of the Amendment which, I now have the
    1200
    honour to move is to preserve the present rights of the Convocation of the university under the present charter. No change can be made in the constitution of the university, excepting with the consent of the Convocation, and that is a right which my constituents value very highly, not from any personal motives, but for the sake of the university itself. In the Standing Committee upon this subject I moved an Amendment somewhat more far-reaching in its character, and, in my opinion, preferable to the one which I now have the honour to move. Speaking from 30 years' experience as a member of the Senate, the replies did not seem to me to be framed with a full knowledge of the working of the university. At the same time it was urged that my Amendment went somewhat beyond the present rights of Convocation. I did not think so, but, at any rate, I have been very careful upon the present

    1201
    occasion to make it quite clear that we do not wish to put it too high, and I have expressly limited the Amendment to these rights. If the Commission pro-pare a wise scheme I am satisfied that Convocation would agree, and the graduates who are members of this House will, I am sure, confirm that statement. I do not wish to put the rights of my constituents too high. If the Commission prepare n, good scheme and Convocation rejects it, a most improbable, nay, almost impossible, contingency, still, if it did happen, Parliament would no doubt be justified in passing if over the head of Convocation. At the same time I would submit to the House that it is very unusual to interfere with rights given by Royal charter, unless it can be clearly shown that those rights have been abused. No one will allege that the university is not doing good work, greatly to the benefit of the community. I will take two tests. I will not trouble the House with many figures, but merely take the numbers of certain years. In 1860 our candidates were 800; in 1870, 1,450; in 1880, 2,570; in 1890, 5,000; and, lastly, in 1897, 6,300. Now, I think that the House will see from those figures that the University of London is a very progressive institution, is greatly appreciated by the country, and is doing a great work, that the constant increase in the number of candidates shows that it is not an effete and obsolete institution. No one can allege upon those figures that it has failed in its important trust. Now I will take the second test. What is the view of the colleges associated with the university? I frankly admit that so far as the London colleges are concerned, they are satisfied with the Bill as it stands, but, as I have already pointed out, the London colleges are a very small fraction. By far the greatest number of our candidates come from other colleges throughout the country. There are over 200 colleges in addition to those of London, which send up candidates for examination. What are their views.' Are they in favour of the Bill? I have heard many complaints, and, so far as I am aware, the great bulk of those colleges would be in favour of the Amendment that I now move. It may be said that the late senatorial election would
    1202
    really show that the Convocation is against the Bill. That is the case, but it does not show that Convocation would regret a wise scheme. My Amendment would give the country colleges an opportunity of considering the Statutes made by the Commissioners. This is a matter of great interest to my constituents, who are convinced that the university is doing good work at the present time, and who are afraid that the Bill may jeopardise its labours. But if the Commissioners frame wise Statutes I have no hesitation in expressing my conviction that they would be adopted by Convocation. We have been told several times that there are no provisions of the same kind in the Commissions which dealt with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I speak with some diffidence upon that point, but I believe there is no parallel between the two cases. In those cases the bodies corresponding with Convocation had not the rights which were given to my constituents by the charter. At the very outset the eases are most dissimilar. The Acts dealing with Oxford and Cambridge are three, because the first Act, which dealt with them separately, in 1854, dealt with Oxford, and in that no power was given to the Commissioners to make statutes for the university; nor could they make statutes for the colleges if objected to by two-thirds of the governing body of the colleges affected, and they had no power to interfere with endowments less than 50 years old; nor could they interfere with any charter. All those circumstances are entirely different to the present case. In respect to the Cambridge Commission in 1890 there again the provisions are very similar. The Commissioners there had power to make statutes for the university, but such statutes were to be void if objected to by two-thirds of the governing body. The cases are not analogous and cannot be considered with reference to my Amendment. Then comes the Act of 1877; that, again, is of a totally different character to this Bill. That Measure merely authorised the Commissioners to transfer a certain amount of income from the colleges to the university, in order that the university might be enabled to continue to carry on its work. We all know perfectly well that

    1203
    there is no provision of the kind in this Bill. The Commissioners were empowered under that Measure to make statutes for the university, but it was expressly provided that they should not make any statute altering the trusts, conditions, or directions of any college emolument, if the original charter, deed of composition, or other instrument of foundation thereof was made or executed within 50 years of the passing of the Act, with certain exceptions; immaterial to the present purpose. The statutes appointing these Commissioners afford, therefore, no precedent for the present Bill, for they dealt with endowments and university and college statutes, which were, almost without exception, centuries old, and the power of the Commissioners were expressly limited so as not to apply to endowments less than 50 years old. This Bill does not deal with ancient charters. The London University was first founded in 1836, and the existing charter was granted as recently as 1863. Again, the alterations in the constitution of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were completely specified in the Acts themselves. The changes in the constitution of the London University, though much larger and more fundamental, are left to the discretion of the Commissioners, subject only to the direction that they shall be in substantial accordance with the recommendations of the Cooper Commission and the schedule of the Bill. The graduates of the London University have an express right under their charter to veto any proposed alteration in it. The Convocations of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had no such right. The Oxford and Cambridge Commissioners bad no power to affect any existing charter, even though ancient. The very object of the Statutable Commission now proposed is to override the express provisions of the charter of the London University. In the cases of Oxford and Cambridge they had not the rights which were given to Convocation under the charter. The cases, therefore, are not parallel. Lastly, I submit that this is an Amendment which may do much good and cannot do any harm. If the Commissioners make statutes which will really create a thoroughly good system, which will work well and conduce to the
    1204
    higher education of the country, then I am quite satisfied that my constituency would adopt it by an overwhelming majority. Of course, if they did not do so, and the arrangement was a wise one, it would always be in the power of Parliament to override them. But surely it is very unusual to override express rights when it cannot be shown that there are any faults on the part of those who exercise the powers. On the other hand, supposing that the Commissioners do make statutes which are prejudicial to the higher education of the country, it would be most desirable that they should be abrogated. I submit to the House that I am only asking that rights expressly granted by the Crown should not be overridden without good cause. The University of London is doing a great and progressive work, and the colleges which send up the bulk of the students are satisfied with what is being done at the present time; and all that I ask the House is that the statutes should be submitted to them, and I would say again, and beg the House to realise, that they are not asking this because they wish to support any individual rights of their own, or for any low and selfish purposes, or for the reason that they do not wish anybody else to obtain advantages from which they themselves are debarred; it is not in that spirit in which they are acting. It is not upon that ground at all, but for the benefit of the university. I submit to the House that it is not beyond the range of possibility that the Commissioners may make a mistake; if they do so, then, of course, it would be desirable that there should be an opportunity of reconsidering these statutes. I trust these statutes which they make will conduce to the higher education of the country, and I am perfectly satisfied that in that case my constituents will adopt it. I submit then that this is an Amendment which cannot do harm, and may do good, and under those circumstances I ask the House to favourably consider the Amendment.
    SIR J. GORST: The power which my honourable Friend has claimed for his constituents is a very much more extensive power than anybody has ever claimed before. It is quite true that the Convocation of the London University can veto under the powers given by the

    1205
    Crown any alteration which it may be proposed to make in the charter of the university, but in speaking of the rower given by the Crown when that power comes into conflict with Parliamentary powers, then the Convocation has no power to object to any alteration in its constitution that Parliament proposes to impose upon it. Then the objection that Convocation makes to any change in the constitution of its charter can only be exercised in a certain way by Convocation after a meeting held in London for the purpose of discussing the pros and cons of the change in Convocation, and n decision has been then arrived at by those who have heard the discussion and were present at the meeting. But what the right honourable Gentleman proposes is to give the Convocation power to reject any statute made by the Commissioners by what is called the postcard vote, not by a vote given at a meeting called for that purpose, but a vote upon paper transmitted through the post. Now, the charter by which that power of voting was given was for the sole purpose of electing members of the Senate. It is expressly inserted in the charter that the power of voting shall be for the election of the members of the Senate, and for the members of the Senate only, and the right honourable Gentleman is asking for a power for his constituents that they do not at the present time possess. Nobody complains of his obtaining it, but it is a power which Parliament has never granted to any university which has been instituted, neither Oxford nor Cambridge, nor the Scotch universities, and I do not think that Parliament would be disposed to depart from its own precedents and grant to the London University this extraordinary power which they at present possess, and, so

    AYES.

    Ascroft, Robert

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Asher, Alexander

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline F.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Burt, Thomas

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Bethell, Commander

    Caldwell, Tames

    Baker, Sir John

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cavendish, V. C. W Derbysh

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bigwood, James

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Balfour, Rt.Hn. A. J. (Manc'r)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.G. W. (Leeds)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm)

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.J.B.(Clackm.)

    Bond, Edward

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Banes, Major George E.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    far as we can see, have no right to whatever.
    MR. GRIFFITH: The point which has been raised by the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President upon this Amendment is this, that Convocation has only power to exercise the postcard vote in the case of senatorial elections, and in all other matters they must hear the pros and cons. Now, I ask the Vice-President whether he would allow Convocation the power to modify statutes after having heard the discussion upon them. Now, it has been said that Convocation was in favour of this Bill as it stands. Why do you not, if that is so, trust the people who are so much in fear of this Bill, and allow Convocation a voice in these matters? If they had misused their functions, or had done wrong in the past, a man might come here and say Convocation has behaved badly, and has not acted properly, and we might deprive them of their rights under the charter. Nobody doubts but what the University of London has been a supreme success, and yet the object of this Bill is to take away from it, or to seriously modify, its charter under which all this good has been done Under these circumstances, is it not a moderate request that Convocation should have some veto? Will not the Vice-President permit Convocation, having heard the arguments, to have some voice in the statutes? Surely if he doe-s not he is undermining the charter which the university has been built up on and undermine all the good which has been done.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 30.—(Division List No. 249.)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Hayne, Rt, Hn. Chas. Seale-

    Pollck, Harry F.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Hazell, Walter

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Henderson, Alexander

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Purvis, Robert

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Howard, Joseph

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Howell, William Tudor

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Curzon,RtHn.G.N.(LancsSW)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Rutherford, John

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir Jolm P.

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Kenyon, James

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Drucker, A.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Duckworth, James

    Knowles, Lees

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Shaw, T. (Hawick B.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornw'll)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lawson, John G. (Yorks)

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Leigh-Bennett, Hemy C.

    Souttar, Robinson

    Finlay. Sir R. Bannatyne

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Lowles, John

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fry, Lewis

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wallace, Robert (Edin.)

    Garfit, William

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.ofLond.)

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    McCalmont,Mj.Gn.(Ant'm.N.)

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    More, Robert Jasper

    Wodehouse.Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Gouliding, Edward Alfrea

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Mount, William George

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D Arcy

    Gretton, John

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hanbmy, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Pearson, Sir W. D.

    NOES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Butcher, John George

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Philipps, John Wynford

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Piekersgill, Edward Hare

    Sir John Lubbock and Mr. Ellis Griffith.

    Harwood, George

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eiflon)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 3, after 'person,' insert 'directly.'"—(Sir A. Rollit.)
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to move the Amendment.
    Question put.
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 38, after 'Act,' insert—
    "When the commissioners contemplate making a statute or regulation under this Act they shall, two calendar months at least (exclusive of any university vacation) before adopting any final resolution in that behalf, communicate the proposed statute or regulation to the Registrar of the University of

    1209
    London, who shall forthwith cause a copy o: such proposed statute or regulation to be exhibited or screened in the usual place for university announcements in the hall of the university buildings in Burlington Gardens, and to be kept so exhibited or screened for the whole of the said period of two calendar months. And the commissioners shall take into consideration.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: The Amendment which I now beg leave to propose is very different from the one which was proposed by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the University of London and rejected by the House. The chief element of his Amendment was that he asked that there should be a power in Convocation to veto statutes and regulations made by the Commissioners, and the House has decided that that is a power which could not be given to Convocation. Now, the Amendment which I propose eliminates that altogether. My Amendment has not anything' to do with the powers of Convocation in regard to that matter at all. I am very desirous—and I believe that this Amendment is directly and indirectly in the interest of the University of London, which is entirely a teaching university. This teaching university will never succeed, notwithstanding whatever arrangements are made by this House, or whatever the arrangements of the Commission may be, unless it obtains the confidence of the community. That is the one thing which is hopeful in this university; and the one necessity in connection with such confidence is that there should be publicity, and the Amendment which I propose is to provide that where the Commissioners contemplate making a statute or regulation, a copy of the proposed statute or regulation shall be exhibited in the hall of the university buildings in Burlington Gardens. The point of that suggestion is that there should be publicity. We are in the Bill invited—a direct invitation is given—to make representations upon any proposed statute or regulation. There are several clauses which deal with the fact that people may make such representations, and they are invited to consider the statutes and regulations made by the Commissioners. If they are invited to consider these matters they surely ought to have facility for knowing what it is upon which they are invited to make
    1210
    representations. It is absurd to invite them to consider these matters unless they have every means of knowing. In the case of the London University there are no authorities which stand in that position, and therefore the only way we can secure publicity is that it shall be exhibited or screened at Burlington Gardens, which is the headquarters of the university. That would be public to the different colleges in London. It may be said they are part of the University of London. I am quite aware of that, so let us make a compromise—that is the spirit of the whole Debate; and I think if we looked at the book of the honourable Member for Montrose Burghs we might have a larger conception of the word with regard to this Bill. Let us have a, compromise which, at any rate would be fair. I do not ask the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President to give us something' which we do not want, but to show us that the Government have some trust in the general public, and I therefore venture to suggest that there should be this simple publication, not carrying it vote, but as a natural corollary, that if we have to make lcpresentations—and we must make representations.—wo must know what we have to make representations about, and it is a very fair and reasonable medium through which it can be done. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
    SIB J. GORST: This matter was raised before the Standing Committee, and so far from there being a rigid exclusion of all compromise, as the honourable Gentleman infers, I proposed to give way to what we had already decided, and that the Commissioners, before they acted with regard to all representations made by the Senate and Convocation of the University of London, or any other body, should give facilities. My Amendment which is on the Paper really constitutes an alternative scheme to that of the honourable Member. It is that the Commissioners shall take steps as are in their opinion best adapted for facilitating the making of such representations before any Such statutes for regulations are framed, so that a statutory duty is imposed upon them by Parliament itself,

    1211
    and all these bodies will have ample opportunity for making representation.
    MR. HARWOOD: It is not a question of giving facilities for making representation. It is a question of the public knowing what it is that they have to make a representation about.
    SIR J. GORST: The honourable Member's proposal is rather a rigid one. I objected to it in the Standing Committee, and I object to it now, because it lowers down the proceedings which are to take place, and it ties the hands of the Commissioners in a very unnecessary manner. I think it is far better to leave the matter to the Commissioners to ideal with in accordance with the circumstances of the particular case with which they may be dealing, to give such notice as is important before such representation is made, and then the matter can be discussed, and the bodies concerned could make such representations as they thought were desirable. According to the proposal of the honourable Member there could be no chance of amending the representation, for it has to be screened for two months at least, and then it is too late to amend it if you require, so that you must drop it altogether and begin de novo. The proceeding proposed in my Amendment covers the whole of this matter, and therefore I hope the honourable Member will withdraw the Amendment now before the House.
    MR. GRIFFITH: I have not been able to follow the right honourable Gentleman in what he said just now, when he stated that his Amendment was practically the same as that which is now before the House. It appears to me that there is a world of difference in them. The right honourable Gentleman's Amendment is to give facilities for making representations, but the honourable Member's is that there should be publicity in order that the people may know what it is they are to make representations about, which is
    1212
    quite another thing. It seems to me the two Amendments are entirely different, and apply to entirely different matters. So far as I can understand, the right honourable Gentleman would consider that this Amendment was not desirable, but I suppose he will be the first to admit that there should be publicity as to these statutes, and if that is so, of course, it is desirable. The only question, therefore, is, does the Amendment provide the means of publicity? If the right honourable Gentleman saya he does not think it does, then I am sure my honourable Friend will accept any Amendment from, the right honourable Gentleman which will give real publicity. By the recommendation to exhibit it on the screen in this way the thing is published in a particular place, and unless that is done we shall have notice that something is going to take place which we know nothing at all about. One of the right honourable Gentleman's objections to that is that if it is to be put up for two months, and he wants to alter it, he cannot do so, and must begin again de novo. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman is going to object to every Amendment which is proposed, but if he is going gracefully to concede to the education of London that which has already been gracefully conceded to every other part of the country, then it is necessary that this Amendment should be accepted. It is not proposed by this Amendment to give to Convocation any power, but to provide for adequate publicity, so that if anything undesirable occurs attention may be called to the fact. Is not that a reasonable Amendment? I do ask the right honourable Gentleman to consider this matter, and ask himself whether it is not, advisable and reasonable, and whether he cannot concede to this university what has already been conceded to others.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes: 141.—(Division List No. 250.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Arnold, Alfred

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hogan, James Francis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Burt, Thomas

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Souttar, Robinson

    Caldwell, James

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Crilly, Daniel

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan. P. C.

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Duckworth, James

    Oldroyd, Mark

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Dunn, Sir William

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Mr. Harwood and Mr. Ellis Griffith.

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Fenwick, Charles

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    NOES.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fry, Lewis

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Garfit, William

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

    Mount, William George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Newdigate, Francis A.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Bethell, Commander

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Bigwood, James

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Purvis, Robert

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hardy, Laurence

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Bond, Edward

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Haslett, Sir James Homer

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Brassey, Albert

    Hazell, Walter

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Henderson, Alexander

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Rutherford, John

    Butcher, John George

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Howard, Joseph

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Kenyon, James

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Knowles, Lees

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Lafone, Alfred

    Strauss, Arthur

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Lawrence,SirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Drucker. A.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lowles, John

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Hath)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D Arcy

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Young, Comm. (Berks. E.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    More, Robert Jasper

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, after line 6, insert—
    "(3) The commissioners shall take such step as are in their opinion best adapted for facilitating the making of such representations before any such statutes or regulations are framed."—(Sir John Gorst.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 11, leave out from 'belief' to end of line 16."—(Mr. Harwoml.)
    MR. HARWOOD: I desire to point out that sub-section 3 of this clause already provides—
    "The statutes or regulations, whether they are made by the commissions or by the senate as hereinafter provided, shall not authorise the assignment of money for any purpose in respect of which any privilege is granted or disability imposed on account of religious belief."
    And the same clause goes on to insert—
    "Provided that they shall not prevent the University from allocating funds, on such conditions as it thinks fit, for the payment of any person appointed or recognised by the university as a university teacher, or for his laboratory expenses, or for apparatus to be used by him, notwithstanding any conditions attached to any office held by him in any school of the university."
    Now, I maintain that the first sentence of this section amply secures everything that we ought to try and secure in regard to this most delicate and difficult matter of religious belief, and I do approach this question with a great deal of hesitation. It is with the greatest possible reluctance that I bring this matter of religious belief to the attention of this House, and I should not have done so had it not been that this sentence seems to me to open the door to something which this House may afterwards have reason to regret, and, what is more, it is distinctly contrary to the understanding upon which these Commissions are supposed to act. Now page 49 of the Report says—
    "that we shall not adopt or impose on any person any test whatsoever of religious belief or profession, or assign any grant of money in respect of any privilege granted or disability imposed on account of religious belief."
    Now, I maintain that the first sentence, to which we do not object, adequately
    1216
    and completely carries out that instruction, and the other sentence is added for the purpose of making another compromise. Why, whenever we talk of compromise it is treated as if the sword of Damocles hung over our heads. We are told that we are not to discuss this matter, and that this question has been handed over to a private Committee. I venture to suggest to the House that the second part of the sub-section which I am moving to leave out has been introduced unnecessarily, and has been introduced in order to provide for certain suspicions, which I maintain that the House ought not to provide for, and which in attempting to provide for the House is opening the door to much that it does not contemplate. Now, what does it mean? Reading it very carefully—and it is very vaguely worded—it amounts to this, that this university may grant money for religious or theological purposes. Now, it has been one of the fundamental articles of the creed of this University from the very beginning that in the matter of religion you are not to place any disability on account of religious belief, which is to be regarded as entirely out of the field of their practice. The first sentence of sub-clause 3 prevents the assigning or expending of money on account of religious belief. Now, I have reason to believe that the other religious institutions connected with this proposed University, and which are supposed to be embodied as schools of the University, are affected by this first clause, and I think it adequately expresses the fundamental creed of the University of London and adequately safeguards them. This second sentence enables the University to follow the principle of concurrent endowment by deputy. Now, I hope the House will clearly understand what it is doing in passing this sentence. I am not here to advocate whether concurrent endowment is wise or unwise, but I do say that the House should hesitate before it passes something which would authorise a much larger carrying out of this principle. Sir, if this is passed I do not see anything to prevent the establishment in a secondary way by deputy of a Roman Catholic University for Ireland. Personally, I am in favour of it, but I wish the thing to be done direetlv. But here what do you do? I believe that

    1217
    —and I do not believe that I am betraying any secret—this second sentence is inserted to meet tin: case of the timid people. Those of us who know something about the history of Frederick Morris, know with painful acuteness something about King's College. This provision allows the University to grant money for apparatus for various kinds of teaching, but it reserves to itself no power of control for such a college as King's College, to see that this money is really spent for the purpose for which it is nominally and ostensibly granted, and it opens the door entirely to the adoption of the principle of concurrent endowment all round. What is worse, you do not do it yourselves, but the University can grant the power to bodies that spend the money and use it for theological tests and religious beliefs. This section will constitute a body which will grant that money to those who exact these tests, and as a matter of practical politics, I ask what difference does it make whether the money is given directly or indirectly? It is national money all the same, and it is voted to these institutions which make these theological tests. But you say we do not vote it for the teaching of theology. I acknowledge that, but I will call the attention of the House to the fact that there is nothing in this Bill which gives power to exercise any control whatever over these colleges. If I am in order, I should like to say that I have been fighting for the good of this University, which requires some provision to be made that we should have some control over such expenditure, but it is refused most absolutely by this clause, for we are practically giving carte blanche to this institution. We give them money for certain purposes, but we make no provision or security whatever that the money will be spent for the purposes for which we are voting it. It is clear, as a matter of course, that when you vote this money largely for apparatus you relieve the college of an obligation, and therefore it does not matter how you vote it, for practically it goes to relieve the college to that extent. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope these words, vague as they are, will be struck out, because they open the door to a principle which the House ought to hesitate about adopting, and certainly ought not to adopt without the
    1218
    most serious consideration. I therefore beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    SIR J. GOHST: I desire to remind the honourable Member that this Bill is founded upon an agreement between the various authorities interested, and with regard to the question raised by the honourable Member an understanding has been arrived at. On the one hand it has been agreed that the University is not to endow any form of religious belief; and, on the other hand, it is agreed that when a man does hold a particular form of religious belief that does not disqualify him from acting as a teacher, or preclude his being provided with proper laboratory apparatus. These are the two propositions, the principle of which I think the House will readily assent to. Whether the proviso is absolutely necessary or not from a legal point of view I am not in a position to judge, and the Solicitor General can best instruct the House upon that point. Those who were interested in this matter certainly thought that the proviso was necessary, and they agreed that such a proviso should be made. The honourable Gentleman who has just spoken declares that the University has no means of seeing that the money which it votes will be allocated to purely secular purposes. The Act provides—
    "that they shall not prevent the University from allocating funds on such conditions as it-thinks fit."
    Now, it is also provided that the funds allocated shall not be used for theological or religious purposes. I think that on all sides the greatest safeguards exist to prevent this power being in any way abused, so as to devote the funds to am particular religious faith. Therefore, as all parties interested in this matter are satisfied with the clause as it stands, I hope that the House will not consent to alter it.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: The speech of the right honourable Gentleman has placed us in a very embarrassing position. It appears, from his statement that some agreement has been made by certain parties outside the House, and this House is to be bound by that arrangement. Now if that is the position which has been accepted,

    1219
    the House might as well dispose of the Bill and at once proceed to other business. I intend to support this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, I wish to prevent any possible violation of or departure from the principle on which the Act for the abolition of University Tests was based; and in the second place. I wish to maintain the honourable traditions of the University of London, as a purely unsectarian institution. Now, on the face of it, the Bill seems to secure that object, for in the schedule there is a provision as follows—
    "No religious test shall be adopted or imposed, and no applicant for a University appointment shall be at a disadvantage on the ground of religious opinion."
    Now that is a most excellent provision. Then there is another safeguard in the third sub-section of clause 3, which has been already read to the House. If this proviso stood alone I could accept it as satisfactory, but there follows that mysterious provision which the Amendment proposes should be excised from the Bill. I think nobody can deny that this proviso is seemingly contradictory to the portion of the clause which immediately precedes it, and it appears to aim at doing by a side wind what is prohibited being done in a direct way. The second portion of this provision seems, as has already been pointed out, to permit of the endowment of individual professors in institutions which, as schools of the university, come under the Bill. Now, if the principle with which I started my remarks is violated, then it does not matter in what way it is done, either directly or indirectly, for I wish to prevent it. I shall wait for an explanation of this mysterious provision, and I wish to be told plainly why this provision has been inserted in the Bill; and also I wish to know whether there are any grounds for the suspicion, which is pretty generally entertained, that this proviso has been inserted for the benefit of a particular institution—namely, King's College, which is of a sectarian character. I shall oppose the violation of the unsectarian principle in any case, whatever institution is concerned, and I shall oppose it still more emphatically if there is any ground for the belief that it is intended for the benefit of such an institution as King's College.
    MR. GRIFFITH: It seems to me that this proviso is a direct violation of the principle of unsectarianism.
    *MR. SHARPE: I would like to point out with reference to the Amendment that the clause in the Bill is a logical extension of previous university reform. We have revolutionised our ancient universities on the basis of religious liberty in favour of Nonconformists by abolishing qualifications for office in the holding of particular religious opinions. It is now proposed to extend that principle to the London University in favour of the Church of England and all other religious denominations by removing the disqualification of religion. All I understand the clause to enact is that no one shall be disqualified for or prejudiced in the post of teacher in the University because he belongs to a college founded and endowed for the advancement of particular religious views; in fact, that religion, which has in our ancient universities ceased to be a qualification for office, shall now cease to be a disqualification as regards the advantages and emoluments of office in the non-sectarian University of London.
    MR. BRYCE: I think the honourable Member who spoke last hardly apprehended the point of the Amendment. The point is very simple, and it is merely this: the University of London having been established on a non-sectarian basis, shall a professor in a denominational college who has submitted to a denominational test be allowed to receive funds from this non-sectarian institution for the purpose of his laboratory expenses or the apparatus to be used to him? I say that I cannot see any great harm is done under the Bill as it stands, but if I am asked whether the Bill is sound in principle I must answer that it is not, and therefore I support the Amendment.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I do not know whether my right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen is prepared to apply to Ireland the principles he has laid down. Honourable Members opposite have pointed out that the most important Nonconformist

    1221
    colleges send candidates to the University of London. That is also true of the Roman Catholic colleges. As I understand the clause, it is to enable the Senate to recognise teachers of eminence in such colleges in non-theological subjects. I have very great confidence in the judgment of the Senate, and if powers were given them I certainly think they would exercise those powers, not in the interest of any particular sect, but in the interest of education. We are discussing the allocation of funds. No funds are provided in the Bill, but I take the clause as a pledge that the Government will endow the university with sufficient funds.
    MR. HALDANE: My right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen spoke of this clause as raising a question of principle. I think that for once my honourable Friend has lost sight of the cardinal principle of the Bill. The Bill does not propose to make a university out of the colleges; it does not propose to take in King's College or any other college and make it an integral part of the university. The third proposition which underlies the Bill is that the teachers of the university are to be selected as individuals and in an individual capacity. It provides that no man shall be put in a worse position because he holds particular opinions. He is to be selected simply as a teacher. I shall give a vote against this Amendment.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London has introduced the case of Ireland, and thinks that has settled the question. What has that got to do with the matter? I must dismiss the remarks he has made on the subject. My right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen said that this clause, in his opinion, would probably do no harm; but I think he said he would probably vote against it. I should vote against it because it might do harm. When you make a law you do not say that it might do harm; you leave a Royal Commission to decide whether it will act in an undesirable manner or not. We do not intend in
    1222
    this proviso of the Bill to allow them to do harm upon this question.
    *LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I ask the House for permission to say a few words. I think that I and my honourable Friends are on the whole acting consistently with our old principles if we vote against the clause. I would submit to the House that there is not only a risk of not being able to extract a clear meaning from these words, but there is also a risk of the second part of the clause being held to be a contradiction of the other. We are asked, or, rather, the Committee is asked, to say that—
    "the statutes or regulations shall not authorise the assignment of money for any purpose in respect of which any privilege is granted, or disability imposed on account of religious belief."
    This might appear clear enough under certain circumstances. Then we go on to say—
    "Provided that they shall not prevent the university from allocating funds on such conditions as it thinks fit for the payment of any person appointed or recognised by the university as a university teacher," etc.
    Well, Sir, I can imagine that any Commissioner under this Bill would find it difficult to decide, when he is askea—as he probably will be asked—to vote money in aid, say, of a science teacher at King's College, or a teacher at any of these Nonconformist colleges—whether they were, or were not, voting money for
    "a purpose in respect of which a privilege was granted or disability imposed on account of religious belief,"
    if the teacher, or professor, should be called upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. Those of us who sit on this side of the House cannot possibly complain of the attitude of honourable Members opposite. But honourable Members opposite will have nothing to complain of if, on further consideration of those words, we seem to recognise what appears to be an old enemy under a new guise, and, as the honourable Member for Aberdeen said, that we shall be acting consistently with our old principles if we vote against the clause.
    SIR R. FINLAY: I am sure that no one on this side of the House, can com, plain of the noble Lord's conduct after what took place in Grand Committee, where he voted, as he told us, in favour of the Amendment. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord's apprehensions are quite unfounded. Even if there were any apparent contradiction in the proposed Amendment, I am sure the council would be able to say, what is the intention of the Act? I myself do not see that there is any contradiction whatever. The earlier part of the clause provides that the statutes or regulations shall not authorise the assignment of money for any purpose in respect of which any privilege is granted, or disability imposed on account of religious belief. Then it is said that it might possibly follow from that that no grant of money could be made in aid of laboratory expenses of a professor who held a post in some college where a test was imposed. Accordingly, there are inserted these words—
    "Provided that they shall not prevent the university from allocating funds, on such conditions as it thinks fit, for the payment of any person appointed or recognised by the university as a university teacher, or for his laboratory expenses, or for apparatus to be used by him, notwithstanding any conditions attached to any office held by him in any school of the university."
    I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me it would be pushing the argument of interference too far to say that so far as the grant towards the expenses, of a professor in laboratory teaching is concerned, that professor must subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. I cannot see how a payment to a teacher in respect to his lectures, say, on chemistry, Sanscrit, or Chinese, can be held to infringe the great principle of secularism in these matters. We are dealing with a practical matter, and we must deal with it on the materials before us. It would be an extraordinary doctrine to assert that a university should not be at liberty to utilise to the very best advantage the services of very eminent men in particular colleges merely because it applied to Rome particular branch of teaching. I would only add one more word, by calling the attention, of the House to the words that the university is to make any such
    1224
    grant only on conditions which may seem to it, proper. The difficulties conjured up by honourable Members in reference to this part of the clause seem to me to be wholly imaginary.
    Mr. BRYNMOR JONES: I moved in Committee upstairs for the omission of these words; but, unlike my honourable Friend, I cannot see any reason for reversing the opinion I then formed. I think the argument of the Solicitor General, which fairly sums up the general sense of the Committee upstairs, is really unanswerable. And, seeing that a great many honourable Members have naturally not had an opportunity of considering the whole matter in detail, let me point out, for the benefit of honourable Members on this side of the House, who specially represent the Nonconformist interest, how the matter stands in respect of the Nonconformist colleges in London. Under this Bill there are several Nonconformist colleges of great distinction and of great importance, in regard to the work they are performing, which are brought within the area of these teaching universities, just as King's College and others are brought within the sphere of its operations. Mr. Speaker, I do not think honourable Members who are opposing the inclusion of these words in the clause have really considered how the whole of the words are going to operate. You are cresting for London a teaching university. That is to say, you must include in your university a large number of teachers—some sectarian, and some non-sectarian; and the mere fact of being brought into contact with such a university is of benefit. It is a benefit to the sectarian as well as to the non-sectarian; and I have no hesitation in saying that this is a Bill which is conferring the very greatest advantages upon the Nonconformist colleges of London. Institutions like that at Regent's Park, or New College, for example, will benefit. At the same time I am bound to say that I would not, however great the benefit, do anything which would infringe the principle of religious equality, or the principle that the State should not support sectarian education. But I fail to see anything in what has been said by my honourable Friend to prove that these words will infringe either of these principles. Now,

    1225
    Sir, my remaining words shall be few; but let me give an instance, which occurs to my mind, and which may very likely occur in practice. Take the case of New College, or Regent's Park, and the case of a teacher of Oriental languages. Everyone knows that the teacher of Chinese or Oriental languages, who went out to the Far East some years ago, was a distinguished Nonconformist minister. Well, then, we have at Regent's Park, or New College, a teacher of Oriental languages, who has a special knowledge of Chinese, or some obscure dialects of the Far East. Well, I do not suppose there is anyone in the metropolis who can teach so well as that man. What does this Bill provide? It provides that some money may be given to some man for teaching some Eastern language, which it will be an advantage for many of us in this country to acquire. And, as the Solicitor General pointed out, there would be no power under the Bill to grant such money, except in the special circumstances covered by this clause. The money can only be given upon the terms that there shall be no disability imposed on account of religious belief. The money can only be given to the senate of the university on the condition that no disability shall follow on account of

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Chamberlain,Rt.rln.J. (Birm.)

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Fry, Lewis

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Garfit, William

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

    Beach, Rt.Hn.SiriM.H.(Brist'l)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Bethell, Commander

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Bigwood, James

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Bond, Edward

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Gretton, John

    Brassey, Albert

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

    Greville, Captain

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Butcher, John George

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Carlile, William Walter

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    religious belief. But take another case. Supposing that there should be the necessity for the publication of a text.—some Chinese or Japanese text—which is absolutely requisite for the State; we all know that some publishers will not reproduce such a text. It will not pay for the Work which the university often performs. Suppose the university then says, as to the professor at New College or King's College, we will give you a hundred pounds in order to assist you in the delivery of your lectures, and you take it; well, then, you must not impose any disability upon that. How on earth, Mr. Speaker, honourable Members can anticipate, under a clause like this, that there will be an infringement of the principles of religious equality I entirely fail to see. I am content to have the authority of the Solicitor General for that, as I altogether agree with the construction he has placed upon the section, and I cannot understand why honourable Members on the other side of the House should want to cut out these words.
    Amendment put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 172; Noes 68.—(Division List No. 251.)

    Haslett, Sir James Homer

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Hazell, Walter

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Henderson, Alexander

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Howard, Joseph

    More, Robert Jasper

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Mount, William George

    Strauss, Arthur

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Newdigate, Francis A.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Knowles, Lees

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Lafone, Alfred

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Valentia, Viscount

    Lawrence, SirEDurning(Corn.)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Purvis, Robert

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Wodehouse.Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Rutherford, John

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Lowles, John

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Lubbock, Rt Hon. Sir John

    Saunderson, Col. E. James

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Seoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Asher, Alexander

    Fenwick, Charles

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

    Baker, Sir John

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Griffith. Ellis J.

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. G. Seale-

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hemphill. Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Hogan, James Francis

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Holburn, J. G.

    Souttar, Robinson

    Burt, Thomas

    Joioey, Sir James

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Caldwell, James

    Labouchere, Henry

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    McEwan, William

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Colville, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Woodall, William

    Crilly, Daniel

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Mr. Harwood and Mr. Carvell Williams.

    Duckworth, James

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    MR. HARWOOD MR. HARWOOD moved—
    "To insert, after 'prorogation,' in clause 4, page 3, line 27, 'or dissolution.'"
    Sir J. GORSTintimated that the words would be inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HARWOODmoved—
    "To insert, after 'London Gazette,' clause 4, page 3, line 36, 'or after the expiration of the period of forty days in the last preceding sub-section mentioned (whichever shall last expire).'"
    Sir J. GORSTsaid he did not think the Amendment ought to be accepted, as

    1229
    three months was a very reasonable time in which to appeal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    CAPTAIN NORTONmoved—
    "To add after 'referred.' clause 4, page 4, line 7, 'but no petitioner shall in any event, or whatever be the result of the petition, be required or adjudged to pay any costs or expenses of any respondent or of any person or corporation who may oppose such petition, nor shall any such opponent or respondent be required or adjudged to pay any costs or expenses of any petitioner.'"
    If the Amendment were not passed the clause would be to a great extent inoperative, as it could not be expected that any person would be so public-spirited as to run himself into immense cost by appearing before the council.
    SIR R. FINLAY: The clause is much better as it stands, because it gives discretion as to costs. If the Amendment were adopted there would be no discretion whatever, and however wrong-headed a petitioner might be, he could not be condemned in costs.
    MR. GRIFFITH: I quite understand there are objections to the Amendment, but on the other hand it cannot be expected that any person will incur the expense of perhaps £1,000. It would be very hard on the petitioner to be deprived of his costs, but, perhaps, the best way out of the difficulty would be that each party should pay his own costs. That would be the lesser of two evils.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCKmoved—
    "To insert after 'Wye,' in clause 7, page 4, line 32, 'and any other English college recognised by the Senate.'"
    He said the object of the Amendment was to secure to other English colleges some of the privileges they would have under the Act if they were situated in the administrative county of London. If the House looked at the Bill it would be seen that it really did not constitute a teaching university for London. It crave
    1230
    the university no fresh powers, no new buildings, and no money. It brought, however, the colleges in closer touch with the Senate, and it gave the teachers a voice in the examinations. Unless university colleges were allowed to affiliate themselves to the London University it would be almost impossible to resist the demand for new universities, and whatever difference of opinion there might be in the House, all interested in the higher education of the country would agree that any considerable multiplication of universities would be very undesirable. The Bill created two limits—one, that of the county of London; the other, that of 30 miles—but he submitted that both were arbitrary and very artificial. What they had to look at was the question of communication, and in such a matter the important element was time, not distance. No doubt the object of the Bill was to give certain advantages to London colleges, but the London University would remain a great Imperial institution, and if he were to be told that this Bill was entirely confined to London, he would ask Her Majesty's Government why the agricultural college at Wye was included. The object of the Amendment was to give other colleges, especially in the south-east of England, the advantages which were to be given to the college at Wye, if they wished to avail of them, and if the Senate approved. Brighton, they knew, did desire to avail of these advantages, and Brighton was often called, with truth, a suburb of London, which could not be said of Wye. Surely Brighton had the better claim. Then there was the agricultural college at Cirencester. It was true that it was 20 miles further than Wye, but when the time occupied in getting there was considered, there was very little difference. Then there was an important educational institution at Southampton; there was only a difference of about 15 minutes between the times occupied in getting to London from Southampton and from Wye, and he should like to know on what principle the one was included and the other excluded. Why should a college two hours from London be included, and another college, only two hours and a quarter, be excluded? Then there was the University College at

    1231
    Bristol, which might also wish to be affiliated, in which case the London University would be more convenient than any other. If the arbitrary line proposed in the Bill were drawn, all the colleges in the south-east of England and in East Anglia would be excluded. There was no such narrow limit in the case of Victoria University. All he asked was that the university should be allowed to include these colleges if it thought fit. He submitted that the Senate should be allowed discretion in the matter, and should not be debarred from admitting these colleges. There were a number of colleges springing up in the south-east of England, and many of them held qualifications equal to those of Wye, and it was a most singular position to take up that they should all be excluded. Why were the advantages of the Bill to be extended to Wye, and withheld from equally suitable institutions? All he aimed at was that the Senate should, in their discretion, if they thought fit, Be able to admit other colleges. It could not be seriously said that the agricultural college at Wye was the only country college suitable for admission to the advantages to be conferred under the Bill. He begged to move.
    SIR F. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, why Wye? I represent a constituency which has a great college, and I naturally ask myself, what is the principle underlying this Bill? You can come up from Southampton to London as quickly as you can come from Wye. Have the Government been working on a kind of Euclid proposition by taking a centre and describing a circle at a radius of 30 miles? Surely the south of England, which is further from Oxford and Cambridge, has a right to be included in this university Bill. I know that Southampton is most anxious to share in its benefits, and I can hardly fancy the Vice-President of the Council arguing against its claim.
    SIR J. GORST: If the object of the Bill is to be carried out, and if a teaching university for London is to be created, some limit must, be fixed, and I think that the radius of 30 miles in the Full is a very liberal limit. A limit of any kind is very hard to keep, but if it is not kept
    1232
    the university would cease to be a teaching university for London, and would interfere with the Victoria University, and other universities in the Midlands and in Wales. The whole principle of the Bill is the maintenance of this new teaching university as a university for London. It has been asked, why did we let in Wye. Wye is situated, geographically, in Kent, but the college is essentially a London institution. It is an agricultural college, maintained by the county council of Surrey, out of London's money, and is in reality a London institution. The college at Southampton is an excellent college, but it owes its existence to the public spirit of Southampton, and it differs from the agricultural college at Wye, inasmuch as it is not a London institution. I am very sorry not to be able to admit these various colleges into the Bill, but it is impossible to make it more comprehensive, and I must ask the House to be firm and not extend further the very liberal limit proposed in the Bill.
    SIR J. S. BARRINGTON SIMEON: I tried very hard to find out why the 30-mile limit had been fixed at all. The only thing I was ever told was that if it were not fixed the Bill would interfere with Oxford and Cambridge. What is the use of a London University, which is only a teaching university for London alone, and excludes such colleges as that at Southampton;' It is simply for London alone. It may be said that in years to come a southern university will be established, but meantime we will be losing enormous advantages; and it is extremely hard that this limit should be imposed upon us. My right honourable Friend the Member for the University of London has said all I wish to say, and my honourable colleague in the representation of Southampton has spoken on behalf of the college there, but it seems to me there is no earthly reason why the limit should be established at all, and I very much hope the House of Commons will wisely decide to remove it.
    MR. STUART (, Hoston): The honourable Gentleman says that there is no reason why the university should not extend everywhere, but there is no hindrance proposed in the Bill, as

    1233
    colleges such as that at Southampton will have the same advantages as they have been getting. The honourable Gentleman seems to think there is something wrong in confining the Bill to London, but the reply is that the object of the Bill is to provide a teaching university for London—not for the whole nation. There are various other universities, but London is the only great centre which has not one. I candidly confess I think it would have been wise to have confined the Bill to the county of London, but I have no objection to its extension, under certain limits. We all know that London is an immense metropolitan area, and for a metropolitan university it is, perhaps, only fair that its advantages should extend 30 miles from the centre of London; but I think the most consistent means would be to have restricted the Bill to the county of London. The object of the Bill is to establish a teaching university in London—not to extinguish the London University, as it at present stands. It will be retained exactly as it is, but a new teaching university will be created. Many of us were most anxious that the new-university should be established, quite apart from the existing University of London, but we were prevented from taking that course. In conclusion, I think that we, in the Metropolis, have a right to this university.
    MR. GEDGE: The Vice-President tells us that the only reason why the London University is not to have the power of affiliation is that it might injure other universities. Healthy competition is the best thing that can happen to the London University, and there can only be danger to other universities if it is better than they are, and if, in consequence, colleges naturally desire to affiliate with it. I think it is better that there should be rivalry of competition. No one who has spoken against the Amendment has shown that any harm would result from it, and I believe it would do a great deal of good. I sincerely hope that this is not a party matter, and that the House will accept the Amendment, and extend the scope of the Bill.
    MR. HARDY: Not only the county of Surrey, but also the county of Kent is largely without the administrative aid to be given under this Bill. Another reason why the college at Wye, in the county of Kent, should be included in this Bill is that Kent also assists in its support. If the Government can go further, and give the south-eastern counties the advantages for which they pay, I shall be glad to support the honourable Member in that way, but I trust we shall not lose the advantages that we pay for.
    *MR. E. GRAY: I quite agree that examination and teaching ought to be brought into harmony in what has been called a teaching university. It is, no doubt, a very good thing, but why should not the principle be extended to those colleges which are beyond the 30-mile radius? If it be good for the Metropolis, why should it not be extended to those colleges outside the 30-mile radius? What possible harm can be done to London by extending it to the colleges outside? It seems to me that here is an attempt being made to fill the benches in certain institutions within the metropolitan area, and in order to do that an artificial line is to be drawn round London, and that colleges inside a certain radius are to be recognised, and those which are, owing to their geographical position, outside the area, are not to be recognised, and so they will not, in the nature of things, have any opportunity of affiliating with the University of London. It may be said that universities will be formed to which they could affiliate themselves—that a university will be established in Birmingham; well, then, the Birmingham University would naturally attract to it all the colleges in that district which, up to that time, had, for want of anything better, been affiliated to London. It may be said that a university will also be established which would cover the south-western districts. Would anyone suggest the probability of such a university attaching to itself all the excellent colleges established on the south coast, in Hampshire, Sussex. Surrey, and Kent? Where are those colleges to be in the future? Here you

    1235
    have colleges inside the 30-mile radius of London, and colleges outside the radius, doing the same work as those within the 30-mile area, and, so far as I can see, any one of our ordinary polytechnics may be regarded as a college of this university, and those excellent colleges outside cannot. My right honourable Friend says we must assent to this' restriction. When he gives me any good reason for doing so, I am prepared to follow his advice, but in this case I cannot see any sound reason for drawing this imaginary line around London, and excluding all the colleges which are outside that area from the benefit conferred upon those which are in side this so-called metropolitan area It seems to me that it is a mistake to say there will be a material benefit conferred upon London by this Bill. I confess I cannot see it in that light. It will confer a benefit upon the existing university institutions, but beyond that it will certainly not confer any benefit whatever upon the Metropolis. I think that whatever benefit there may be ought to be extended to all those colleges beyond the radius, and, therefore, I shall support the Amendment. I am not one of those who say that every college claiming to be, ought to be a university college, but I do think that the university should have the power, whenever they think it desirable, to include colleges beyond the radius which are doing university work. I cannot see what objection there can be to the Amendment, but I do see that a great good would arise from its acceptance, and I think there will be a great deal of heartburning in the districts outside upon the part of those colleges who look to the University of London, and will have to come, can in hand as it were, although they have adopted the same curriculum, claim the same certificates, teach the same subjects, and do the same advantages of harmonious complishing the same objects. I believe it is placing those provincial colleges in an unfair position. I am very, very anxious to see extended to them the same advantages of harmonious combination between the teaching and the examinations. I do not believe in regarding these examinations as the chief feature of academic work. I
    1236
    think it is better to look to the teaching work, and, therefore, let us put a stamp upon the teaching in the good provincial schools, where such good work is done, and can be done hereafter, just as well as it can be done now. I think some concession might be made upon these points. I think the Government do not recognise how strong opinion is upon this matter in the provinces among all those who are interested in education and the management of the colleges. The force of that opinion has not yet been brought to bear upon this Bill which is now before the House, but those who have become alive to what the provisions of the Bill really mean are opposing it upon that ground. If this Amendment is accepted, all these objections would disappear, but so long as the provincial colleges are excluded, one cannot be blamed for attempting to amend the Bill.
    MR. HALDANE: There may be considerable feeling existing in the provinces arising out of this matter, but it is a feeling which is, in my opinion, based upon an entire misconception as to the objects of this Bill This Bill is not a Measure which has for its object the aggregating of colleges with the University of London. If that were so, then they might pick and choose a different area, and take the colleges in the group, and the result would be that you would have a government of the colleges, and the superintending of them going on in their particular centres. That is not the scheme of this Bill. What this Bill pro poses to do is to create the university, not by colleges, but by faculties. It proposes to take one standard. A student would come and would matriculate, and then would present himself at Burlington Gardens, and say that lit wished to study at the University. Then what would be said to him? That he must start the curriculum, that he must follow the regulations, and he would be referred to his teachers, and would study under them. Now, how would the curriculum be arranged by the individual teachers? By meeting in their faculties, and putting their heads together, and discussing it, and making their various comments, and then submitting plans to the academic council, which would enable them to describe at any time the nature

    1237
    of the curriculum; so that the student learns under his particular teachers what he should learn before he comes in. That necessitates that the individual teachers should Be often together, that they should come together and form themselves into associations, which is impossible unless they are within a certain locality, where they can say what is to be the curriculum at a particular college, but the metropolitan rules provide that the teachers should come together, and to do their work on the spot. Now, how does the Bill work that out? It takes a limit, it is true. That is because it is connected practically with matters in London, and organised from London. Then why have they taken the 30-mile radius? Because a 30-mile radius might easily include those colleges which might be looked upon as of a London character, and the 30-mile limit was adopted in order to bring those colleges within the scope of the University. It is necessary to have a local area within which the teachers might come together, and that object would be defeated if you brought in colleges from a greater distance, and would be absolutely fatal to the Bill. My right honourable Friend the Member for the University knows, if this Amendment were to be carried, it would be inconsistent with the principle which the

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Baker. Sir John

    Hardy, Laurence

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Balfour,Rt,Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Harwood, George

    Roberts, John Brvn (Eifion)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hazell, Walter

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Brigg, John

    Holburn, J. G.

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Caldwell, James

    Joicey, Sir James

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Labouchere, Henry

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Souttar, Robinson

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lloyd-George, David

    Spicer, Albert

    Clark. Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Colville, John

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    McEwan, William

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Duckworth, James

    Monk, Charles James

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Fenwick, Charles

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Foster. Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    Tellers for the Ayes—

    Gedge, Sydney

    Pearson. Sir Weetman D.

    Sir Francis Evans and Sir Barrington Simeon.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    House adopted upon the Second Reading of the Bill.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I do not know that at all.
    MR. HALDANE: Then I cannot help thinking that all those with whom the right honourable Baronet works most frequently, regard this Amendment as fatal to the Bill.
    MR. HARWOOD: I merely wish to point out to the Committee that I think the Government ought to consider, not only this question by itself, but also to have some regard to the general feeling of the country. We have pointed out that there is a strong feeling upon this matter, and I think we may fairly ask where is there any hope for the colleges south of the Thames, if not here. I do not see where, for instance, a college at Brighton can have any chance of affiliating with a university, if not with London. I think we ought to give the university the power I ask for under this Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 183.—(Division List No. 252.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Mount, William George

    Arnold, Alfred

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Asher, Alexander

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Newdigate, Francis A.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Maner)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Garfit, William

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Purvis, Robert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Bethell, Commander

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Bigwood, James

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Bill, Charles

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Round, James

    Bond, Edward

    Greville, Captain

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Brassey, Albert

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Sharpe, William Kdward T.

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Hanburv, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Sidebotham; J. W. (Cheshire)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Henderson, Alexander

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Butcher, John George

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Smith. Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Carlile, William Walter

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Howard, Joseph

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

    Kenyon, James

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Knowles, Lees

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry

    Charrington, Spencer

    Lafone, Alfred

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lowles, John

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc.,SW)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wylie, Alexander

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Jambs)

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Tellers for the Noes—

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Milton, Viscount

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Drucker, A.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    More, Robert Jasper

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 11, after 'elected,' insert 'by voting papers delivered personally or sent by post as at present.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: The schedule provides that the Senate shall be elected—
    "seventeen by the Convocation, of whom the chairman of Convocation shall be one, and

    1241
    the remaining sixteen shall be elected by the registered graduates in their separate faculties in such proportions as the Statutory Commission shall determine."
    Now, my Amendment provides that the election shall be
    "by voting papers delivered personally or sent by post as at present."
    I hope that after the lengthy discussion we have had the House will realise that the members of the Senate are spread all over the country and a, very small proportion of them reside in London, and that by far the great majority of them live at great distances from the Metropolis, and their occupations make it highly inconvenient to attend the meetings of the Senate. I am not ashamed of it, but I am proud to confess that most of the members of Convocation are more or less poor men, and that is one reason why they belong to the London University. Now I am sure that the House would not desire to take part in passing anything which would put a kind of penalty upon these poor men who would have to pay very heavily to come up to London. Now the question is whether they shall be allowed to vote as in other centres by post. The right honourable Gentleman and others have been inclined to sneer at postcard voting, but why I do not know. The right honourable Gentleman himself has a personal interest in this kind of voting, which should make him somewhat kinder to this principle. Well, as I have said, we have had sneers about this postcard voting, but this is an occasion for electing persons not by complicated details but exactly in the same way as they vote for members of the Senate in other universities, and I would point out to the House how much more important it is to remember this fact. When Convocation was assembled it voted in favour of the system of voting proposed in this Bill. And why? Because that gathering was naturally attended by members residing in or near London who can conveniently attend. But when the whole constituency was appealed to by this postcard voting, that is when members were allowed to vote who could not come up to London, that decision was reversed, and it was reversed by about an equal number of those who voted for it in the
    1242
    other case. This shows that if you want to get at the true opinion you must allow them to vote in this way, which is the only possible way to obtain the opinion of the bulk of the members. There are two reasons why these members cannot fairly be expected to come up to London and vote on matters of this kind. In the first place, it is not an easy thing for a man to come up to London from the North of England to spend moment or two in voting, and then to go home perhaps 200 or 300 miles. It is perfectly reasonable to allow that a man may express his opinion when the matter is put before him by circular or by postcard. The bulk of the members of Convocation are men engaged in active and somewhat compulsory occupations. Often they are teachers of schools holding high positions, many of which make it impossible fur them to get away.
    Question put—
    "That these words stand part of the clause."
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 15, leave out 'four by the,' and insert 'one by each of the four.'"—(Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, end of line 15, to insert 'one by the Society of Apothecaries.'"—(Dr. Clarl.)
    DR. CLARK: The constitution of the Senate has been entirely changed from what it was recommended to be by the Commission. According to that recommendation there would have been 11 elected by the Convocation, four from the faculties, and five from the outside bodies. Now you are only giving four from these outside bodies, and you have dropped altogether the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the Society of Apothecaries, and so far from the medical section being twice as numerous as recommended by the Commission there will now only be about half a dozen. Now I want to know why this

    1243
    change has been made in the constitution of this very important body. Of course, as far as several of the colleges are concerned, they tare not doing any educational work at all, for it is being done by the various hospitals.
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I cannot accept any alteration in the constitution of the Senate, which has already a very wide representation.
    DR. CLARK: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 23, leave out from 'by' to end of line 24, and insert 'Convocation in the manner above mentioned.'"—(Mr. Griffith.)
    MR. GRIFFITH: On behalf of the honourable Member for South-west Bethnal Green I beg leave to move this Amendment. The Bill provides—
    "That if, and as long as, any of the above-mentioned bodies fail to exercise the power of appointment hereby given, in every such case the power shall be exercised by Her Majesty with the advice of the Privy Council."
    The Amendment of my honourable Friend is to secure that the power of appointing shall not be exercised by Her Majesty, but by the Convocation. It has been the contention all along that the Convocation has not been sufficiently representative in this matter. It has only 16 or 17 members, and we do think that if there should be a lapse in the number of the Senate that lapse should prove to the benefit of the Convocation. They have very little power now, and they only elect 17 out of 55, and surely it is reasonable to ask that should there be one or two seats vacant they should be filled up by the Convocation.
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid that I could not accept this proposal, because in the event of any of the representatives of these particular bodies vacating their seats their places should be filled by men of the same character and class as their predecessors.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 33, leave out 'or other adequate test,' from the following provision in the schedule: 'No procedure to a higher degree shall be allowed without examination or other adequate test.'"(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: I cannot, Mr. Speaker, quite understand what sort of a method is supposed to be established by this proviso. What is an adequate test for a degree in reference to this university? What parallel or precedent have we for anything of the kind that you Should provide for a degree by some other adequate test? I think the House has a right to know what is meant by the words "other adequate test." As far as my knowledge goes this is a perfectly unique condition, and I move to omit these words, because it is opening the door to a principle which this House should watch with great jealousy, and which should be carefully watched particularly by those interested in the present university degrees. Those degrees have their value, because it is well understood in the country that they are granted after examination, and by examination only. I am quite aware that it is possible to exaggerate the value of an examination, but at any rate you must have some kind of test, and that test has always been adopted by the London University. But if we establish they are not to mean examinations at all, but some other adequate test, it will not only open the door to a number of people coming in who ought not to come in, but it will lower very considerably the value of the degrees, because you will not know whether it has been obtained by an examination or by this other method. I move this Amendment because I believe that if these words are retained it will set up a bad precedent.
    SIR J. GORST: I wish to remind the honourable Member opposite that I explained the question as to the meaning of these words to him in reply to a question on the Standing Committee, and I thought that I had explained it to his satisfaction.
    MR. HARWOOD: No, no!
    SIR J. GORST: I explained that in many oases a candidate for a higher degree was sometimes required to write a thesis or to do some piece of original work, and that was the qualification. That was fully explained to the honourable Member before, and I thought that he was entirely satisfied on the point. I do hope now that he will withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. BRYCE: I think the practice which the right honourable Gentleman has described is the practice of the University of London at the present moment.
    MR. HARWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 34, leave out from 'confer' to the end of line 35."—(Captain Norton.)
    CAPTAIN NORTON: The words to me seem to be on a par with certain bogus proceedings at High-gate, where some people added the words "unless they liked it better." If these words are not erased the authorities will have power to confer degrees without any examination at all and without any test; in fact, they will be able to give degrees to certain teachers who have hitherto failed to obtain them, and they will thereby lower the value of the degree both in regard to passing the examination and in the eyes of those persons who already possess them. With reference to what has been stated about the higher degrees this is not a question of higher degrees at all. Everybody knows that the first degree is a degree of great importance, and at Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin Universities they are carefully protected and the authorities are very careful not to admit any of the outside smaller colleges. But according to this you might have students from a college in Wales obtaining a degree in the London University. It does seem to me that this places absolute power in the hands of the university to give the degrees to every person they may think fit without any test whatever. It has been stated
    1246
    that an examination is not always the best test of knowledge. I frankly admit that, but after all examination is the only test we know of at the present time. The thesis test may be very effective, but I hold that at present nowhere is a degree granted unless there is at certain periods a definite examination.
    SIR J. GORST: In the first instance it was pointed out to the Government that this was a very invidious restriction, and they consented to admit it and allow this university a right which every other university has to confer these degrees if they liked without examination, but it was only to be done in exceptional cases in which there was some particular merit or service on the part of the recipient which justified the granting of the degree. The Government consented to that, and now they are being called into question on that account for making that concession. I think that concession was a right one to make, because we are only giving the same power as that which is possessed by other universities.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: I certainly think that the clause is now much better thaw when it indicated that such degrees might be conferred only on the teachers of the university. I would remind my right honourable Friend that although the existing university has this power to confer degrees without examination it has never exercised it, which tends to show that care and discrimination will be exercised by the Senate, and that the power may well be continued, as it may be useful on great academic occasions, and may lead to reciprocity.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, after line 4, insert—
    "The Senate shall from time to time appoint visitors, who shall periodically visit and report direct to the Senate upon the curriculum of and the instruction given by the respective constituent colleges or schools of the university and the recognised teachers, whether belonging to schools of the university or not."—(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: What I am proposing is what has all along been maintained, and I do not think that the working of the schedule will bear out the interpretation which has been put upon it. When you look lower down in clause 8, section (b), of the schedule it provides—
    "Members of the teaching stuffs of public educational institutions."
    When we refer to the Report we find that there were a certain number of institutions which the Commission recommended should be made schools of the university. There were 25 institutions mentioned, and it is recommended that this number shall be the beginning from which this London University is going to grow up. Now I propose to make this proposal in the interests of these schools. If this teaching university is to be a success it is necessary that the institutions which go to compose it shall be brought up to as high a level as possible. It is absurd to make a university school of something which is not of a university character, and honourable Members know quite well that these various institutions differ very much in this respect. I do not wish at this late hour to enter into particulars, but it is a well-known fact that many of these institutions are not up to a university standard, and that the teaching and the general character of them is not what it should be. Now we have already passed a Resolution that the university should be able to grant these institutions sums of money. Well, surety it is a fundamental principle of our constitution that, if Parliament grants public money, at any rate there should be some security that it is properly expended. In this matter I am following the precedent of the London University itself. Here is the very instance that we are pressing upon the Government, and I should like to repeat that I personally feel that it is my duty not to wreck this Bill, but to try to make it as good as it can be made. I say that it is a necessity in establishing this university that we should insert some power to see that these institutions do all they can do in the interests of education. That is only a fair return not only for the money granted but for the position which has been given
    1248
    to them. We have heard it stated in the Debate that they do give something back and that they are doing their utmost to bring their teaching up to the proper level. But how is it to be done? Why, it can only be done by some kind of a Committee that will go round periodically, I do not say at what time, to examine the school and to report. They may find the school falling back, and it may be found necessary to compel them to bring thing's back to the proper level or to out off the grant. I say in the interests of these schools it is distinctly to the advantage of this Bill that some such provision should be provided.
    SIR J. GORST: Surely this is a matter more for the Senate than for the consideration of the House, and surely it is not for this House to prescribe what particular line the Senate is to exercise. I do not think the Commissioners themselves would propose a hard and fast rule, as the honourable Member seems to do in this Amendment. I do not approve of it, and I hope the House will not accept it.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: Would the Senate have any power to appoint these visitors if there is no condition to that effect inserted in the Bill?
    SIR J. GORST: Certainly the Senate has that power, and I should think it is absolute.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: If the Senate will have the power, then I think the matter might very well be left where it is. I should have thought, however, that the Senate would have no control whatever over these institutions unless some such words were inserted in the Bill.
    SIR J. GORST: The Senate would certainly have the power.
    MR. HALDANE: On page 52 of the Cowper Commission Report it states that they should be open to visitation.
    *SIR C. DILKE: I do not think that a great many honourable Members have in their minds what these colleges really are. There are 10 schools of medicine, four schools of music, six theological colleges, and a great number of these institutions are not institutions which at present stand very high. Undoubtedly it must tend to the advantage of university teaching to bring bodies of this kind under something like efficient control. The Commissioners are to take this power upon themselves without the direction of this House, and it does seem to me to be a most invidious task that they are asked to undertake. I think we ought to take some steps to secure what this Amendment proposes.
    MR. GRIFFITH: The honourable Member has referred to page 52 of the Report with reference to the schools being open to visitation. I think this shows conclusively the danger of compromising. Now, whether the thing is necessary or not, or whether it can be done without this Amendment or not, does not seem to me to be very material. Why should we leave everything in the hands of the Commission? Why should we deliver the whole future of this university to the control of this Commission, as to whose views we know little or nothing? I think the House is per-

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Baker, Sir John

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Joicey, Sir James

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Brigg, John

    Labouchere, Henry

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Lea. Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Butcher, John George

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Walton, J. (Barnsley)

    Caldwell, James

    Lubbock, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Cawley, Frederick

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Norton, Capt. C. William

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

    Colville, John

    Pearson, Sir W. D.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Philipps, John Wynford

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Doogan, P. C.

    Provand, Andrew D.

    Mr. Harwood and Sir Albert Rollit

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

    Evans. Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    fectly right in saying, "We will leave no option to the Commissioners, but we say that you must do it." The House will see, I think, that it is not one of the functions that should be delegated to others.
    SIR W. PRIESTLEY: The medical council adopted this method of visitation quite voluntarily. I believe there is nothing in the Act that compels them to do it; therefore I think the matter may be very well left to the Senate.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: It seems to me that we have no alternative but to indicate the duty of the Senate respecting the colleges included in the Bill. I think there is a clear Parliamentary precedent with regard to the university colleges of Great Britain, because they are subject to a Treasury examination before the amounts are paid over. That seems to me to be an exact precedent, and surely if we are going to recognise and subsidise university teaching in these colleges we ought to see that the work and teaching are effectively conducted.
    Question put—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 160.—(Division List No. 253.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

    Elliot, Hon. A. R. D.

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Asher, Alexander

    Fellowes, Hon. A. E.

    Milton, Viscount

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Monk, Charles James

    Bagot, Capt. J. F.

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    More, Robert Jasper

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Fisher, William Haves

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Mount, William George

    Balfour,Rt. Hon. J.B.(Clackm.)

    Fletchen, Sir Henry

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Foster, H. S. (Suffolk)

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

    Gedge, Sydney

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Godson, Sir A. F.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Bethell, Commander

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Bill, Charles

    Gosehen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Birrell, Augustine

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bond, Edward

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M W.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Greville, Captain

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Brassey, Albert

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Round, James

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Ryder, John H. D.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bucknill, Thomas T.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hardy, Laurence

    Smith, J. P. (Lanark)

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Hazell, Walter

    Souttar, Robinson

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Cecil Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Howard, Joseph

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Kenyon, James

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Chelsea, Viscount

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Knowles, Lees

    Warner, T. C. T.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Warr, A. F.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawrence, SirEDurning (Corn.)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Welby, Lient.-Col. A. C. E.

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Cwrie

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Llewelyn,SirDillwyn (Sw'ns a)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Loder, G. W. E.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Curzon, RtHn. G. N. (Lanc,SW)

    Long, Rt, Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lowles, John

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 12, after 'twenty,' insert 'eight.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: My proposal is to add eight to the council for external students. At present the provisions in
    1252
    the schedule for the academic council is—
    "This Committee shall consist of the sixteen members of the Senate, appointed by the faculties, the three ex officio members and a senator or senators, elected by the Senate to make the number of members up to twenty."

    1253
    That is to say, there is only one member elected from outside besides the ex officio members, but when you come to the external students there are nine appointed from outside. The proviso for the council for external students is—
    "This Committee shall consist of the sixteen members of the Senate appointed by convocation, other than the chairman of convocation, the three ex officio members and senators, elected by the senate to make the number of members up to twenty-eight."
    Now, I do not understand why this distinction is drawn, and I do not know why the outside element should be nine in the case of external students, whilst in the case of internal students it is only one. It seems to me that in order to secure the proper working of these two bodies there should be a sufficiently large external element upon the academic council. If it is not too large in the case of external students, then it is too small in the case of internal students, and I wish to remedy this by moving this Amendment.
    SIR J. GORST: This matter was thoroughly discussed on the Standing Committee, and I do not think we ought to accept this proposal.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 29, to omit the word 'public'"—(Mr. Griffiths.)
    MR. GRIFFITH: The clause would then read—
    "Members of the teaching staffs of educational institutions."
    In reply to a question from this side of the House, it was said that anyone could not be a teacher of the university, although he was a teacher attached to a private teaching establishment. My honourable Friend behind me put that question.
    MR. HALDANE: No, I did not.
    MR. GRIFFITH: The question put, I understand, was whether a man who took part in private teaching, or cramming, or "coaching," could be recognised as a teacher of this university, and
    1254
    I understand from my honourable Friend that he could not. Well, I do not see any reason for limiting this proviso to the members of public educational institutions. I am not quite sure what a public educational institution means. Is it an educational institution to which any member of the public is admitted, on payment of the requisite fee, or is it a term which has some special meaning? I beg to move this Amendment, in order that I may get this information.
    SIR J. GORST: Public institutions, of course, mean institutions carried on with public money, to which the general public are admitted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, lines 29 and 30, leave out 'situate within a radius of 30 miles from the university buildings.'"—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
    *SIB J. LUBBOCK: I should like to ask my right honourable Friend whether, after the discussion we have had, he does not think he could insert the words proposed in my Amendment, so as to admit the colleges in the southeast of England. There was some objection made as regards colleges in the north of England, but unless my Amendment be accepted there will be no university to which colleges in the South of England, outside London, can be affiliated. I may point out to the House that no teacher, unless he belongs to some recognised college within the 30-mile radius, will be able to become a teacher of the university.
    *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I rather understood from the observations, of the honourable Member that his Amendment raises precisely the same question as the point which I have previously ruled upon.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: It is not precisely so. I want to ask my right honourable Friend whether he would not leave out the 30-mile limit, and put in some words that will admit the colleges in the southeast of England.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I Understand that when a college is said to be included, it

    1255
    does not mean anything more than that the members of the teaching staff are to be included. If that is so, this is the same Amendment.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: My first Amendment included colleges over the whole of England. This refers only to colleges in the south-east. I do not wish to occupy the time of the House on this point, but I do ask the right honourable Gentleman, after the discussion we have had, whether he will not introduce some words which will admit these other colleges.
    *MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that directly you get outside the 30-mile limit you are including the whole of England. The Amendment is out of order.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 36, leave out 'matriculated at.' and insert 'passed the matriculation examination of.'"—(Mr. Brigg.)
    MR. BRIGG: Au the clause at present stands, it reads—
    "Internal students of the university are students who have matriculated at the university, and who are pursuing a course of study approved by the university in a school or schools of the university, or under one or more of the recognised teachers of the university."
    The meaning of the word "matriculated" in this case could not mean "passed the matriculation examination." If that is not so, it may mean anything, and there is no uniformity as to the qualification. I merely move this Amendment to ask for a further explanation.
    SIR J. GORST: I think this might very well be left to the Commissioners, who have all had great experience in matters of this kind.
    MR. BRIGG: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 7, after line 21, insert '(c) The Examiners of the University.'"—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: The clause at present provides—
    "Boards of studies shall be constituted for the subjects of university study. The members of each board of studies shall be appointed by the Senate from—members of a faculty who teach or examine in the board's subjects; other teachers of the university who teach the board's subjects."
    I propose to add to this list the examiners of the university. It is the practice now of the Senate to confer with the examiners for the guidance of the university on the subjects of the curricula, but the chief ground, Sir, upon which I move this Amendment is that the examiners are those who have the most relations with the external students, and it becomes a very important function to coordinate the work of the students with the examinations. And, otherwise, the boards of studies will have upon them no representative whatever of subjects of external study, and it does seem to me that the examiners, in addition, by looking where the points of teaching are defective, are among the very best advisers which the Senate can possibly have. I beg to move.
    SIR J. GORST: I think this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, because the honourable Member will see, with regard to the boards of study, that—
    "The Senate may also appoint such other persons, not exceeding one-fourth of the total number of the boards, as they may think fit."
    That would give the Senate the power to secure the services of the examiners, if they thought it advisable to put them on the boards of studies.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 7, line 28, leave out from begining of line to the second 'and' in line 30, and insert—
    "The matriculation examination in the University, and all subsequent examinations in each faculty of the university, shall be the same for all students, whether external or internal, and no student, whether internal or external, shall be allowed to present any certificate in lieu of any such examination, or of any part thereof."—(Sir C. Dilke.)
    *SIR C. DILKE: This Amendment is one of the only two Amendments which I ventured to place on the Paper, and this question was not dealt with in Committee.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: It was dealt with.
    *SIR C. DILKE: Well, at all events, the opinion of the Grand Committee was not taken upon this subject, which seems one of the most important subjects, from an educational point of view, in the whole of the Bill. Now, Sir, we are creating a great new educational ideal, and the first thing; Parliament ought to look to is that we should not depreciate the standard, but do our best to raise it rather than to lower it. I cannot but believe—and I know that a great many Members opposite are of the game opinion on this particular point—that the effect of the words, as they stand in this Bill, will be to permanently depreciate the education given in this University. I have read, over and over again, the words in the Report which concern this subject, and we know how deservedly high stands the examination of the present London University. We know how admirable is the matriculation, and we know how high it stands throughout the country. Well, Sir, I have read over and over again the words in which the Commission recommend that there shall be two classes of examination for this University, one for the new class of students, and another for the existing class of students—that is, the internal and external students. Well, I see no justification for this. I cannot understand what they mean, or where they derive the ground-work for the recommendation they make. In the hope of eliciting some explanation of that which was not explained in the Grand Committee, and which seems to me to be a blot upon the Bill, I move this Amendment. This proposal of mine is a very sweeping and strongly-worded one, and I believe that the Government have some compromise in their mind in regard to it. But the compromise, suggested to me is not one which ought to prevent us going to a Division upon this point. But, although it is a sweeping proposal, I am by no means disposed to reject some understanding. I thought it
    1258
    best to put the Amendment down in the strongest possible terms, in order that it might be laid down that one educational standard might be maintained in this University, and for this reason I beg to move this Amendment.
    SIR J. GORST: The proposal of the right honourable Baronet is not of very great importance, but if it were adopted it would practically destroy the Bill. It has been asserted by those interested in the external students that they are likely to suffer from the easier examination, but I think this is an entirely mistaken idea, and I do not think that the teachers are at all likely to lower the quality of the degrees which are conferred upon them. I think the tendency of the teachers is rather to raise those degrees. That, however, was the allegation that was made. The intention of the Bill was, however, very clear. It approves of the double examination, and the external students are entitled to have a separate examination of their own, controlled by a separate body, and every possible precaution has been taken that that examination shall not in any way lower the standard of the examination which is held in connection with the University of London. That was the arrangement which has been come to, and if the Government or the House of Commons were to upset that arrangement, it would undo everything which the Bill has devised. Therefore, upon those grounds, and upon the ground that those who profess to represent the teachers and external students whose assent to the Bill was promised by a compromise, it is impossible to surrender to this proposed change.
    *MR. E. GRAY: The Amendment does not seem to have been dealt with upon its merits, but is dealt with by virtue of some mysterious arrangement between those who were parties to a compromise of which we have had no definite information. We do not know what the compromise is, and beyond what the right honourable Gentleman has said, we have no means of knowing. It is a subject which I raised upon the Second Reading of this Bill, and I want the House to realise the position in which the Bill proposes to place us. I

    1259
    do not propose to detain the House more than a minute or two, but I think the subject is of such great importance that the House ought to consider it. At present, whether the students be taught privately or not, either in or out of London, they all attend for the one matriculation examination. They follow along the same course, taking the same series of examinations, and finishing by holding one certificate and one degree. Now, all that is to be changed. The Bill provides for three Committees—the Academic Council, the Council for External Students, and the Council for the Extension of University Teaching. With the third I have nothing to do; I have to deal with the Academic-Council for the internal students, and with the special Council for the external students. Now, I want to place before the House this position: there are a number of colleges throughout the country engaged in exactly the same work, taking exactly the same curriculum, which is clearly defined by the Educational Department. I refer to the training colleges at which teachers are being prepared for their work. Now, these colleges are at present allowed to substitute the degree examinations for the ordinary certificate, which, until the last few years, was required by the Education Department. I refer to some of those colleges, such as those at York, Brighton, and Cambridge, colleges for men and colleges for women, which, having trained their students for one year, will send them up to London to obtain their degree at the London University. That has been their practice in the past. Now, my honourable Friend opposite says that they will not be placed in any worse position in the future than they have been in the past. Well, speaking absolutely, that is so, but comparatively that is not the case. It is true that they are not in any worse position than they have been in the past, except in comparison with other students working for the same degrees, and striving to secure the same position. Those who secure residence in London colleges will have the advantages of internal students, and to that extent the students attending the exterior colleges will be placed at a very great disadvantage when coming out to perform the same work and the same duties in the public schools in the country, for
    1260
    it will be found that they find that they hold in their hands two different degrees, differently described, differently stamped—one as an external and the other as an internal student. Let me carry the case a little further and show the House how exceedingly absurd the new position will be. It will be perfectly possible for a man to attend one of the training colleges within the London area, where he will merely attend for a few hours, to get a certain amount of teaching from persons recognised as professors of the university, but he is in the favoured district within the London area. He will come out as a student of the university, as one of the internal students attending the examination for the internal students, taught by a professor in the university. But outside the 30-mile radius you will have your residential colleges, where you get the benefit of academic discipline, the teachers holding higher degrees, and yet teaching the same subject, and the students will get the whole benefits of the university career; but they will be external students, and they will be deprived of the privileges and advantages of the students in London. I do draw the earnest attention of the Vice-President of the Council to this position, which materially affects the supply of teachers. The right honourable Gentleman admitted a few nights ago in the course of the Debate that there was a real grievance here. He pointed out to the House, I think, that a number of persons sought admission to particular colleges, and failed to gain admission because they had not applied to a college where they might have been admitted. Now, if this Bill is passed, the position will be worse. The advantages as compared with the country will be so great that there will be a rush upon the London training colleges. They will pay to secure admission, and the others will be shut out into the cold altogether, and those young persons will have no opportunity of getting an efficient training. I have been receiving almost by every post during the past few days letters drawing my attention to this ridiculous position. They hold that there will be two different standards for the external and internal students, and if the examination for the internal students is easier and more possible to obtain the degree, there will be

    1261
    a rush for it. I do not think that that will be for the benefit of the country, nor do I believe that the confusion which will obtain as to the relative merits of the degree will be to the advantage of education throughout the country. But, if there is one thing more necessary in regard to a degree than another, it is that the public should know its real value, and at what examination it was secured. There will be hopeless confusion in a few years' time as to the degree granted to the internal student and the degree granted to the external student at different examinations. The Vice-President of the Council tells us this Amendment will be fatal to the Bill, not because it will injure the London University, but because it will injure this compromise. Well, that is an argument which I cannot accept as a sound or valid one at all. Now, if the right honourable Gentleman could show that this Bill will insure the benefits which it seeks to confer, or that this Amendment would diminish the advantages which London will secure upon the passing of this Bill, or that it will injure the other London colleges, I for one should withhold my hand. But I cannot conceive that the continuance of one examination and one degree which has obtained such great respect in the country from the days when the London University was founded down to the present time; I cannot conceive that the continuance of that degree will in any way injure London; but I do see, however, that the education of the country will be materially injured by the establishment of two forms of examination, and therefore I cordially support this Amendment. I do hope, if the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President cannot accept this proposal, that he will at least see his way to strike out the latter part of the clause. I hope the compromise will be retained whatever it may be, and that the Vice-President may be able to see his way to at least give the external student more advantages. I would venture to remind the House that when we had this Bill before us in Committee there was in it a clause which permitted an internal student, if he chose, to take the examination for the external student, and that was the desire of those who framed this Bill, and were parties to the compromise. I for one cannot see why you should not
    1262
    give the external student a like option. I do think it would be for the great good of education generally, and certainly it would increase the high standard, if one and the same examination were insisted upon for all persons who wish to secure one particular degree.
    MR. HALDANE: If I rise for one reason more than another it is to reply to the honourable Gentleman opposite. He asks for a substantial reason why this Amendment should be resisted, which I believe will be absolutely fatal to the intention which this Bill seeks to carry out. I will make one remark only about something which fell from the honourable Member who spoke of the clause having been left out of the Bill which would have given internal students access to the examinations for the external students. Now, that clause provided that students might jump from one examination to the other, and it was to obviate that that the clause was taken out. Now, as to the main question, why is it that those of us interested in this Bill strenuously resist the Amendment of my right honourable Friend? I know my right honourable Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean supports it because of his convictions as to the principle contained in the clause; but what is the answer to it? Why, Sir, the answer is this: this is to be a teaching university in which the students are to come and to be put through, not merely examinations, but a certain curriculum which will give them training and culture, and that can only arise from the personal contact with the teacher when pursuing their studies under individuals who will influence their ideas as well as put knowledge into them. Now, Sir, the object of this system is to test the curriculum—whether in the knowledge of the student he has availed himself of that curriculum. It is not a mere case of the curriculum; it is equally a case of the examination adapting itself to the curriculum. You cannot sever the examination from the curriculum; it is the test taken as to the extent to which the student has come under its influence. When you are dealing with a case in which a student has been pursuing a course of study, in which he has been getting a particular training, you put before him the idea that it will change

    1263
    him, and bring him out a more highly educated man with that advantage which can only come from contact with a great teacher. Let me illustrate this. Suppose a student is going in for the bachelor of science degree, and suppose he is working with some distinguished chemist—say, for instance, Professor Ramsey. Suppose he wants a research degree to work in the laboratory; it is obvious that in that case that test to which he is put will be, presumably, a different test from the test to which he would be put if he came from the outside with no special knowledge of the work he has been doing, or the kind of culture or faculty that he ought to exhibit. Now, Sir, a great deal has been said about the examinations in connection with the University of Dublin, but there are two sides even to that question. I do not know whether honourable Members ever go through a street which is known as Holywell Street. If they do, they will find there a magazine shop, principally for the sale of books of preparation for the examinations in connection with the London University, and it has got a high-sounding title. They take the examiners, and look up their records and papers, and in the most ingenious way prepare pupils in a way which far outstrips anything that can be done by the teacher. The result has been that the colleges are put to a disadvantage because they themselves take, as they are taking in many cases, the complete machinery, which comes from outside. Now, I do not want to see the external examinations interfered with, but let nobody imagine that such examinations always show a very high scale of knowledge. The purpose of this Bill is to train the student and to test the training which he has gone through. I put forward one reason, which I hope will weigh with the House against putting difficulties in the way of examination, and I put another reason forward, which seems conclusive, against the Amendment of my right honourable Friend. My right honourable Friend is aware that under this Bill there is to be a body called the Council for External Students, to look after the affairs of the old university, and to preserve some kind of Home Rule, so to speak. There is also to be another body called the Academic Council, but
    1264
    much smaller, which will control and direct the affairs of the internal side of the university. Now, if you adopt this Amendment, what will be the result? Why, it will be that these important examinations would no longer, in the case of the old university, be under the control of the Council for External Students, for they would be controlled and interfered with by the Academic Council, the body which regulates the affairs of the internal students. You would thus get away from that state of things, in which the status of the university is to be preserved by being under the government of its own representatives. That would arise under the Amendment of my right honourable Friend, and I do not see how this difficulty is to be got over. The best course to take, Mr. Speaker, is the one taken by this Bill. I am aware that there is the difficulty in connection with the training colleges outside the London radius, but that is a geographical expression, and it arises from the misfortune of the other training colleges not being in the university circle; but I hope they will be before very long. But so long as they are not, all we can do is to preserve the privileges which they have had and which they already possess; and their difficulties are certainly no reasons for refusing to the great metropolis of London that teaching university which it is urgently in need of, and which it cannot have unless it is allowed to have the control of certain examinations which are adapted to the curriculum which it imposes.
    MR. BOUSFIELD: My honourable and learned Friend opposite, in the few observations he has made, said that the teaching university to be established is going to give the internal students something which the external students will not get, which will be obtained by actual contact with the teachers of the university. I venture to think that the fallacy of my learned Friend's argument rests in this, that he has used the word "culture" in a different sense to what we use it. My own notion of it is the stereotyped version given by Matthew Arnold, and I have associated with it that idea which one gets there. It is something which cannot be tested by examinations, some-

    1265
    thing which is indefinable, which attaches itself to a man and to his modes, and which you cannot gauge and fix by an examination. Therefore I venture to think that my honourable Friend has used the word "culture" when he should have used the word "knowledge," for that which you can test by examination is the knowledge of a student and not the culture. Take, for instance, the subject to which my honourable Friend has referred; take a subject with which I myself was more familiar in the university—mathematics. It seems to me that those who went to Cambridge and learned mathematics from personal contact with the teachers got their styles and modes of doing things, and what we got was a certain power which we had to apply to other problems. Now I venture to say that the best test of our real capacity for combating with problems is to have them presented to us to see if we have really got the capacity for grappling with those problems. Modes and style are things which, no doubt, one may learn from a teacher, and they are things which may show themselves in the examination; but I venture to say that what the university should test is the knowledge of the student and the power he has got of dealing with different subjects and different problems, and the knowledge winch he has acquired in those schools. It does seem to some of us somewhat of an absurdity, this setting up of a double standard. Well, Sir, the Vice-President of the Council has referred to this as being a matter of compromise. He says that at that stage certain suggestions were thrown out to meet difficulties which presented themselves, and to overcome them it was decided that there should be two sets of examinations, and that was accepted as a sort of compromise which we do not all understand. I venture to say, Sir, that since that time that which was thought to be a solution of the difficulty has only introduced greater difficulties, and the complications which this compromise has introduced are of a much more serious character. I venture to think that the views of those representing the external students would be far better met if the Government would make a concession and say that there should be only one standard of examination. I have had an
    1266
    opportunity of talking over this matter with some of those who will be on the teaching staff, and I may say that some of them do not consider this at all essential to the scope of this Bill. Well, the Vice-President thinks it is essential, and it may be, as a drafting matter, but that it is essential to the scheme as a whole I venture to think nobody can suggest. One hears the object of those interested in the matter, and the hope of the Vice-President himself is that this double standard will not be set up. It is said that this is a concession to external students, because they would be at a disadvantage in having to go in for examinations where the questions do not conform with the line of teaching adopted. Well, those representing external students are willing to put up with this difficulty of having to go in for a different set of examinations. But as regards achieving the object which my right honourable Friend has at heart, that the curriculum of the university should be framed to a large extent under the control of those who teach in the university, that would be attained by the Bill as it stands, without having two separate examinations. The faculties are to be largely represented, and if a body of that sort, in which the faculties are largely represented, have the framing of the curriculum, they would be able to adapt that curriculum from tired to time to the development of the teaching as they went on, and at the same time I feel perfectly satisfied that any curriculum which was produced by such a body would satisfy not merely the needs of the internal students, but also those of the external students. Now I think it would be a fatal blot upon the scheme to have a double set of examinations and a double set of examining boards, and unless this is absolutely essential the Government would do well to reconsider the matter. I have taken a good deal of trouble to ascertain what is the feeling upon this matter, and I find that there is a very large body of opinion among the existing graduates at the university that this concession, if it could be made, would reconcile them to the Bill. We know they have many objections to it, but the aim of the Government ought to be to introduce a spirit of good feeling with those who have to work out this scheme,

    1267
    and if the element of friction between the old members of the university and the teaching body can be reduced and prevented from showing itself it will tend very much to the successful working of the scheme.
    *MR. BIRRELL: We are constantly told that the existing University of London has only one standard of examination, and that if you matriculate there henceforward everybody passes the same examinations. They say that you all have the same examination papers, with the result, as honourable Gentlemen opposite are constantly telling us, that there is only one way of obtaining a degree, which gives it a high, standard. So that if you are a B.A. of the London University it is known by what machinery you obtained it, and what papers were submitted to you, and the world is able to pass a satisfactory judgment upon your learning. Now, I have examined the regulations of the existing London University for the year 1899, and have learnt from them how you may become a bachelor of arts in that University. First of all, you must pass the matriculation examination, then the intermediate examination in arts, and then the bachelor of arts examination. Now, there are 10 ways of passing the matriculation, and four ways of passing the intermediate examination, and 44 ways of passing the final examination. Now, I am not a good hand at figures myself, but I have a friend who is a perfect demon at them, and he has made a calculation which shows that there are no fewer than 1,760 different ways of obtaining the bachelor of arts degree of the existing London University, and yet we are told that everybody who has got that degree has got it in the same way, that it is of precisely the same value, and that he can go into the open market and say, "I am a bachelor of arts," and everybody is foolish enough to believe that they are all on the same footing. The proper thing to do when you meet a B.A. of London is to inquire cautiously of him, "In which of the 1,760 ways did you obtain your degree?" Then, with regard to the bachelor of science degree, the student must first pass the matriculation examination; secondly, the intermediate examination in science; and, thirdly, the bachelor of science examina-
    1268
    tion. Now, there are 10 ways of passing matriculation, four ways of passing the intermediate examination in science, and 56 ways of passing the final bachelor of arts examinations, with this result, that my friend informs me there are 2,240 ways of obtaining the bachelor of science degree. Now I think it is very creditable to the existing University of London that there should be so many different ways, for it shows that their examinations are not of such a stereotyped character as honourable Gentlemen wish them to be. But the uniformity and one standard of which we have heard so much do not exist at the present time. I do hope, therefore, that the House will not be frightened by this bugbear of a uniform standard, but will encourage in the New University this Bill seeks to create every variety of method of obtaining their degrees.
    *MR. BUTCHER: The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has given us some remarkable figures, but the real question we have to consider is whether the external student should be placed at a disadvantage or not. That is the question, and not how many different ways there are of obtaining degrees. As I understand it at present whatever faculty you may choose the examination is the same for all students choosing that faculty. The fact that there are more ways than one in which a man can get a degree is no answer to the principle on which this Amendment is founded. The ordinary plain-minded man would naturally expect that if you had a number of men going for the same degree they should be subjected to the same examination. You desire to test a certain standard of merit, and you naturally expect that the men should be subjected to the same test. Now this Bill gives a separate treatment for internal and external students. I listened with some interest to the speeches of honourable Members, and I have heard the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The right honourable Gentleman told us that the proposal in this Bill was the result of some compromise. Well, Sir, we know nothing about that compromise. It is suggested that it has been conceived in the interests of external students; but so far as the views

    1269
    of the representatives of those students are concerned they do not believe in the benefit that will be conferred upon them by this Bill. On the contrary, they are under the impression that they are being very badly treated. The honourable Member for Haddington said he was going to give us some justification for this proposal made by the Government, which, he said, was founded upon the principle that this university was to be a teaching university. As I understand him, his argument was this—you have teachers of the university and the examinations must necessarily follow the lines of that teaching which is carried on. Now, as I understand examinations, they are supposed to test the knowledge of the students, and it matters not whether they are within a particular local area or outside that area. If you are going to confer these degrees upon them let them all have the same test to arrive at the same result—namely, that stamp of merit which the university is going to confer upon successful candidates. You have both external and internal students coming up for degrees in Dublin, and they are all subjected to identically the same examinations, and so far as I know no difficulty has been experienced in conducting those examinations from the fact that the internal students are examined from the curriculum in the university, and the external students are examined from the knowledge which they have acquired from other sources. I see no reason for the separate examinations which are provided for in this Bill. I shall, therefore, support the Amendment of my right honourable Friend.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I never like to curtail discussion, but we have now occupied an hour and a half discussing not merely this Amendment, but the greater question as to whether there shall be a separate examination. Well, Sir, I do not deny the importance of the Amendment which has initiated an important discussion, but I do now urge the House to come to a decision upon the point which has been raised.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): It has been alleged
    1270
    that they only desire to have a teaching university and a more thorough system of educating the yout of London; but my firm belief is, and always has been, that there is underlying this a sinister desire to obtain an easier degree and to get a wider membership of this university. Now, if that is so, why object to subjecting them all to the same examination? The test of an examination has been described as being a most fallacious one, but it is the most perfect one obtainable other than the actual test of life's work. There is no other method of distinguishing the knowledge acquired either at school or by private study equal to that of examination, and the desire to avoid subjecting all students to the same test is to me a proof—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    DR. CLARK: I do not think that the Vice-President of the Council can claim that the Commission were in favour of this double test. They say—
    "The final examination both for internal and external students should represent the same standard of knowledge."
    Now, the House should remember that three-fourths of the students in the past have come from the area outside. Now, there are 12 medical schools in London, and the students attending those medical schools will have special favours and will have an easier examination. Now, three schools out of those 12 are thoroughly equipped, and the others are very small schools, but you have large provincial schools which are well equipped, where students can be well trained by virtue of being outside the 30-mile limit. Now, here are two classes of students who are required to pass the same curriculum because the General Medical Council require it, but what they are now required to pass is a different examination. Now, as far as science goes they will be in exactly the same position. Take the Royal College of Science Now, a great many students enter the colleges by exhibitions and scholarships. Suppose they go to the London College of Science, which is incorporated. You have students coming from other colleges, and passing through the same curriculum and the

    1271
    same course of study, who will be required, not because of anything in their education, but on account of the geographical position of their college, to pass another examination. I think the honourable Member for Fife has rather exaggerated the case. It is true that they do not try to tie you down to certain special subjects, but you have not so much to choose from as the honourable Member has pointed out. It does seem to me from the discussions which I have read that a large number of the medical teachers in London are desirous of having the standard lowered in London because they cannot get their students to pass the present test. Now, I think the London standard is the higher standard and only the best men have gone in for it. Your London men have been taking special practice rather than general practice; and what you are now asked to do is to lower the standard. Now, I cannot see, judging from Scotch experience, that you will be taking a retrograde step by adopting this Amendment. The honourable Member for Edinburgh will remember the fight we had to get the standard of our degrees raised. We had very great difficulty in getting the examinations taken out of the hands of our professors and having other examiners appointed. That took place within the last 25 years, and now the Scotch universities—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is now going into the general question of the standard of university education, and not into the question before the House, which is the existence of two standards of education in the University of London.
    Dr. CLARK: You are going to have a class of examinations held by the teachers where the teachers will control their own students, and that is what we had in Scotland, and that is what we

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Brassey, Albert

    Arnold, Alfred

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Beach,Rt,Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Bill, Charles

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Balfour, Rt.Hon. A. J.(Mane'r)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Carlile, William Walter

    Balfour.Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    had to tight against. ["Time, time."] I do not want to press this view, as honourable Members do not want to hear reason. They want to rush forward this Measure, and we cannot discuss on reasonable terms this Amendment, because gentlemen opposite are too tired to listen.
    MR. GRIFFITH: I shall not detain the House more than a moment. I wish to appeal to the Solicitor General, and the point I desire to mention is this. It has been said more than once that this will do no harm to the external students. But if there are two sets of examinations, what is to become of the degrees given in the honours list? There will now De two honour lists—the internal and the external honours. I think that is a very important point, and I wish to know whether it is proposed to keep the scholarships of equal value or divide the money and give half to each. I have no doubt that this has been under the consideration of the Solicitor General. I think we have up to the present been very fair in our discussion, and I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will answer this point.
    SIR R. FINLAY: The question is not a matter of law, in which any definite or precise answer can be given. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill leaves it some what elastic as to the power given to the Senate. As regards scholarships such details are much better left to the Senate for regulation. I do not think it is possible for this House to lay down a definite rule of that kind.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 115, Noes 46.—(Division List No. 254.)

    Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

    Gretton, John

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Greville, Captain

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Chaloner, Capt, R. G. W.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Purvis Robert

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Ritchie, Rt, Hon. C. T.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Hanbury, Rt, Hon. R. W.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Kenyon, James

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Knowles, Lees

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lafone, Alfred

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    Lowles, John

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Milton, Viscount

    Wylie, Alexander

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Monk, Charles James

    Wyvill, Marimaduke D'Arcy

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    More, Robert Jasper

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Harwood, George

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Asher, Alexander

    Hazell, Walter

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Baker, Sir John

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Joicey, Sir James

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Bond, Edward

    Labouchere, Henry

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Brigg, John

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Caldwell, James

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Warner. Thomas C. T.

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caitlmess-sh.)

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-

    Colville, John

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Butcher.

    Griffith. Ellis J.

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Hardy, Laurence

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 7, line 30, leave out from 'respectively,' to end of line 35, and insert—
    "All examinations shall be conducted by independent examiners appointed by the Senate in accordance with the present practice, and no student, whether internal or external, shall matriculate in the university, or proceed to a degree without passing the prescribed examinations."—(Mr. Brigg.)
    MR. BRIGG: In moving this Amendment I do not propose to go over the whole ground again. If there is to be no change in the examination in the new
    1274
    order of things as compared with previous examinations, the simplest form would be to conduct them in accordance with the present practice. I do not wish to argue the matter further, because it is quite clear what my meaning is; and I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
    SIR J. GORST: It seems to me that the words are quite unnecessary, and I do not see the use of putting in such an instruction. There is no necessity to give any such directions; and surelv the Commissioners are the proper people to

    1275
    deal with it. It is most essential that the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment should be retained in the clause.
    MR. HARWOOD: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that according to your ruling my Amendment is out of order. As regards the question whether or not it is desirable to have separate examinations, I have not heard either in the Committee on Law or elsewhere any reason why this subject should be treated in this particular manner. No doubt we shall have again this bogey of compromise trotted out, and we shall be told, as we have been told before, that this was an arrangement come to by the request of the external students, who desire that this particular thing should be in, because they thought it would probably tend to the lowering of the examination and the lowering of the quality of the external diplomas. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this House is not to be guided in this matter by persons who put themselves forward as representing one set of persons or another. I think the House is quite able to decide as to the weight of words; and I think we have had quite enough of what people have said in conversation with others, and we may direct our attention to the importance of these words. Now, I object to the retention of these words. I am one of those who set a great value upon these various examinations, no matter what may be the opinion of those who have spoken. Granted that this new university succeeds as it is expected to succeed; granted that it adds some kind of aroma of culture to the examinations, I am not prepared to say that I object on the other ground personally to making any distinction whatever in these diplomas, because, as the House knows quite well, you will stamp on the face of these diplomas these distinctions as to what they really are. Now I venture to remind the House that there may possibly arise a social distinction which this House ought to do its best to avoid, and I am not speaking without experience. Many honourable Members will no doubt remember the experiment made at Oxford in regard to unattached students, and I remember with what enthusiasm that was started. Well, it failed because there was a sort of social distinction or want of distinction which
    1276
    somehow or other made it a failure. I venture to think that that sort of thing will occur here, and this House has no business to do anything of that kind. If it does occur, let the House take the responsibility. I do object that there should be these lines of cleavage between these two degrees, and that you should have two sets of examinations, one for the internal and one for the external students. I think there is an invidiousness about this suggestion, and it is perfectly unnecessary. If anyone wants information he can get it, and I think the House should resist any suggestion of this social difference, which we ought to endeavour to avoid.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: When this subject was discussed by the Standing Committee the voting was very nearly equal, and that justifies this discussion hero. We have heard nothing except of equality of attainment, and we have here the first step to mark a distinction, and I think an invidious distinction, by putting on the diploma whether the examination has been that of an internal or an external student. Now it has been said that this will be an advantage to the external student, but I do not see how it can be so, and I think it will be entirely misleading. What is the definition in the Bill of an internal student? He is one who has had the advantage of being taught by a tether recognised in the university, so that if the student receives only that modicum, that small modicum of university training, he will be marked an internal student if he is within the 30 mile limit, but if he is outside he will not, though he may have undergone a complete course of collegiate teaching, and I say that that is absolutely misleading. This provision does not indicate what it is intended to indicate. In a misleading way it labels one student as an outsider, and places on the face of the diploma something which may lower its value. I do hope that the Government will take a reasonable view of the matter, and that even yet this invidious departure, which is not made at the Dublin University, will be altered, because it will be the first step towards what I believe will be a great disadvantage, and will be very much resented by the external students.
    MR. BRYCE: There does not seem to me to be any advantage in stating that the student is an internal or external student. When the matter was discussed it was pointed out that the external students had a more difficult examination to pass than the internal students, and therefore it was thought to be only fair to make this distinction. Therefore, this provision was introduced for the benefit of the external students. Now let me call attention to this point, that this is only a provisional arrangement, and there is nothing permanent in it. It says—
    "Unless the Senate either generally by regulation or as to a particular subject by order otherwise determine."

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Gorst, Rt, Hon. Sir John E.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Mane'r)

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Balfour.Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gretton, John

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Greville, Captain

    Ritchie, Rt, Hon. C. T.

    Bond, Edward

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Brassey, Albert

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R, W.

    Simeon. Sir Barrington

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hardy, Laurence

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Knowles, Lees

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Charrington, Spencer

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    William's, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Lowles, John

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wylie, Alexander

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Milton, Viscount

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Monk, Charles James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    More, Robert Jasper

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    NOES.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Labouchere, Henry

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Wedderbum, Sir William

    Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Mr. Brigg and Sir Albert Rollit.

    Harwood, George

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Now, those are the words which govern the whole clause, and it will be left in the hands of the Senate. If they find that there is likely to be this invidious distinction they can at once remedy it. I think the Senate may be left to decide this, for I believe they will be wiser judges upon these matters of detail than this House.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 21.—(Division List No. 255.)
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 7, leave out 'situate within a radius of thirty miles from the university buildings.'"—(Sir J. Lubboch.)
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I do not propose to press this Amendment unless my right honourable Friend accepts it or some modification of it.
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid that it would he impossible to accept it altar what has already been passed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made—
    "That this Bill lie re-committed for the purpose of considering the financial clause."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
    Agreed to.
    The House went into Committee.
    MR. E. R. WODEHOUSE, tool, the Chair.
    Motion made—
    "There shall be paid to the secretary to the commissioners, and to any person appointed or employed by the commissioners, such remuneration as the Treasury may assign, and that remuneration and all expenses of the Commissioners incurred with the sanction of the Treasury in the execution of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."—(Sir J. Gornt.)
    *SIR C. DILKE: It has been left very late to discuss this money resolution for this Bill, and I do not think that there is any precedent for the course that has been taken. But, Sir, what I desire is to learn what is the meaning of these words—
    "And ali expenses of the commissioners incurred with the sanction of the Treasury in the execution of the Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."
    Now, what are the obligations which the country incurs under this clause? I should like to know what are to be the

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Blundell, Colonel, Henry

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Bond, Edward

    Chaloner, Capt. R, G. W.

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

    Brassey, Albert

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Charrington, Spencer

    funds from which the very ill-equipped colleges which are going to be admitted as schools of the university are to have their lecture theatres and their teaching apparatus brought up to the standard which is considered proper. The honourable Member for Haddington described the operations which were to be undertaken to bring these colleges up to the mark, and he described them very vividly. Now, I want to know where that money is coming from, and from what source? Where is the money to be found by which all these expensive operations are going to be carried out.
    SIR J. GORST: This is a common clause, which is put into all Bills of the kind, to meet the necessary expenses incurred under the Bill. I assure the House that it does not incur a very large expenditure.
    Question put—
    "That this clause be read a second time."
    Agreed to.
    Motion made and Question put—
    "That this Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    Agreed to.
    The House resumed.
    Motion made—
    "That this Bill be now read a third time."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
    SIR J. GORST: I do hope the House will now permit this Bill to be read a third time.
    Question put—
    "That the Bill be now read a third time."
    The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 19.—(Division List No. 256.)

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Knowles, Lees

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. T.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lafone, Alfred

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lowles, John

    Temlinson, W. E. Murray

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Valentia, Viscount

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Milton, Viscount

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Monk, Charles James

    Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Gretton, John

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Greville, Captain

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Hardy, Laurence

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hayne, Rt. Hou. C. Seale-

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Purvis, Robert

    NOES.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Joicey, Sir James

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Brigg, John

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Mr. Griffith and Mr. Cald-well.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Harwood, George

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Bill read the third time and passed.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS. (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

  (Second Reading.)
  MR. CALDWELL: I understood that this Bill was not going to be taken now.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

  (Second Reading.)
  DR. TANNER: This is a Vote involving a large expenditure of money, and this Bill has always hitherto been brought forward at an earlier period. That being so, I cannot understand why the Government are bringing it forward now. There are
  many other Bills that could be taken, and I really think that the right honourable Gentleman will see that it is highly desirable, instead of rushing it through at this late hour, that he should take on some of the less contentious Measures, and reserve this for to-morrow or Thursday. If he would do this, I am sure everybody would be a great deal more satisfied, and would be in a great deal better temper. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to withdraw this Measure, because a number of us hare long distances to travel, and I am speaking on their behalf. I do appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to withdraw this Bill. I beg to move—
  "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg leave to second this Motion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not desire to take any business to-night which is not absolutely necessary, in order that the machinery of Government may continue. The honourable Member's request is not an unreasonable one to make. By an unbroken precedent, it has always been held that we should bring in these Consolidated Fund Bills at the earliest opportunity, but they have never been made the occasion for much discussion, and the honourable Member who has just sat down is mistaken on that point. It has never been the practice of the House, and I do not think anybody can recall an occasion upon which this Consolidated Fund Bill has been discussed.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Yes; there have been such occasions.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, it is the rarest possible thing to have them discussed, and I thought it had never been done. It will be inconvenient to take the Bill on Friday night, and I trust that honourable Members opposite will now stretch a point, and I hope no attempt will now be made to prevent a Bill from passing which is absolutely necessary.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Why?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Because public servants will remain unpaid. The money has been voted, and it cannot be paid out unless this Bill be passed. It is not for our convenience, but simply to carry on the ordinary business of the country, that we make this appeal. Then there is the Admiralty Vote, which must be reported to-night. All I ask the House to do is to pass these purely formal Measures in order that we may carry on the business of the country.
  *SIR C. DILKE: I do not think there would be any objection to the Report of Supply, and the Report of the Admiralty Supply, but with regard to this Consolidated Fund Bill, while, I believe, there is not likely to be much discussion upon it, there is a strong feeling outside this House against passing such enormous sums of money at such a late hour of the night. I have never known it done so late
  1284
  as this before. It is passing a Bill through what, I suppose, is a necessary stage, and it should be taken at a time when the proper financial control of the House can be effectively exercised. This Bill involves the expenditure of £11,000,000, and this is a very improper practice that it should be taken now, and it is the fault of the Government that this should occur. The Government should not run themselves up to the last minute.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. H. BEACH,): I do not think the right honourable Baronet understands that all the money appropriated under this Bill has been voted by this House already. What I argue is that this is a necessary step consequent upon certain expenditure having been authorised, to enable us to meet that expenditure. The last Ways and Means Act was passed, as is usual, before the 31st of March, but the ways and means authorised by that Act are now nearly exhausted. It is absolutely the usual course which has been pursued, only the Vote on Account having been very large it is rather late in the Session. I have been in the House a good many years, but I never remember any Debate being raised on one of these intermediate appropriation Bills.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite in error. The very last Bill, the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, was debated for several hours this very Session.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That was the end of the financial year.
  MR. CALDWELL: Yes, it was. It is the prerogative of this House in a matter on the Report stage, and they had this privilege of debating it upon the Appripriation Bill. This is one of the privileges of the House for the purpose of checking the finances. The First Lord of the Treasury has supplied us with a good reason to vote for the adjournment. His object is to have the Vote of Supply included in this Bill and consequently to get the money for it. We could not debate this Bill on the Report of Supply

  1285
  on the Navy Votes that we passed on Friday night, but if the Report in Supply were approved of, then, of course, the matter would be quite competent to discuss under the Second Reading. Therefore, I think, as it is the intention of the Government to include the Vote of Supply on the Navy Vote in the Committee stage of this Bill, of course they will include everything up to the Report stage, and I should be very much surprised if they did not do it, for they are entitled to do it if you pass the Report to-night. The First Lord has furnished us with a good argument if you pass it now. It is the Government's own fault that they have run themselves so short of time. They could have brought on this Bill on Friday, a week ago, for there was nothing to hinder them. It was only that they were anxious to carry as much business as possible that they put it off as long as they could. The Government having run the time so short, it is unreasonable

  AYES.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Warner. T. C. T.

  Brigg, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norton, Capt. C. William

  Dr. Tanner and Mr. Joseph A. Pease.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cochrane. Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Gretton, John

  Bagot, Capt. J. F.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greville, Captain

  Balfour. Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Haldane, Richard B.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hanbury. Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hill, A. (Down, W.)

  Bond, Edward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Johnston, W. (Belfast)

  Brassey, Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Knowles, Lees

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Bucknill, Thomas T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. E.

  Lawrence,SirEDurning(Corn.)

  Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Finlay, Sir. R. Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Fisher, William H.

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Chaloner, Captain, R. G. W.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm)

  Godson, Sir A. F.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St,G'rg's)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Loder, G. W. E.

  Charangton, Spencer

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

  to come and say that this Bill should be passed at this hour of the morning, when we shall be deprived of an opportunity of discussing it. I think the Motion is a very proper one, and certainly the Government have themselves to blame for it.
  MR. WARNER: I do think this Bill has been brought on too late in the Session, As far as the Government are concerned, they are now in a great hurry for the money, and what we object to is that this Vote should be brought on between two and three o'clock in the morning. I think the best course would be to take a Division upon this, as ft protest.
  Question put—
  "That the House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 98.—(Division List No. 257.)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Lowles, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Warr, A. F.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Webster., Sir R, E. (I. of W.)

  Maclune, Sir J. W.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Milton, Viscount

  Ryder, John H. D.

  Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

  Monk, Charles James

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Wilson, John (Ealkirk)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Smith, J. P. (Lanark)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Young, Commander (Berka,E.)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Sturt, Hon. H. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  lalbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for this day.

  SUPPLY [22ND JULY].
  Resolutions reported—

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1898–99.
  "1. Sec. 3. That a sum, not exceeding £5,612,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  "2. Sec. 2. That a sum, not exceeding £2,971,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  "3. Sec. 1. That a sum, not exceeding £2,218,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  "4. That a sum, not exceeding £2,549,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  "5. That a sum, not exceeding £1,491,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  In answer to a Question by Mr. Warner,
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The
  1288
  honourable Member apparently does not understand the difference between the money voted for the Consolidated Fund and that voted to the Appropriation Act.
  DR. TANNER: The majority of the Irish Members were not here on Friday night, consequently there was not a single Irish Member spoke upon this question until I spoke myself. It appears to me to be a very bad precedent indeed, and I hope that the country will take notice of this system. The Report stage of the Appropriation Bill was absolutely grabbed at a late hour of the evening, when it should have been debated when more Members were present and more interest taken in it than a great number of us here now at this Report stage which is at present under consideration are likely to give. I only wish to protest against this system as I have done before, and as I shall continue to do as long as I happen to be in my place in this House.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and question put—
  "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at 2.50.

ERRATUM.
  MONDAY, 18th July 1898.
  Business of the House (Government Business).—Division List No. 226, page 139.—In the Ayes insert Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool).
Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—
Societies Borrowing Powers; Canals Protection (London); Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners); Post Office Acts Amendment; Poor Law Unions Association; Solicitors (Ireland); Ex-Officio Justices of the Peace (Scotland); Statute Law Revision; Poor Law (Scotland); Pharmacy Acts Amendment; Greenwich Hospital; Union of Benefices; Land Drainage Provisional Order (Hacconby Fen); Metropolitan Police Provisional Order; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12); Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Barnes, etc.); Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1); Commons Regulation (Runcorn) Provisional Order; Edinburgh Improvement Provisional Order; Military Lands Provisional Orders; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3); Leith Burgh Provisional Order; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 14); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1); Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas), Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2); Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes); Local Govern-
970
ment Provisional Orders (Poor Law); Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway); Aberdeen Corporation (Tramways); London and South Western Railway; Staines Reservoirs Joint Committee; Belfast Harbour; Blackpool Improvement; Sheringham Gas and Water; Carmarthen Improvement; Northam Urban District Water; North Warwickshire Water; London, Brighton and South Coast Railway; Gainsborough Gas; Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway; Southend Water; Southwark and Vauxhall Water; St. Thomas, Southwark, and St. Saviour, Southwark; Yeovil Corporation; Bideford and Clovelly Railway; Ilford Improvement; Great Eastern Railway Company and Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint. Committee; Great Eastern Railway (Pensions); Cranbrook District Water; Crawley and District Water; East Ham Improvement; Wishaw Water; Liskeard Corporation (Water); Norwich Electric Tramways; Cardiff Corporation; Dundee Corporation Tramways; Buenos Ayres Northern Railway; Colonial Bank; Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway; Cromer Gas; Drogheda Gas; Wigan Corporation; Dover Harbour; London Building Act (1894) Amendment; Crystal Palace Company); Plymouth Corporation; Turnchapel Wharves and Warehouses; Stirling Gas; Barry Railway; London County Council (Acton Sewage); Mumbles Railway and Pier; London, Chatham and Dover Railway; Halifax Corporation, Folkestone Water; Norwich City Water; Foreign Bondholders Corporation; Blackpool and Fleet-wood Tramroad (Tramway Extensions); Hamilton Water; Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock; Kettering Water; Clergy Mutual Assurance Society; Kew Bridge and Approaches; Bacup Corporation Water; Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water; Dublin Southern District Tramways; Glasgow and South Western Railway; Matlock Urban District Council; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas; Felixstowe and Walton Water; Midland Railway (West Riding Lines); Newtown Water; Great Northern Railway; Blackburn Corporation (Tramways, etc.); Bristol Tramways. (Electrical Power, etc.); Bristol Tramways (Extensions); Neath, Pontardawe and Brynaman Railway;

971
Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas; Newhaven Harbour; Walker's Estate.
Sitting suspended.
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Farnham a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Earl of Caledon, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT).
The same was ordered to lie upon the Table.
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
The order made on the 14th instant appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill discharged.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn this day at One o'clock, and not sit To-morrow until Twelve o'clock.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn this day at One o'clock, and not sit To-morrow until Twelve o'clock.

CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill, viz.:—

E. Haddington,

E. Leven and Melville (chairman),

L. O'Neill,

L. Shute (V. Barrington),

L. Cheylesmore;

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Two o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to-be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

USK VALLEY RAILWAY BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION BILL
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BURNLEY CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS. ETC.) BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments' made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Pirbright be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Rathmore, and that the Lord Pirbright be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Fifty-third Annual Report of the Commissioners.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Return of all British ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers, during the period from 1st July, 1897, to 30th June, 1897, to be provisionally detained as unsafe by reason of the defective condition of their hulls, equipments, or machinery, or by reason of overloading or improper loading, in pursuance of the provisions of section 459 of the Act, giving the names of the owners of those ships which, have been dismantled, broken up, or converted into hulks, etc.; also of all foreign ships ordered to be provisionally detained during the same period as unsafe by reason of overloading or improper loading, in pursuance of the provisions of section 462 of the same Act; together with summaries showing respectively the total number of ships ordered to be detained as unsafe, from 1st July, 1897, to 30th June, 1898, and since the 1st October, 1876, distinguishing between those cases in which the ships were found safe or unsafe (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [C.—8629.])
  CHINA (No. 2) (1898).
  Dispatch, from Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, forwarding copies of the Notes exchanged with the Chinese Government respecting the non-alienation of the Yang-tsze region.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 10 (1898).
  Accession of the Republics of Honduras and Salvador to the Convention signed at Geneva, 22nd August, 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Report of the President, for the Session 1897–98.

  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Registrar-General, for the year 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (ESSEX).
  Resolution of the County Council for Essex dividing the Tilbury polling district into two polling districts.
  PRIZE COURTS ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council, dated 18th July, 1898, approving rules of court touching the practice in prize proceedings to be observed in Vice-Admiralty Courts and Colonial Courts authorised to act as prize courts, with forms and table of fees.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1830.
  Orders in Council, dated 18th July, 1898, entitled respectively—

  (1) The Africa (Acquisition of Lands)
  Order in Council, 1898;

  (2) The East Africa (Acquisition of Lands) Order in Council, 1898.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Orders in Council, dated 18th July, 1898—

  (1) Fixing the engineering establishment of the Trinity House;

  (2) Approving pilotage by-laws made by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and the Berwick Harbour Commissioners, respectively.

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
  Against; of Owners and Ratepayers of Cheltenham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
  To be read the second time on Friday next: (The Earl of Onslow).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill which I think your Lordships will have no difficulty in agreeing to. It is the Scottish counterpart of a Bill which was passed by both Houses two years ago to prevent the bringing of vexatious actions by those who have proved themselves fond of causing annoyance in that particular way. The phraseology has been adapted to the particular requirements of Scotland, and I do not anticipate that any objections will be raised to it. The Bill has passed through the other House of Parliament with practical unanimity, and I ask your Lordship to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time; and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  BODIES CORPORATE (JOINT TENANCY) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  LORD BELPER: This Bill has passed the other House, and the Home Office thinks it is very desirable that the power that is wished to be conferred by this Bill should be given to the police, and I beg therefore to move that it be read a second time.
  Motion made.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Bill read a second time; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 180.]
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME(EAST SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION(BORDER COUNTY COUNCILS) (No. 2) BILL.
  To be read the second time on Thursday next: (The Lord Balfour).
PUBLIC BILL BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee, as ordered.

  Question put—
  "That clauses 1 and 2 stand part of tie Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 3, after 'shall' insert 'during the term of and.'"—(Lord Fermanagh.)
  LORD FERMANAGH: My Lords, the Amendment which I now propose merely carries out what I presume is the intention of the Bill.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, that is quite right. The Amendment of my noble Friend does carry out the intention of the Bill, and I accept it.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 37, after 'justice' insert 'provided that every such ex officio justice shall sit only in such petty sessions, district, or districts as the Lord Chancellor may approve.'"—(Lord Fermanagh.)
  LORD FERMANAGH: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has put an end to a practice which was becoming in some parts a great annoyance. There was a certain class—a small class—of magistrates in Ireland who were what may be called peripatetic magistrates. They spent their time going from one session to another in districts with which they had no possible concern, and this sometimes gave rise to grave judicial scandals. My noble and learned Friend now requires magistrates to state in their application what petty sessions they intend to attend, and they are appointed subject to their attendance at these only, and I believe that if they neglect this rule they are very properly and very rightly pitched into. Now, my Lords, this Bill creates a new class of magistrates under special conditions, and their functions should in my opinion be strictly defined and limited in order to avoid the possibility of scandal's such as I have indicated arising. I will quote a precedent in support of my case. If your Lordships will turn to clause 114, page 87, of the Bill, you will see that it is there provided that—
  "Every existing justice of the county of the town of Qalway, or the county of the town of Carrickfergus, shall be a justice of the county of Galway or of Antrim, as the case requires, in like manner as if he were named a justice in the commission of the peace for such county."
  And the last three lines of that section say that—
  "Any such existing justice shall, except when at quarter or general sessions, act only within the petty sessional district of which such county of a town forms part."
  I ask, my Lords, that the provisions which are applicable in this Bill to the justices of Galway and Carrickfergus, may also be applied to the new class of justices whom the Bill proposes to create.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, my noble Friend who is Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant for an important county, is thoroughly acquainted with everything connected with the magistracy of Ireland. It is true that it would be inconvenient for magistrates to go out of their districts

  979
  habitually, but I do not think there is any prospect of anything like the abuse which has been referred to occurring. I will consider the matter, and if I make up my mind that it will be desirable to insert any words such as those proposed I will communicate with my noble Friend, who will, I hope, after this assurance, withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am not well acquainted with the practice in Ireland, but it will, I think, be a great innovation if the Lord Chancellor is to prescribe where the justice shall act. There may, however, be some difference in the practice in Ireland. If that is so, my observation does not apply.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: There is a difference in the practice in Ireland brought about by considerations of convenience. I will consider the matter between now and the Report.
  LORD FERMANAGH: I am quite satisfied, my Lords, to leave the matter in the hands of my noble and learned Friend, and to withdraw my Amendment on that understanding.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I wish to ask the Lord Chancellor of Ireland one question. When the chairman of a county council ceases to be chairman, will he also cease to be a justice of the peace?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Yes. I have agreed to accept an Amendment which will make that perfectly clear. The chairman will only be a justice during his term of office as chairman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 3, as amended, be agreed to."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, after line 14, insert as a new subsection—
  "Any person paying poor rates in any county may traverse any presentment or order made or approved under this Act for the raising or payment of any money by any county or district council. Any such person intending to traverse any such presentment or order shall give notice of his intention in the prescribed form to the clerk of the council, by whom such presentment or order was made, within 14 days after it was made. Pending the hearing of such traverse, the presentment or order to which it relates shall be suspended, but every such traverse shall be heard and decided by the Local Government Board as soon as may be after the date of the service of the notice of traverse, and as nearly as may be in the manner provided by section one hundred and thirty-three of the Grand Juries Act, 1836."—(Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, it seems to me that it is very important that the right of traverse should be preserved in this Bill. Under the Grand Juries Act there is a right at present existing, and that right has always existed, to traverse any presentment and get the case heard before a judge of Assize. Under this Bill the right of traverse is proposed to be removed, and it seems to me that this is a mistake, because many decisions may be given, especially by the newly-constituted bodies, that might very fairly be questioned. It may be said that a difficulty would arise in this case on account of the length of time that might elapse before such traverse could be heard, and therefore I have in this Amendment altered the appeal, so that instead of going before the judge of assize it will go to the Local Government Board. The usual practice in Ireland, as I understand it, was that the traverse should be heard at the same assize where the question arose, and therefore there was no delay. Under this new Bill, if the right of traverse was to exist at all it might so happen that several months would elapse before it would be heard before the judge, and therefore, for that reason I have proposed in this Amendment, that it should go before the Local Government Board. The right of appeal exists already in two or three instances in this Bill. In

  981
  clause 9, section 7, there is a right of appeal to the Lord Lieutenant. In clause 10, sub-section 3c, there is also a right of appeal to the judge of assize. In clause 80, sub-section 2, there is also a right of appeal in questions of the maintenance of public roads, and it seems to me that it would only be right to keep the general law of traverse in existence under this new Bill. The last sub-section of clause 80 appears, however, to remove it altogether. I should like to know whether that is the case. In any case, it is undesirable, in my opinion, to abolish the right of traverse. In counties where you have large interests involved, and where there are light railways, for instance, the right of traverse has been exercised in several cases, and it has been found very convenient. In the county to which I belong there are many miles of light railways, and the question will undoubtedly occur before these new boards as to whether sums of money are to be spent for workshops or for extensions of lines, etc.; and in cases of dispute it would seem right that there should be some reference or appeal to the judge to settle those cases. Therefore, my Lords, I beg to move the clause which I have put before you. At the same time I wish it to be understood that if it is thought desirable that the right of traverse should still be to the judge of assize instead of the Local Government Board I am quite satisfied.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: Does my noble Friend, by his Amendment, enable the appeal to be heard speedier than in the old way, when it went before a judge? For my own part, I am very loath to take the right of appeal to the judge away. If I understand the Amendment rightly, my noble Friend wants to alter that appeal and make it an appeal to the Local Government Board and not the judge.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My only reason in making this alteration was to prevent inconvenience, and to enable the appeal to be heard much quicker.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, the proposal made by my noble Friend is entirely inconsistent with the whole scope and struc-
  982
  ture and object of the Bill. Traverses were known to the old system of grand juries, and were appropriate, and worked well, having regard to that system. But when you are setting up popularly-elected county councils you cannot preserve this old mechanism, which was suited to an entirely different state of facts. No such right exists in the county councils of England and Scotland, and it would be entirely inappropriate to the new system introduced in this Bill. If you gave each ratepayer the power to step in and practically put a check on the working of the councils by this obsolete method of traverse, you might prevent the county councils doing any work at all. The proposal contained in the Amendment is an endeavour to graft one incident of the old system upon a perfectly new system with which it is absolutely inconsistent. The appeals referred to by my noble Friend in the other clauses of the Bill have no connection with the old right of traverse. The noble Lord said an appeal was given in section 7 of clause 9, but that refers to the management of lunatic asylums. It only enables the Lord Lieutenant, if there is a dispute between two bodies as to the constitution of a committee, to come in and say how the dispute is to be determined, and how the committee is to be selected. That is an entirely different thing. I hope my noble Friend will not press his Amendment.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: In the second instance I gave—clause 10—there is a direct appeal to the judge of assize.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: You object to the open court of assize. I should have thought that was the fairest thing you could have in the world. I know everything is going to be altered by this Bill; everything is going to be thrown into chaos.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble Lord raised a question with regard to light railways. Who would an appeal in a case of that kind go before? I think that is very important.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I was unable to follow that part of the statement of my noble Friend.

  983
  I have to hear a good many of these cases before the Privy Council.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: I find there is usually at every assize an average of one traverse. There is also this to be said: any ratepayer traversing is liable to be mulcted in costs, and therefore this is not a thing that would be lightly undertaken by anybody.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put—
  "That clause 4 be added to the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 19, after 'Act' insert 'and of those enactments, sections one hundred and thirty-five, and the following sections of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, so far as unrepealed, shall extend to the case of maliciously setting fire to, destroying, or injuring property of any description, whether real, or personal, in like manner as they apply to the setting fire to, injuring, or destroying the particular descriptions of property specified in the first-mentioned section.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I have put this Amendment down because the sections of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, are not quite wide enough or broad enough with regard to certain cases of malicious injury. My Amendment covers all kinds of malicious injury, such as maliciously setting fire to, destroying or injuring property of any description, whether real or personal. I instanced one case during the Second Reading Debate, in which, if a boat without cargo was drawn up on the shore and burned, it could not be considered a malicious injury; but if it had a sack of potatoes in it, it would be a malicious injury. I will give another instance to show the incompleteness of the present law. A cart standing in a yard may be burned, and it would not be a malicious injury, but if, the cart were in a shed and it were burned it would be a malicious injury. Your Lordships will, therefore, I think, see the necessity of this Amendment,
  984
  which I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept.
  THE DUKE OF ABEECORN: My Lords, this is a very necessary Amendment, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will be willing to accept it.
  LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment, the adoption of which will, in my judgment, make the Bill more valuable.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I have the following Amendment on the Paper, which is to the same effect as the Amendment of my noble Friend (the Earl of Mayo), namely—
  "Page 3, line 19, after 'Act,' insert 'provided, however, that compensation may be given for criminal injury to any kind of property, or to the person, or for loss of life.'"
  I propose not to move my Amendment, but to support the Amendment of the noble Earl. It is of the greatest importance that all classes of property should be protected. This is one of the instances in which the old Grand Juries Act requires amendment. But for this, the Grand Juries Act is one of the best Statutes we have; and I am exceedingly glad the Government have adopted so much of it in this Bill.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, there is no doubt whatever that the clause of the Grand Juries Act, to which attention has been drawn, is anomalous. It includes a good many classes of property, and leaves out a good many classes of property which one would imagine would be included. I think there is a good deal of sense in this Amendment, and I shall offer no opposition, to its being included in the Bill.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 22, after 'council,' insert 'and if the decree is made, shall have the power of a judge of assize under section one

  985
  hundred and forty of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, with respect to the apportionment of the compensation.' "—(Lord Ashhourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 41, after 'masters,' add 'provided, however, that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the amount of compensation awarded by the county court shall not exceed ten pounds.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  *LORD CLONBROCK: I think, in any case, where so small an amount of compensation is awarded, it is important that no appeal shall lie, owing to the great expense it would involve on both parties.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: If there was only one side to the question I would agree with, my noble Friend; but it might be that the person who is awarded the compensation may be seriously aggrieved at getting so little, and might think that if his case were heard on a wider area and with better evidence he would get a larger sum. I therefore think it would be better to leave the matter as it is.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put—
  "That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 6 AND 7.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I wish to ask the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland at what time of the year, and how often, will district councils and boards of guardians have to furnish their estimates to the county councils. I have had 22 years' exerience as chairman of a board of guardians, and we have found it exceedingly difficult to get the estimates prepared in the proper time. I think it would be of assist-
  986
  ance to us if the noble and learned Lord could give some idea as to what the prescribed rules will be.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The rules and regulations will be prescribed at once by the Local Government Board. I may say that the Local Government Board have been applying themselves with great vigour and energy to the preparation of these rules and regulations. I do not know the details, but so far as I am aware there will be two occasions in the year when the estimates will be sent in by the district councils and the boards of guardians, and they will be gone into in due course by the county council, who will therefore have an opportunity twice a year of considering the amount needed. Of course, these are matters not contained in detail in the Bill. It would have added enormously to the already very long Bill to have embodied these rules in clauses.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: Is there any reason why the dates should not be included in the Bill?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I am informed that it is intended that the estimates should be furnished twice by the district council and the board of guardians to the county council, and the county council will have an opportunity twice of considering the amount that is needed. This is not put in the Bill in mercy to your Lordships and the other House of Parliament. It would make the Bill a never-ending Bill. It already contains 120 clauses, and deals with topics that were dealt with by two bills for England and two Bills for Scotland. It was thought more convenient to leave to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council the working out of certain matters, and to the Local Government Board the working out of regulations that convenience might suggest.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The Local Government Board are to settle the divisions in the financial year?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Yes.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 6 and 7 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 5, line 10, after 'partly,' insert 'or wholly.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 5, line 15, after 'roads,' insert 'and any road not mentioned in such declaration shall cease to be a main road.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, after sub-section 12, insert as a new sub-section—
  "Subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, and in accordance with prescribed rules, the county council may impose a tax or licence duty on traction engines using main or other roads within the county, and all moneys collected thereby shall be applied towards the maintenance of the roads used by such engines."—(Lord Macnaghten.)
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: As your Lordships know, some traction engines carry no less than 30 tons and seriously injure the roads. I think it is only right that a tax or license-duty should be imposed on traction engines, and I hope my noble and learned Friend will accept this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The Amendment of my noble Friend has only been circulated just now, but it strikes me with terrible suspicion that it is out of order. I am afraid that, inasmuch as it amounts to a proposal to impose taxation, it trenches on the sacred ground of privilege.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Perhaps my noble and learned Friend will consider the point?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Oh, certainly!
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 8, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 9, line 13, after 'council,' insert 'which shall be styled the judicial committee.'"
  "Page 9, line 14, after 'who,' insert 'or a quorum of whom consisting of not less than three.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, I move these Amendments in order to give a designation to the committee, and to fix the number who should form a quorum.
  Question put
  Amendments agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to

  CLAUSES 10, 11, 12 AND 13.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 14.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 12, line 6, leave out 'shall cease to,' and insert 'need not.'"
  "Page 12, line 7, leave out 'abolition of,' and insert 'omission to issue.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, these are merely drafting Amendments.
  Question, put.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 15, 16, 17 AND 18.
  *LORD ARDILAUN: Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland received from some of the townships in connection with Dublin notice of a section which they suggest should be added in reference to hospitals?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have received such a mass of correspondence during the last few days that I do not like to say I have not received it; but I do not recollect having received it. Will the noble Lord tell me the nature of the section?
  *LORD ARDILAUN: Up to now several townships were able to contribute to hospitals in the city of Dublin, and it seems to be an objectionable thing that each district should be obliged, under this Bill, to build a hospital for itself, when there is probably a hospital quite close, and within the county. The section suggested would read as follows—
  "That an urban district council may annually, with the consent of the Local Government Board, contribute towards any infirmary or fever hospital in the county in which such urban district is situated such sum as they think fit."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: That Amendment is not on the Paper, and I have not had much opportunity of considering it; but it would appear to me to be rather open to the objection I made just now—that if it gives an urban authority power to contribute, it would also involve the power of raising the money by rates. Therefore it would require careful consideration.
  *LORD ARDILAUN: It would not involve the power of raising the money by rates any more than at present. The
  990
  urban authorities have not been prevented by the auditor from contributing to these hospitals.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: If my noble Friend will put the Amendment on the Paper it can be considered before Report.
  *LORD ARDILAUN: Very well; I will bring it up on Report.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 15, 16, 17, and 18 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 19.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 15, line 29, after 'remains,' insert 'to which the Ancient Monuments Protection (Ireland) Act, 1892, and the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, apply.'"—(The Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL (Lord KEKRY): My Lords, the powers of county councils in relation to monuments were left so vague in the Bill that I thought it was desirable that some definition should be placed upon them. I therefore move my Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, this is a matter my noble Friend spoke to me about the other day. I am sure we all desire to encourage the preservation and protection of ancient monuments. A good deal of attention has been given to the subject since my noble Friend the Earl of Dun-raven spoke to me, and my noble Friend. Lord Clonbrock has an Amendment on the Paper which goes somewhat into detail on the matter. But I have arrived at the conclusion that neither the Amendment of the noble Earl [the Earl of Dunraven] nor the Amendment of by noble Friend Lord Clonbrock as they stand can be made to carry out what is desired. I have an Amendment here which, if added to the clause of my noble Friend Lord Clonbrock, would possibly meet the requirements, and I think the wisest course would be for me to hand

  991
  this Amendment to my noble Friend Lord Clonbrock, and ask him to put it down and move it on Report.
  THE EARL or DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: I withdraw my Amendment upon the understanding that an amended clause shall be substituted on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: I will accept the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend and withdraw the Amendment I had placed on the Paper, namely—
  "Leave out clause 19, and insert the following clause—
  "19.—(1.) A county council may prosecute for any penalty under section six of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882.
  "(2.) The owner of any ancient monument to which the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, applies may, by deed under his hand, constitute the county council for the county in which such monument is situate to be guardians of such monument, and thereupon the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, shall apply as if the county council were the commissioners of works, except that no money shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  "(3) Any person may give, devise, bequeath, or sell his interest in any ancient monument to which the said Act applies to the county council of the county in which the game is situate, and the county council may, if they think it expedient to do so, accept or purchase the same."
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I think a further sub-section should be added on Report to enable county councils to divest themselves of these monuments and pass them on to the Board of Works or to the National Trust, which is now in existence, and of which the Duke of Westminster is, I think, the chairman.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I would suggest that the noble Viscount should speak to Lord Clonbrock upon that point before the amended clause is put down.
  Question put—
  "That clause 19 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 20.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: My Lords, this clause provides for the transfer to the county councils of the business of any drainage board. Clause 44 prescribes the area of the charge for all works under the county council. What I want to know is, what will be the area of the charge for these particular drainage works? At present they are restricted to the area which is benefited by them.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, there is no doubt thus is a matter of considerable importance. This clause provides that the Local Government Board may, with the consent of the board, or body affected, make a provisional order for transferring to a county council business arising in their county under any Act, and any drainage board, or other public body, corporate or incorporate, not being the district council or the Commissioners of a town, or a board of guardians. It is an empowering clause, and what is intended is to give the power of transferring the business of a drainage board, but it is not expected that there should be any variance of the incidence of the charge or the area affected. After the business has been transferred, the thing will work out readily.
  Question put—
  "That clause 20 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 21.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 16, line 15, after 'council,' insert 'and in the case of the borough of Galway the Galway Town Improvement Commissioners.'"—(Lord Morris.)
  *LORD MORRIS: My Lords, although a small matter, this is one of some importance. There are certain towns in Ireland which, following the analogy of the English Bill, have been made county boroughs. In England I think the number of county boroughs amounts to between 160 and 170, but the number of towns in Ireland selected as

  993
  county boroughs amounts to six. True it is that the urban population of England is, practically speaking, two-thirds of the population of the country, whereas in Ireland, I regret to say, the urban population is scarcely one-fifth; but that appears to me an additional reason why the few towns of importance in Ireland should be put in the Schedule. Six towns have been put in the Schedule—Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Londonderry, and Waterford—and I move to have the town of Galway added as a seventh. I believe the number of inhabitants which was selected as a rough sort of test as regards county boroughs in England was 50,000. To apply such a test in Ireland would be simply ridiculous, for there are only three towns in Ireland with 50,000 inhabitants. I believe there was some sort of rough test applied as regards Ireland, and that a line was drawn at towns of 20,000 inhabitants—I am not quite sure whether I am correct as to the number—which would include only six towns. But that was only a rough test, and could be only a rough test. In England other towns which did not amount to 50,000 inhabitants were added for special reasons. I hold in my hand a list of 10 of them, one being the city of Canterbury, of which the population is only 23,000, or not quite one half the minimum that was accepted. Why was Canterbury included? I suppose for historic reasons, and because it was a city of itself, or probably because applications were made for its inclusion by the inhabitants and persons interested. Therefore there was no hard and fast rule about it, and why should this hard and fast rule be applied in Ireland, contrary to the wishes and contrary to the sentiments of the people? The town for which I plead was the town that first introduced me into the other House, over three and thirty years ago, and the first time I ever held office under the Government. I was a colleague of the Prime Minister when he was Secretary of State for India in 1866. But personal considerations should have no weight in your Lordships' House. What is the history of Galway? I will give you, in a few words, a short summary of it, which I have not taken from any Irish book. Under the circumstances I thought it better to refer to a Scotch book, and
  994
  accordingly I referred to Black's Guide Book, published in Edinburgh, and I find it stated there that Galway was one of the earliest of the towns, if not the earliest town, after the Anglo-Norman invasion; that it was built in the 12th century and walled in by Anglo-Norman settlers, 13 in number, who derived the soubriquet of the "Tribes of Galway." I may say interlocatory, that I represent one of those 13 families. What was the position of Galway in the middle ages? Black's Scotch book tells us that it was remarkable for its great commercial prosperity, principally trading with Spain; and the writer of the book prognosticates the great advantages that are to be derived from Galway. The tourist traffic has been very much developed owing to the exertions of patriotic Irishmen, amongst whom I would include my noble Friend the Earl of Mayo in the front rank; and I fail to see why Galway, which is one of the oldest cities in Ireland, should be excluded from the list merely because it fails, to quite come up to the rough test of 20,000 population which has been applied by the Government as a qualification for a county borough. Galway has a population of over 17,000. The last census states the population to be 16,972; but Galway has made great progress since 1891. The Town Commissioners, who represent the municipal authority, and the expiring grand jury have memorialised the Chief Secretary to have Galway included in the list of county boroughs. It affects nobody but Galway itself. I can understand objecting to the sentiment of Home Ruler, because that was sentiment when sentiment clashes with important interests. I was myself called to order in a leading journal because the other night I happened to speak about sentiment in Ireland. I was told that in order to be consistent I ought to be a Home Ruler, because that was sentiment also. But many think that that sentiment would lead to disastrous result? whereas the sentiment I am advocating will lead to no result which can injure anyone or interfere in the slightest degree with the working of this Bill. I will ask my noble and learned Friend, therefore, to give some more definite answer than sic volo, sic jubeo. There are four

  995
  provinces in Ireland. You cannot abolish that geographical fact, and unless Galway is included in the Schedule there will be one province without a single county borough in it. Galway has always been a distinct county. Boroughs in England, with less than 50,000 population were included as county boroughs. Why? Because they had always been counties. Well, Galway has been a county always. It had a Charter in the reign of King John. It has a distinct lord lieutenant, a distinct grand jury, a distinct recorder, and it is in every respect as much a county as any of the other counties in Ireland. I await with great expectation the answer of my noble and learned Friend as to why Galway has not been included. People of prosaic mind may say this is purely a matter of sentiment. But is not the basis of two of the greatest motives in life—patriotism and loyalty—sentiment? Looking back to old times and to old memories, and not bad ones, we find that the position of Galway was great in the Middle Ages, and it now promises to be great again. It has a population verging upon the number that, as I understand, was to be the limit of the population which was necessary as a qualification for a county borough. I ask your Lordships—I ask the independent opinion of this House—as to whether my Amendment should not be adopted, if there is no reason given sufficient to satisfy your Lordships that there is no principle involved, or that there will be nobody who will have a reason to complain.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment of my noble and learned Friend. It is perfectly true, as he has stated, that the town of Galway is an entirely distinct unit from the county of Galway. I have the honour to be Lord Lieutenant for both, but by two separate patents, which I remember for the perfectly good reason that I had to pay separate fees on the transaction, and I am disposed to think that if Her Majesty's Government are fusing the two communities together, and throwing the town into the county, the question arises whether I ought not to be reimbursed part of the fees I paid. I merely mention this matter to show
  996
  how entirely separate these two places are, and I think that what my noble and learned Friend has stated as to the county of Galway is quite true—I have every reason to believe that the people would thoroughly wish that the old divisions should be maintained, and that the county of Galway and the county of the town of Galway should be kept distinct. I think they would like it, because of old traditions and sentiment. Being, as it is, the capital of a county, they would think it an indignity if it was merged into the county. The county of Galway is very large as it is. It is pretty nearly 100 miles from end to end, and it is my opinion that the county council will have quite enough to do without having to look after the county and town of Galway, and they would undoubtedly prefer that the county of the town of Galway should continue to manage its own affairs, and they should manage theirs. I really think that in such a case as this the hard-and-fast rule ought not to be pressed too strictly. Some consideration ought to be paid to the sentiments and feelings of the people, and we all know that in Ireland people are deeply impressed with feelings of that kind.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is a matter that was mentioned more than once in the House of Commons. I think it was discussed in all its stages. Naturally, there was a good deal of feeling amongst the towns which are under the limit that was fixed for the size of county boroughs, and my noble and learned Friend who represents Galway, with all its traditions and associations, and the position which it occupies possibly next the population, limit, naturally feels strongly upon the subject There is no one entitled to speak with more strength and persuasiveness upon that question, connected, as he is, by property, by family, and by old ties and associations with this ancient town of Galway. But other towns with figures near to the limit mark also feel a considerable grievance upon this point, and my noble Friend the Marquess of Ormonde has a very strong view in reference to Kilkenny, with its ancient corporation, and memorials of history, which show that Parliaments have been held there. The noble Lord opposite

  997
  (Lord de Vesci) who represents the young community of Kingstown is anxious that it should be included, not upon any ground of history or of association, but on the ground of population and of progress. The question in the House of Commons was dealt with upon the broad ground that the line had to be regarded as drawn from the point of view of convenience—that it must be drawn somewhere, and whenever it was drawn the towns that were excluded, and particularly the town that came nearest to it, would naturally feel very strongly. Under all the circumstances of the case, as there must be a line drawn, the line was drawn at the places thought most convenient, where divisions of the population were very clearly marked. With no desire whatever to cast the slightest reflection upon the towns excluded—and I may mention that in the case of Galway, it retains its assizes and a great amount of its ordinary civic work—I think, under the circumstances, I have to ask your Lordships not to assent to the Amendment moved.
  *LORD MORRIS: I knew that the case did not admit of an answer. This case was not dealt with on its own merits in the House of Commons. There was a Motion affecting many towns in Ireland—some of them going down to a population of 8,000 or 10,000—and these were dealt with en bloc. The circumstances—the particular circumstances of the case of Galway—were never put forward by anybody. The Member for Galway does not attend, excepting under very special circumstances, and there was nobody to point out the historical associations of Galway, and the large population it possessed. My noble and learned Friend says, in an airy way—and there is nothing more dangerous than treating figures in an airy way—that these towns have all very much the same population, and he mentioned the case of Kilkenny. I have no objection to Kilkenny being also included. My noble and learned Friend has given no answer excepting that one which I mentioned the other night, sic volo sic jubeo. I shall certainly go to a Division, and assert the independence of the House of Lords.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE).: I am not quite sure whether the noble and learned Lord has sufficiently realised the great difficulty of dealing with this matter upon any basis excepting that of population. The moment you depart from the limit of population you drag in all sorts of more or less fanciful claims and considerations. The noble and learned Lord put in an eloquent claim on behalf of Galway, because of its; antiquity. There is another noble Lord, on the other side of the House, who is equally prepared to put in a plea for another city with which he is connected on the ground that it is a young and rising community. So you will have to take all of these cities on the ingenious pleas which are put forward, with the result that if you do you will create a great feeling of dissatisfaction and resentment in the minds of those-who are refused. In regard to Galway in particular, I am assured that when this Bill was under discussion in the House of Commons no claim was put in on behalf of it. The Members for that part of Ireland did not apparently think the case was a strong one, and the desire of the people of Galway was not sufficiently marked to justify them in urging the claim which has been so strongly urged by the noble and learned Lord. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support the Bill as it stands, and not make an exception in favour of Galway.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I shall certainly support the noble Lord's Amendment. Your Lordships must bear in-mind two things—namely, that Galway is the chief town of the county, and if it is not put into the schedule the county of Galway will have no county borough, at all—and surely that, in itself, without any other reason, is almost sufficient a reason for making an exception, and not to be bound by absolutely hard and fast rule of population. I do not wish to go over the ground so ably traversed by my noble and learned Friend, but I trust that your Lordships will remember that, for many reasons which your Lordships will recognise without me going into them, Galway occupies a unique position amongst the towns of Ireland

  999
  The House divided:—Contents 67; Not-Contents 62.

  CONTENTS.

  Abercom, M. (D. Abercorn)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

  Bristol, M.

  Harlech, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Hood of Avalon, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

  Carlisle, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl [Teller]

  de Montalt, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Loch, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Massy, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck)

  Bangor, V.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

  Falmouth, V.

  Llandaff, V.

  Morris, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  O'Neill, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde)

  Aberdare, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)

  Ardilaun, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

  Rathmore, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Russell of Killowen, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

  Saltoun, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Clonbrock, L. [Teller]

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Connemara, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

  Crofton, L.

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Digby, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne)

  Templemore, L. Ventry, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Albemarle, E.

  Ancaster, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President)

  Clarendon, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Denbigh, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Kimberley, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Morley, E.

  Portland, D.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Bath, M.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Powis, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Selborne, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Abingdon, E.

  1000

  Addington, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Alington, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Bateman, L.

  Belper, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Braye, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Rothschild, L.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Thring, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Wantage, L.

  Fairer, L.

  Windsor, L.

  James, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 22.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 22, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  "Page 19, line 5, leave out 'one councillor,' and insert 'two councillors.'"—(Lord Counbrock.)
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, the Motions which I have put down for Amendments are in a somewhat confused state, owing to the fact that I first put down an Amendment which concerned this clause alone, and then I was furnished by a Friend who was better versed than I am in the language of Acts of Parliament with a series of consequential Amendments. I put those down afterwards, and the consequence is that there is a certain amount of repetition, and that they overlap one another. But I think if the House will accept the principle of my Amendment there will be no difficulty in putting them into shape. My present Amendment is to the effect that in all electoral divisions, where at present one elected guardian is returned, there shall be two district councillors, and that in the cases of divisions in which there are now two elected guardians, three elected district councillors shall be re-

  1001
  turned. A hope has been universally expressed that the present class of ex-officio guardians will come forward for election, and will take part in the future government of the county under the new system. Well, my Lords, as stated by myself on the day of the Second Heading, and by many noble Lords who preceded me, we have all over Ireland a large number of the county gentlemen who are fully prepared to come forward. But it does not only depend upon their coming forward. The issue depends upon the electors. The country gentlemen are ready to do their duty if they get a chance, and the object of this Amendment is to give them that chance. In every electoral division there is at the present moment a sitting member—the elected guardian for that division. He must naturally possess the confidence of his constituents, or he would not be there, and it is not to be expected that his constituents will set him aside for the purpose of electing another man, even though he may be better qualified for the post. It is not reasonable to suppose that they would do so, and I do not think it would be fair if they did. But they may return another man who will be thoroughly qualified if you make the number two. I will take a case which is not so unusual in Ireland as might be supposed from the statements of those who are generally occupied in vilifying the class from which ex-officio guardians and grand jurors are drawn. Take the case of an ex-officio guardian in the habit of attending a board of guardians. The people all know him; they go to him on any matter connected with the Poor Law. He has been, although not elected, practically representing that division for a great number of years. People have evidently accorded him a fair amount of confidence, but if it comes to a question of electing one man, it is not to be supposed that they will set aside their present elected guardian, who has discharged his duties to their satisfaction, for the sake of appointing an ex-officio guardian; whereas, if they could return two they might be content to leave things as they are, and have the ex-officio guardian, sitting with his elected colleague, as heretofore. I know of a case, not in my own part of Ireland, but in another, where a man is very much in the position that I have described, with
  1002
  the exception that in his case there are two elected guardians in his division, as there is a small town in one part of the division. Of these two, one presented himself for election at his request. Neither of the two would give up his post without a contest, and his feeling is that he would not stand against either of them, whereas if there were three councillors to be elected, it is pretty sure that he would be returned. But if the Bill is left as it is, and this district is only given two members, it will be deprived of the services of one of the ablest men in Ireland. I will take another case, that of a man who, perhaps, is not so well known a the poor law guardian, but who may be better known as a grand juror. The electors might think that it would be an advantage to them, owing to the large measure of public work that will come before a district council, to have a man experienced in county work. But they would not set aside their elected guardian to do so. If they had two members they probably would elect the grand juror as one. I do not say they would do anything of the kind, because some great wave of public excitement might come over the country, or some command may be issued from some mysterious association, and the electors might go like a flock of sheep and elect nobody of the class I have mentioned, but they may do so, and this Amendment gives them a, chance to do it without showing any ingratitude to their sitting member. This proposition has been widely considered in Ireland. A large conference representing the whole of the grand juries in Ireland, with the exception of two, met in the spring, and this proposal was adopted with so few dissentient voices that it may be practically said to be unanimous feeling of the conference. At the same time, objections have been raised to it by some men of great ability. I will now proceed to consider the objections that I have heard. The first is that it will make the district council unwieldy. Now, with reference to that, the boards at present consist of an equal number of ex-officio guardians and elected guardians, so that doubling the number of elected guardians would make no difference. In answer to this, it is pointed out that the ex-officio guardians attend

  1003
  very irregularly. I regret to say that is the case, and it is really not so much to be wondered at when one considers what they have gone through. Some 10 or 15 years ago they were made the mark for every sort of insult and contumely if they attended, and the proceedings of boards such as those mentioned by my noble Friend the other evening were not such as to encourage anyone to attend. That is not my own experience, my Lords. I was certainly put out of the chair because I did not see my way to put political motions; but I went on attending, and I never had a rough word said to me by anybody present. But my experience in this respect is, I know, very different from that of others. As to unwieldiness, I remember the time before these troublous times, when ex-officio guardians did attend very regularly, and I never remember to have heard of any inconvenience arising from the great size of the boards. My experience is that the error ran rather in the other direction. There is no such urgent wish and desire among people to attend boards of this kind regularly where the proceedings must be of a somewhat monotonous, humdrum character. It is a great tax upon a man to have to drive eight or ten miles to attend a board regularly on business of this kind. I will venture to go so far as to say that if the boards are confined to one member to each division, there will very often be a considerable difficulty in finding a sufficient number. If it be large at first it will very soon slacken off. Moreover, owing to the unfortunate introduction of union rating by the Government, the stimulus to attendance which now exists will disappear. At present every guardian is disposed to attend for fear of some undue charge being put upon his division. I believe if there were to be only one guardian to each division that the attendance would be small, and confined to a few people residing immediately around the workhouse, and that I consider would be an extremely undesirable state of things. Another objection I have heard is that the present ex-officio guardians are so few in number in sparsely inhabited districts that they would be utterly swamped by the increased number of elected guardians. My answer to that is that if the election is confined to one member they would not be elected at all, and that would be considerably worse.
  1004
  It would be far better to have a large board with a few guardians of the present ex-officio class on it than a small board with none at all. It is also said that we had better wait and let the electors find out their mistake, and that then they will come round and elect a more competent class of men. Experience of that kind may be very dearly bought, and a great deal of mischief may be done in three years. Apart from that, bad habits in a public body are very much like bad habits in individuals—very easily acquired and very difficult to eradicate. I am further of opinion that if the ex-officio class guardians are not elected now it is very doubtful whether they will ever be elected afterwards; The affairs of the district would have to be indeed very badly conducted before the electors would make such a change as to reject their old guardian merely on account of supposed inefficiency. The feeling in Ireland is very strongly in favour of keeping a man on in his own place. I am convinced that this House is anxious that men of experience and education should be elected to these councils. The district councils are the most important body under this new system, as they initiate the greater part of the expenditure, and the county council will think twice before they disapprove of any step that has been taken by an elected body. As I said the other day, it is not only extravagance that I am afraid of; I am just as much afraid of niggardliness under many heads of expenditure. I really do not like to contemplate the position of the sick and suffering poor if their destinies are to be entirely controlled by men of the class of the present elected guardians—men who, not so much from want of feeling as from want of knowledge, are not sensible of the proper requirements of a hospital, and who, while very properly anxious not to raise the standard of living in a workhouse so as to make it too attractive to people outside, cannot be brought to see that the sick inmates of the workhouse come under quite a different category. I very much fear there will be a disposition to stint them of the care and attention which their position so thoroughly demands. I therefore hope that the House will agree with, the Amendment which I move. I beg to move—
  "Page 19, line 5, leave out 'one councillor' and insert 'two councillors,'"

  1005
  so that the clause will then run—
  "Two councillors shall be elected for each district electoral division."
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I most cordially endorse the words which have fallen from the noble Lord. I laid great stress upon this point when I had the honour of addressing your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill, because I felt that it was utterly impossible to differentiate between the members that are to represent constituencies on the county councils and on the district councils, and for this reason: the county council at the present moment is not in existence in Ireland, consequently there is no question of any members of an ex-officio character; whereas the district councils which will, to a very great extent, take the place of the boards of guardians, have been represented by ex-officio as well as by elected guardians, and I was very glad indeed to hear the stress that my noble Friend laid on the fact that the ex-officio guardians, unless this Amendment is carried, are placed in a very awkward and invidious position. I think there are very few who will contradict me when I say that, taking Ireland right through, it has been found that the ex-officio guardians have discharged their duties in the most admirable manner, and in a great number of cases they have held the most important offices on the boards to which they belong, such as occupying the post of chairman or vice-chairman. Under these circumstances it seems to me that it will be running a very great risk to the good working of county government where men who have shown such ability and such energy in the discharge of their duties are not to have an opportunity of continuing their good work in the county. I laid great stress myself on the importance of the duties which will attach in the future to the district councils in Ireland. I say that their duties will be of a most responsible character, more responsible even than those of the county council, and consequently I am extremely anxious to see returned to these district councils men who have devoted their time and energy to carrying out the work which, in the minds of all impartial men, has been carried out so successfully in the past.
  1006
  My noble Friend has said that it is quite possible that unless this Amendment is carried the ex-officio guardian may find himself in antagonism—I hope only friendly—with one of the ordinary members of the board in the election which is to take place with regard to the representation on the board, to which, only one member is to be returned. There are cases in Ireland in which the landowner stands as ex-officio guardian, and at his own request his tenant has stood for, and been returned as, representative. My Lords, what will be the position of that landowner and the tenant if only one member is permitted to sit on the district council? He will find himself in the invidious position either of opposing his own tenant, who for years past he has asked to be elected representative of that area, or else he will have to stand on one side and not be permitted to take any part in the work of the district; and in order to maintain that kindly feeling which I am glad to think has existed on these boards of guardians where landowner and tenant have worked so long together, it is the duty of the Government to accept the Amendment of my noble Friend. I do not think, my Lords, as my noble Friend has put the case so very clearly before you, that it is necessary for me to trespass at any great length upon your time. In the interests of the good work of the district councils, in the interests of maintaining good feeling between the land-owing class who have hitherto acted as ex-officio guardians, and the tenant farmers who have acted as the elected representatives, it is the bounden duty of the Government to accept this Amendment, and I sincerely trust that they will do so.
  *THE EARL OF ERNE: I wish to add my voice to those of my two noble Friends in asking the Government to accept this Amendment. We—I mean the country gentry in Ireland—have been invited and pressed by the Government to offer our services for carrying out the provisions of this Bill, and I believe I am only expressing the sentiments of my friends when I say that we are determined to do so. But if we are to do so we must have facilities. Now, my Lords, I will give my own experience, not

  1007
  because it is my own experience, but because it is typical of a number of cases, certainly in Ulster. I have for some time been chairman of my board of guardians. I attend very regularly, and take a great deal of interest in poor law administration, and I am very anxious to continue my services if the electors choose to avail themselves of them. But by this Bill you can only stand for the district in which you have a vote; you cannot stand for an outside district. The poor law guardian of my electoral division is a tenant of mine, and he is a man with whom I have always been on good terms. How can I go to this man, and say to him, "Stand aside; give up the position you have held for the purpose of allowing me to step into your place?" I could not do it, and if I were to do so, I do not believe that he would accede to my request, and under those circumstances I could not enter into a contest with him. It is said that the machinery that will be brought into play to effect the election of one man will equally apply to the second. That may be so, or it may not be so; at any rate, what we say to the Government is, "Give us a chance." You wish us to serve, and we are anxious to respond to your wishes, but give us a chance of seeing whether the electors will avail themselves of our services or not.
  EARL SPENCER: I only wish, my Lords, to say a very few words upon a matter which I consider to be of very considerable importance. I do not wish to base my argument in any sense on a party basis. My impression is that my noble Friend who introduced this Amendment, and others who have spoken in favour of it, are not correct in the view which they take in this matter. I confess myself I should be extremely sorry if all those who have been engaged in public business hitherto in Ireland should be excluded from taking part in the new administration under this Act, and therefore I am not speaking in any sense against what they desire. But my impression strongly is that they would find themselves wrong in their anticipations of the result if you have two councillors for each electoral division. The noble Earl who just spoke, of course, does not agree with this view, because he has
  1008
  stated it as one of the arguments used in favour of the Government proposal. My belief is that if there is a strong feeling in any district the same machinery which is used to elect one member will be used for the purpose of electing two. Now, my Lords, I venture to say this: the general object the noble Lords have in view is to see that there is some minority representation. I, at different times of my life, have been strongly in favour of that. But I can recollect what took place in 1885, when the last Parliamentary Bill was introduced. As your Lordships know, at the last part of the negotiations for carrying that Measure, there was considerable communication with noble Lords who now are members of the Government. I believe I am correct in saying that the noble Marquess, at the head of the Government was strongly in favour of having single constituencies in most places in order to secure the representation of the minority—the old minority. The old Minority Clause was accepted, and was found not to be practical, and single constituencies in different districts were introduced with view to representing the minority.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of): Is the noble Earl speaking of this country?
  EARL SPENCER: Yes, I am speaking of this country. I do not, of course, attempt to compare Ireland in exactly the same manner with England. At the same time, I think there are analogies which can be brought forward, an I in this case I cannot help thinking myself that the soundest principle would be, except in a very few cases, to elect single members rather than to elect two—that ought to give a representation of the minorities better than any other system. Now, I would like to revert to what my noble Friend who introduced this Amendment said, with regard to a difficulty which district councillors and others will have in attending board meetings which are held at long distances from their homes. Whenever I have considered the question of Local Government in Ireland I have always felt what an immense difficulty this would create in working a Local Government Bill in that country. There may not be as

  1009
  much difficulty as regards district councils as there will be as regards county councils. We have difficulty in England with regard to this. It is a most extraordinary thing, considering those difficulties, how excellent the attendances have been on the county council, but the difficulty has shown itself, and a great many of those who first joined in the working of county government have had to give it up, owing to the great difficulty of going long distances to the meetings of the council. My belief is that in Ireland, where the great bulk of the people are poorer than they are in this country, where their means of communication are not so good as in this country, that this will be a very serious difficulty indeed. How will it work? It will work, no doubt, in favour of the old grand juries, because I can hardly agree with the statement which has been made that if they are not at first put on these new bodies they will not be put on them hereafter. My opinion is that, in the long run, it will be found that the difficulties of attendance among the elected of the poorer sort will be so great that those difficulties themselves will indirectly tend to this very class that my noble Friend wishes to be elected, being elected to these boards. I am not deprecating that in any way; I am only protesting against an alteration in this Bill of this character, because I am really afraid that the noble Lords opposite, who are now arguing in favour of two members for each division in their own interests, will find that the electors who can now send one man who will be in Opposition perhaps to the county gentry, will probably be able to send two, and therefore it is in their own interests that I say that I think it would be wiser to leave the number of members as it now is in the Bill.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The noble Earl has alluded to matters in which we were engaged some 13 years ago, and therefore I wish to interpose a word. I entirely take the noble Earl's view in favour of the single member system—not entirely, perhaps, for the reasons that he has advanced. My impression 13 years ago was that it was the most conservative plan that could be adopted,
  1010
  and was that partly arrived at from having watched the effects of the systems known as the scrutin de liste and the scrutin d'arrondissément in a neighbouring country, and I do not think, if we look back at what the state of politics was then and what it is now, that the Conservative Party have any ground for regretting that they supported the single member system. On the contrary, I believe it has had the effect of bringing into prominence the local influence of important men more than any other system would have done, and that, of course, must mainly be a conservative operation. The state of society in Ireland is very different, and I do not wish to dogmatise on a subject of which I know nothing, but speaking without reference to any peculiar circumstances, I should always say that the single member system is more likely to be stable and conservative than any double member system could possibly be.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: May I venture to make one remark, and that is that what has worked so exceedingly well for the Conservative Party in England may not work so well for the Unionist Party in Ireland. There is one thing to remember, that this is not a question of two people going into a constituency opposed to each other, but it is a question of one man opposing a sitting member. There is not the least chance of the present elected guardian being turned out. He will sit there. As the Government have made such appeals to us, the gentlemen of Ireland, to stand for these district councilsi—mind you, not the county council—surely they will give us the chance of standing, and all we ask them is that we shall have that chance, and that those who have been ex-officio guardians should have, so to speak, a run under this Bill for the constituency. The appeals made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland at the end of his speech in introducing this Bill were very strong; I suppose no stronger appeal could be made to any body of men, and by making that appeal it looks as if he thought that if the Unionists were not elected to these district councils that the Bill would not work. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland also made an appeal on the same subject, and therefore I trust that Her

  1011
  Majesty's Government will consider our position; we only ask to have a chance of being elected, and we ask that, although we know perfectly well that in a great many places in Ireland our chance is a very remote one.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I think we should in no way consider any matter connected with this Bill in relation to Party politics. As so many of us from Ireland have stated before, noble Lords in this House are most anxious to support this Bill when it becomes law and to make it work effectively. If the Bill stands as it is, and there is to be only one member for each division, it will be very hard indeed to turn out the present sitting guardian. There is also a feeling in Ireland which voices itself in this remark, "We like the old man," and they will stick to the old man. What we ask for by this Amendment is that we may be allowed to have another man who will, if possible, help the sitting member in the work of the district council, and we consider that if two are to be elected, the more is the probability of the superior class of man—superior from a social point of view—being enabled to take his share in the regulation of county affairs. The noble Lord opposite has stated that he very much doubts whether the attendance will be good. I rather agree with him; but surely if the attendance is bad where there is only one member it may be a little better where there are two. One guardian may be ill and unable to attend, but it is not probable that two guardians representing the same place would be ill at the same time. Therefore, I think, taking all things into consideration, it will be very desirable if this Amendment is accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: I should just like to say one word in support of my noble Friend. I should like to point out to the noble Earl opposite that there is no question of minority representation in this matter; we can never hope to get a majority on the boards. But this Amendment is for the purpose of enabling those who are best qualified and best acquainted with county business to offer their services for the public good.
  VISCODNT CLIFDEN: Let me put it in two sentences; I will give my personal opinion afterwards. What harm can it do to have two members? If there in a desire on the part of the gentry of Ireland to take an active share in this work, why not give them a chance? You have made this ad miseri cordiam appeal both in this House and the other one to the gentlemen of Ireland not to run away from their duties, although you have practically turned them out from the possibility of doing their duty. I cannot imagine what your objection to this Amendment is. My personal opinion is that most of the guardians elected or ex-officio will never be elected again. I believe you are going to a lower stratum—you are going to the scum of the country. That is my firm belief, and we shall soon see whether I am right or not. What are you asked to do now is to, if possible, guard against that in someway, but I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord is going to turn his back upon us altogether.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This matter was discussed several times in the House of Commons, and the Chief Secretary, although he stated his own views, which were in favour of the proposals in the Bill, said that the matter was one on which he could quite understand there were substantial differences of opinion, and therefore he-allowed the matter to stand over for further consideration. At a later stage my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury intimated that he would allow the matter to stand over in the House of Commons, and that he would be very much guided by the intimations of the opinions that were held by your Lordships. Up to this, noble Lords who have come from Ireland, have expressed an opinion in favour of two members as against one member for district councils, leaving county councils as they were; but there are many other noble Lords from Ireland, and it may be that they would like to express their views.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: My Lords, I entirely agree that this is not a question of politics. I wish to say how far my experience corroborates that of noble Lords who have spoken. Speaking from

  1013
  my experience of guardians, I believe they are excellent men of business, whom I should like to see elected to the new councils. I hope the Government will give way on this question.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has asked our opinion on this matter. I do not agree with my noble Friends around me in supporting the Amendment, and I think I am perfectly at liberty to express my reasons for not agreeing with them. One of my reasons—and I think it is a strong one—is this: that you are not legislating for the immediate future; you are legislating for all time. The boards will be unwieldy with double-member constituencies, and in the end the Government proposal will be more satisfactory. I am not speaking without experience, for I have been chairman of a board for 13 years, constantly attending, and I have always found that when I had a small attendance a great deal more business was got through. Just think what is going to happen if these two members are put in. Take a board like mine. I think there are 24 ex-officio and 24 elected guardians. You have got this large board, and I think it is exceedingly doubtful whether we shall be able to get any men in. We may succeed in getting in a few. Suppose we get six in, it will be six against 40, or thereabouts. It seems more satisfactory to have six against 20 than six against 40. Whatever the disproportion is, it will be enormous from the beginning, and we must face this great difficulty with this Bill. I am in favour of the Government proposal. I think in the end it will be more satisfactory. In the beginning, of course, there will be difficulties. I had considerable hesitation in getting up at all, because I do not like to feel that I am going counter to my Friends around me; but as the noble and learned Lord has challenged some of us to express our opinions I am bound to say what I feel on this point. In the event of a Division, however, I shall not vote.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, before we knew the intentions of the Government some of us had great hopes that there would be a sort of classification of the electors—that the larger cess
  1014
  payers would elect one man and the smaller cesspayers the other. I have spoken to farmers of very moderate valuation on this subject, and I have always had the same answer, that that would be fair enough. I do not believe there is a general feeling throughout the country against the election of any man because he is a large ratepayer. My point is, the electors cannot elect a man of that class without putting out their own sitting members. There would be a natural disposition on the part of the electors to keep their present member, but with double members there would be a possibility of some ex-officio members being elected, whose presence would give a higher tone to the proceedings of the boards and tend to check irregularities that might otherwise arise. Without the Amendment I do not think any of this class would be returned.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOTV WAR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who has charge of the Bill has told your Lordships that upon this point Her Majesty's Government are fully prepared to leave the decision to the judgment of this House; therefore, in the few words that I am about to address to your Lordships, I am not endeavouring to influence any section of the House, but I would rather justify, as briefly as I can, the vote which I am about to give. My Lords, I think we must all have felt the force of the observation that fell from, the noble Duke behind me, when he said that the object of all Members of this House was the same—namely, to secure for these district boards the services of the best and most experienced councillors. If there is a difference between us it is not as to the end in view, but as to the means by which that end can best be accomplished. Now, my Lords, it does strike me that there is some slight inconsistency in the attitude of noble Lords who support this Amendment. A great many of them have indulged in the most gloomy anticipations as to the manner in which the electors in these newly-constituted districts will exercise their franchise. The anticipation of many noble Lords is that the result of the elections will be to oust altogether the class of person who has hitherto served as an ex-officio guardian on the poor law

  1015
  boards. Now, my Lords, it strikes me as rather an extreme assumption that if that is the mental attitude of these electors they are likely to abandon it altogether so far as one-half of the members of the new district councils will be concerned. Is it likely that they will vote in the first place for a person of extreme views of a Radical character, and then transfer 50 per cent, of their affections to a candidate of a wholly different political complexion? This was put rather well the other day, when the question was asked whether it was likely that these voters would exhaust their patriotic and political proclivities in voting for one member, and then vote for another member on grounds of common sense and reason? Will it not occur to them that if they adopt that course they will disfranchise their constituency? Will it not occur to them that in so acting they will neutralise the effect of electing a representative of their own opinions? I hope the effect of the Measure will not be that which has been anticipated for it, and that as time goes on we shall find the electors ready to give a place to men who have had experience of local business as ex-officio guardians or in other similar capacities. I believe men elected in that way to single-member constituencies will go to those councils with much greater weight and authority than if, under the Amendment, they were returned ear-marked, so to speak, as representing unpopular opinions. I must also say one word in agreement with what fell from Lord Inchiquin as to the possible effect of increasing the size of these councils. I will not go the length of saying that the business aptitude of public bodies is in inverse proportion to their size, but I do think there is some danger that these district councils may become somewhat of the nature of debating clubs, with much irrelevant discussion. I think that tendency is likely to be diminished if we can succeed in keeping the size of the bodies within reasonable limits. For these reasons, although I have some hesitation in placing myself in opposition to the views of the noble Lords, who have so much practical acquaintance with local affairs in Ireland, I shall, so far as I am concerned, give my vote for the Bill as it stands, and not for the Amendment.
  LORD RATHMORE: My Lords, as it appears probable that this will go to a Division, might I be allowed to say a few words? What appears to be the state of the case is this: the Government have intimated their willingness to follow the views entertained by noble Lords in this House, who may be supposed to represent the opinions of the grand jurors in Ireland. Even before that declaration was made by the Government my noble Friends, who come from Ireland, and sit on this side of the House, had done their best to ascertain what was the opinion of their friends in Ireland. The grand jurors and others were most deeply interested in this question, and noble Lords have declared to your Lordships that, so far as they have been able to gather, the opinion of that class, it is in favour of the Amendment which is now before your Lordships' House. I should have thought that, after the almost unanimous declaration of the noble Lords from Ireland, who represent the grand jury element, the Government would have accepted the Amendment without going to a Division. What are the arguments which have been advanced in opposition to the Amendment? The argument of the noble Marquess who has just spoken against the Amendment presupposes that in every case the voter has determined to vote, in the first place, for the kind of candidate who is not of the class wham the majority of your Lordships would wish to see chosen. Then, by giving a second member, you will be affording the voter the opportunity of changing his mind. I do not say that he will change his mind. I do not think anyone could predict what an Irish voter would do in any given circumstances; but there is a certain love of variety and change in the national heart, after all, which may come in the aid of that which may seem to the Saxon intelligence an improbability. It was most extraordinary that on this point all parties in the House of Commons vied with one another, as far as I can judge by the Debates, in declaring their strong desire that representatives of the old ex-officio guardians, the grand juries, and that class of experienced country gentlemen should, if possible, be returned. Then why exclude the chance of this happening? It is a strange thing that your Lordships should be asked to take

  1017
  away the only prospect of giving effect to that which has been declared to be the unanimous desire of all parties in the House of Commons when this matter was debated there.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My Lords, I should have said that the most simple and satisfactory way of ascertaining what a deliberative assembly think is to divide, but I gather that that is not satisfactory to my noble Friends from Ireland. As far as I can find out, the spirit of the pledge which was given in the other House was that what is called the grand jury element in this House should practically have the decision of the question. If that is the case, I am bound, further, to admit that, as far as we can see, there is a large majority of the grand jury element who take a view in favour of double representation. I think that they are short-sighted, and are thinking more of the near than of the distant future. Nevertheless, I should be sorry that anything in the nature of a pledge should not be acted up to, and I therefore shall not vote against the Amendment.
  THE EAEL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we are not, I think, quite so divided in opinion as appears to be the case, and certainly we should be very glad to gee the sense of the House taken on this question. It is one on which, there are undoubtedly arguments on both sides, but I have a very strong opinion indeed that in the long run it will be found to work much better to have single members for constituencies. I do not know Ireland sufficiently well to appreciate the difference that appears to exist between England and Ireland. It appears that even present member of a board of guardians is so enamoured of his position that he would not retire on any account. There is not that same eagerness to serve on these boards in England, and I do not think it is likely to continue for a long time in Ireland. What is really in the hearts of everyone who has spoken on this subject is a real desire that what is here called the grand jury element—the richer part of society—should have fair representation upon these boards, not from any political motive one way or the other, but because undoubtedly the
  1018
  presence of men of great experience of affairs on a large scale, and of a higher education, will tend to give a better tone to those bodies. At the same time I cannot help expressing my own opinion that the presence of any considerable element of that kind; will not depend upon the machinery of the Act. It would depend upon the amount, of good feeling which would exist among the different classes of the locality. If that good feeling does exist, there will be the representation that we desire. If, unfortunately, it does not exist, I am perfectly convinced that no machinery that you can devise in an Act of Parliament will ensure the representation of that element on the board. I should like to give one illustration of what takes place where there are two-member constituencies. There are, I think, alone in all England, two-member constituencies for the London County Council, and as far as I know—and I have inquired into the matter—in the majority of cases men of the same way of thinking are elected to both seats; and that I believe to be not from any fault on the part of the constituents, but from the natural tendency that men have, when they vote for one man who represents their opinions, to vote for the other man also. Therefore I honestly believe, although I admit the authority of Irish Peers, on this point, that in the long run it will be found much better if the plan of the Government is adhered to.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should like to say one word before your Lordships go to a Division. I had hoped that this Amendment would have been carried unanimously. I think the difficulty has arisen because we are not quite sure whether the Minister for War spoke for the Government or only for himself as an Irish landowner. He stated very fairly his own views, and he entered at length into the point that an elector would not be likely to neutralise the effect of electing a representative of his own opinions by also electing a candidate of a wholly different political complexion. But I could allude to cases where political feeling does not run altogether one way. To avoid friction we are very anxious that there should be double-member constituencies. My right honour-

  1019
  able Friend the Leader of the House of Commons showed his astuteness in leaving this to your Lordships' House to decide. Directly my noble Friend who leads the Unionist Party in Ireland heard that this was the intention he took every means to find out what were the views of the noble Lords in this House. He found that we are almost unanimous on this point in favour of double-member constituencies. I am not sanguine that the ex-officio guardians will be returned in many parts of Ireland, but I think there are some places where ex-officio guardians would be returned if the opportunity were given to the electors. I think it is hard on the ex-officio guardians, who are prepared to give their services, if, after having been asked by the Government to come forward, they are deserted by the Government and refused a chance of giving those services.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I venture to ask the noble Marquess the Prime Minister whether the Government will support the Amendment or not.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My Lords, the Government do not propose to treat this as a Party question. I am bound by a pledge that was given in the other House, and therefore, I shall go behind the bar.
  The House divided:—Contents 15; Non-Contents 78.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 6, after 'division,' insert 'which now returns one elected poor law guardian and three councillors for each such division which now returns two elected poor law guardians.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 7, leave out 'one councillor,' and insert 'two councillors.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 12, leave out from beginning-of line to the second 'one' in line 14."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 23, leave out from 'district' to the end of the clause."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: I have put down this Amendment because it is not quite clear to me what this clause means, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether these people who have been in a place 12 months can be elected if they have not paid their rates?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRE LAND: Yes.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: Therefore a person who is elected, who is called upon to spend money is to be allowed to do so without even having contributed any money of his own. Is that the case?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Yes.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: I do not understand that, and that is why I move the Amendment, because it seems to me that unless a person has contributed to the rates, surely he ought not to be allowed to spend the money of other people.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRE LAND: This is the very same qualification as is contained in the English Bill. It is the only way by which a lady, or an eldest son, would have a chance of being elected, and it gives an opportunity to a person who has resided in a neighbourhood for the substantial period of 12 months to be a candidate. He may not be elected, but if the people know all about it, and the electors desire that such a person should be returned, it is reasonable that he should have a chance.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: There is another point with regard to this. A person who occupies a Land League hut may become eligible for election. In a great many localities the evicted tenants' question often assumes an acute phase, and it is very possible that a proposal may be made to elect the whole of these persons evicted from their holdings, and living in Land League huts as district councillors.
  1022
  Surely a difficulty would arise in that case?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think if the clause worked in that way it would not work at all. This clause was put in the English Act for the; reasons I have stated, and it was not thought unreasonable that the classes of persons I have referred to—ladies and eldest sons—should have their claims considered.
  *THE EARL OF ERNE: No doubt it is proper that elder sons and women should have an opportunity, but I do not think it is a fair thing to violate the principle-of representation going with taxation. I think there is a great deal in what has been said about the occupants of Land League huts.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: I want clearly to understand whether a person lining in a Land League hut, or whether a whole-number of evicted tenants living amongst their friends and neighbours, are eligible for election on the district councils. I should like that to be made perfectly clear.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is perfectly clear in the words; which have been in the English Act for nearly 10 years, and which are perfectly clear here—
  "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or to be a councillor of the council of a county district unless he is a local government elector for the district, or has, during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election, resided, and continues to reside, in the district."
  The object for which that was put in was to give women a chance of being elected should the electors think it reasonable. It also would enable others, such as elder sons, who do not happen to be on the register, to be elected; but it is all in the hands of the electors.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: This is much more important than the noble Lord seems to think. This question of residence, while it is allowed in the case of England, in the Scotch Act it was purposely kept out, and the reason is that it formerly happened that a person who is a local government elector, and whose whole interests would lie in his

  1023
  own district, will, for purposes of his own, go and live in an adjoining district, and be a source of very great trouble. Now, my Lords, I will put a case which I daresay may happen in Ireland. What is to prevent these evicted tenants from being elected? These cases have occurred before, and when the noble Earl spoke it occurred to me at once that there were characters of the same sort as these evicted tenants in Scotland, and it was to guard against them that this residential qualification was left out, and the necessity for a man being a local government elector was insisted upon.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 23, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 24.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 29, leave out 'councillor,' and insert 'councillors.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 30, leave out 'guardian,' and insert 'guardians.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 31, leave out 'guardian,' and Insert 'guardians.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 34, leave out 'a district councillor,' and insert 'district councillors.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 36, leave out 'councillor,' and Insert 'councillors.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 37, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 39.";—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 40, after 'elector,' insert 'for a district electoral division.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 25.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 25 stand part of the Bill."
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Upon this clause I should like to call the attention of the Committee to sub-section (a). Your Lordships have just decided that there ought to be two district councillors elected for each constituency. Well, now, it is proposed further to enact that the district council itself may choose from qualified persons not more than three, who shall be additional councillors. It is to create a sort of inferior kind of alderman, as I understand it; and after the very full representation, which your Lordships have given to each electoral district, this sub-section becomes unnecessary.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I shall consider carefully before Report whether the decision which your Lordships have arrived at, to give two members to each constituency, would make any change desirable here.
  Agreed to.

  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 26 stand part of the Bill.
  "Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 27.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 17 and 18, leave out 'roads proposed by tie council of any rural district,' and insert 'any matter or thing, or for any purpose.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment which I propose to submit to your Lordships is, perhaps, the most important Amendment standing upon the Paper. It is one, to my mind, upon which, to a great extent, the whole future working of every county council or district council rests. I dwelt, my Lords, at considerable length, on Thursday last, upon this point—namely, the limit which should be permitted to district councils to expend money, and therefore I do not propose to again go through those details at any length. I dwelt at such great length upon them because I trusted that my noble and learned Friend, on hearing what my arguments were, would, between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, give consideration to the argument which, in all probability, he thought I should again produce. I pointed out, by a large number of examples, that, where a board of guardians had had the power in certain parts of Ireland, there had been unlimited jobbery, and maladministration, and extra expense. I quoted a large number of instances, most of which I should think were known to my noble and learned Friend, and therefore I need not quote them again. I hope they are fresh in his memory, but if he would like any instances again I could give them. It is to avoid any such cases in the future by these district councils—which will occupy in the future the places of those who were boards of guardians—and in order to put a check upon what would otherwise be an almost unlimited expenditure, that I ask your Lordships to carefully consider and support the Amendment which I am now introducing to your notice. The noble Earl opposite, both today and on Thursday, drew attention to the fact that there were many points in which Ireland differed from England. I know myself—and I think there is hardly anyone connected with county
  1026
  councils in England who does not know it also—that since the formation of county councils, no matter how well the business has been done, the expenditure has sensibly increased, and consequently, if the expenditure in England on the county-councils has increased, how much, more will it increase in Ireland, especially when we have had instances, of the extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure to which I alluded on Thursday last, and which, in all probability, will again be repeated. The Amendment that I move is to eliminate the word "roads" to which the extra expenditure was confined, and substitute the words—
  "any matter or thing, or for any purpose,"
  by which I meant that the total extra expenditure which shall be permitted to the district councils shall, for expenditure of all kinds—whether it be roads, or otherwise—be limited to 25 per cent, more than the average expenditure has been for the last three years. The reason I do so, my Lords, is because, as I have told you, the jobbery and expenditure on outdoor relief, unless it is controlled by such an Amendment as I am submitting, will be absolutely ruinous to the large ratepayers in the various counties. I quoted to you the other day a speech of Mr. Chamberlain's in 1892. In one or two brief expressions he showed the dangers to which the ratepayers would be exposed far more ably than I could do if I addressed your Lordships on the subject, and his words are so important that I trust you will allow me to use them again, even though I only quoted them as late as last Thursday. He said—
  "Speaking generally, all over Ireland, five per cent, of the ratepayers pay fifty percent of the cess."
  And then he went on to say—
  "In one case two per cent, of the cess payers pay fifty per cent, of the cess."
  It is absolutely immaterial to the small cesspayer to what extent the rates are raised, provided, that out of them they can obtain employment for themselves at the expense of a small minority. Naturally, in the interests of the large ratepayers, there should be some limit to the expenditure. Mr. Chamberlain himself foresaw the danger Mr. Balfour in

  1027
  one of his speeches declared that they would be acting criminally towards the minority if they did not extend protection against what is nothing more or less than robbery by means of the rates. I know full well that the Government have given, this matter full consideration, and so have we who have been studying the details of this Bill. We have carefully considered whether a Standing Joint Committee, such as Scotland possesses, would be an advantage. We have also carefully considered whether rating qualification would safeguard the minority of large ratepayers. We have also considered the question of minority representation, but upon the whole we have come to the conclusion that the principle of the safeguard introduced by Her Majesty's Government was of the 'safest and best character, but that it was not wide enough, and that it should mot be confined to the roads. I should tie very diffident in raising this question if it involved an entirely new principle, but it involves no principle whatever. 'The principle is laid down that any extra expenditure on roads and the 25 per cent, limit should only be granted by application to, and with the permission of, the local Government Board; and consequently the authority of the Local Government Board is brought in with regard to the roads. All we ask is that the 25 per cent, should cover the limit of expenditure both of the roads and of every other head of expenditure, unless it is considered desirable by the Local 'Government Board to grant leave to the particular district to expend a large sum of money beyond that provided for by the Act. I think that is very fair. If the expenditure is fair and necessary it would not be a great trouble to a district council to apply to the Local Government Board, and if that expenditure is right and necessary it will be the duty of the Local Government Board to grant permission to exceed that limit exactly as they have the power now to do should they, in their opinion, consider that the limit should be expended for the benefit of the roads. I dwelt, my Lords, at such length upon this question last Thursday that it is really not necessary for me to dilate upon it at any length tonight, but I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that history
  1028
  has taught us that the right to grant outdoor relief has been exercised in the most flagrant manner in the past, and that it may be exercised in the most flagrant manner in the future; and if the Government really wish to safeguard the interests of the large ratepayers—and, my Lords, the large ratepayers do not only consist of landowners but also of large tenant farmers—I think it is but just that they should consider my proposal and limit the total expenditure to 25 per cent., excepting when the Local Government Board in Dublin thinks it is necessary to allow more to be spent.
  *THB LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I do not think that my noble Friend who has moved this Amendment has rightly grasped the position and the circumstances of the various authorities who are named in the Bill, or the powers that are given in the Bill, and the powers that exist independently of the Bill entirely. If a great change like that which is contemplated in this Bill is to be made, it must be done to a certain extent on the principle of confidence and of trust, and if you call into existence a popularly elected county council, as in England and in Scotland, so now in Ireland you must assume that they will be animated to a certain extent with a sense of the responsibility cast upon them and with, a sense of duty. The safeguards provided all through the scheme that has been stated to your Lordships are of a broad character, and they are not small or vexatious ones. A large grant is made by the State, which is to effect a very great change, and the change that is to be accomplished is that the occupier is to be made the person who is to be liable to pay the rates. That is a great change and a great safeguard, because it places upon the occupier the disadvantage of any extravagance; it gives him the advantage of being economical. That is a great and general safeguard, and it is one which pervades the entire structure of this Bill. But now let us go to those particular clauses which my noble Friend has shortly described as the 25 per cent, clause, and, in so doing, I have to direct his attention to this that it is worthy of note that this proposal, during the whole of the time that the Bill was before the House of Commons, was received upon all sides as the most potent

  1029
  check that could be devised against extravagance on the part of the district council. It never was suggested from beginning to end on the part of any landowner or any Unionist that the clause was susceptible of advance or improvement; and it was attacked all through only by those who take another view of the question. Gentlemen sitting upon the Nationalist Benches described it as being an undue restraint and an improper check upon the methods of expenditure that might be adopted in reference to this matter. I have directed my Friend's attention to what may be a confusion in reference to the way in which this matter is viewed. There are district councils and there are boards of guardians. It is true that the same people constitute these boards, speaking roughly—that is to say, that the district councillors make the district council, and also in their character as guardians, they make the board of guardians. But the matter must be looked at from an entirely independent point of view. They are kept separate; they are not amalgamated, because different considerations and different codes and different checks prevail in reference to each of them. The staple argument of my noble Friend, and in his Second Reading speech, which he has just given, is, that there may be abuses as to outdoor relief. The Bill does not touch outdoor relief. Every check that was in existence for outdoor relief is in as potent and efficacious application now as before the Bill was thought of. The Local Government Board preserved every check and every single power that is in existence now and will be in existence after the passing of this Bill. Every check upon outdoor relief forbidding it to be given to able-bodied people—forbidding it to be given to those who have a quarter of an acre of land—enabling the auditor to overhaul the guardians if it is given extravagantly, enabling the Local Government Board to dissolve boards of guardians; all these are preserved, and there is not a single syllable in this Bill that interferes with, or changes, or mutilates, or embarrasses the efficacy of the existing control of the outdoor relief, or of any other part of poor law administration. If that is so, I apprehend that is a complete answer to the suggestion of my noble Friend, that we should
  1030
  apply the 25 per cent limit to everything. This Bill is without the slightest reference or regard whatever to poor law relief, or to any other limit of poor law relief. How can you tell guardians that they are not to spend money beyond so much, in the time of poverty and distress it may be, and under circumstances that everyone recognises as reasonable? How can you tell them that they must not spend more than 25 per cent? It would be impossible. Their first and primary duty is to provide for the poor. We do not seek to change a single enactment in reference to that, and it is, I venture to think, a confusion of ideas to suggest that there is anything whatever in common between this 25 per cent, limit introduced in reference to roads, which might be made by the district council in their character as district council, and the question of what might be a perfectly reasonable expenditure of the boards of guardians on outdoor relief or anything else connected with the administration of the poor law. That only leaves me one, other matter to deal with which has been referred to. It may be said that that deals completely with the question of the poor law guardian, but what do you say about the expenditure of the district council—why must the expenditure of the district council be at all limited? It has been represented over and over again—in the press, in pamphlets, and everywhere else—that the reason for that is that there may be some extravagance in making roads within their own district. That is the main danger. That is a danger that requires looking after, and it is conceded that that danger is met in the clearest, the fullest, and the most satisfactory way by the limit that is put in here, requiring the assent of the Local Government Board to any expenditure beyond 25 per cent, in a certain standard number of years that are named. What else remains? Absolutely nothing. It is impossible to name any other limit of expenditure that the district council can go to where they are not met face to face with existing safeguards in the existing statutes, and which prevent them from running riot with any expenditure. In the first place, the district council have to ask the sanction of the county council for this expenditure on roads which are of a new kind. It has to do the same in reference to ordinary

  1031
  public works. Take now the only other works of any substantial character—sanitary expenditure and public health expenditure. In those cases they are fact to face with this restriction—that they can only carry out works of that nature by means of loans approved of by the-Local Government Board. There they are met with the existing facts of the law. They cannot, under the Sanitary Acts and the Public Health Acts, proceed to borrow without the sanction of the Local Government Board, as to the fixing of the area charge, and as to everything else connected with it. It may be said that in the case of the Labourers Acts they might run into excess. But there again they are face to face with a statute limit; they cannot go to more than one shilling in the £ If you look at this with a technical knowledge, which, of course, is not found on the surface of the Bill, it is obvious that whether you take the guardians, who are subject to all existing checks, or whether you take the district councils with their new duties and new obligations, there is an ample check on the power of spending money. Twenty-five percent is named here in reference to the roads, and there are existing statutable checks in reference to everything else. There is no such check as this, as suggested by my noble Friend, in the English and Scotch Acts. If you call into existence an Irish county council and Irish machinery of local government, you must have some regard' to the way in which it has been worked in England—the way it has been legislated for in England, and the way it has worked. I myself think it will be found that the view that was taken of this by those who looked into it very closely, and came to the conclusion that this is a very carefully framed provision, going as far as can be reasonably expected in the direction of safeguarding every possible likelihood of extravagance, is a very correct view, and I hope that your Lordships will be satisfied with this explanation that the matter has been very fully considered, and that you will not accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I will only detain your Lordships for a moment in replying. The Bill has very thoroughly and very wisely safe-
  1032
  guarded undue expenditure on the roads, so that it is hardly possible that any jobbery can be perpetrated with reference to them; but nothing is done to prevent jobbery in regard to outdoor relief or to provide a safeguard with reference to undue expenditure in that direction. If you do one, I do not sea why you should not do the other.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: You do not mention guardians at all from beginning to end.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: "Any matter or thing."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRE-LAND: That is the district council. If my noble Friend passed this Amendment it would not touch outdoor relief.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I cannot agree with my noble and learned Friend if the county council has any power of vetoing the expenditure of the district council.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: But roads are public works.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I want to have some safeguard to prevent this very reckless expenditure which I have mentioned before, and I think my Amendment will give us some safeguard.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE). I think my noble Friend has hardly studied this question sufficiently. He based almost the whole of his argument upon the liability to extravagance in the poor law expenditure; but if his Amendment was carried it would have no effect whatever upon the poor law; it would not impose any check upon poor law expenditure. The clause of the Bill provides that—
  "A county council shall not, without the consent of the Local Government Board, approve of any expenditure on roads proposed by the council of any rural district, which will cause the expenditure on the roads of the district to exceed by one-fourth the amount certified by that Board to have been the average expenditure thereon during the three years next before the passing of this Act, and the Board may, as respects each council, consent either for a particular road or a particular

  1033
  year, or generally, and in the latter case may fix a new limit under this section.
  "An urban district council shall transact the business transferred to them by this section in the manner prescribed by general rules of the Local Government Board."
  A district council, as a district council, has nothing whatever to do with poor law expenditure, and the poor law expenditure never comes in any shape or form before the county council. In their capacity as guardians it conies before the district council, but it never comes before the county council at all; so that, as regards poor law expenditure, my noble Friend's Amendment would be absolutely and entirely without effect. The expenditure on sanitary works which may be incurred by district councils is already controlled and checked by the Local Government Board, because sanitary work cannot be carried on out of current income; sanitary works can only be carried on by means of loans, and no loan can be raised without the sanction of the Local Government Board, and where the Local Government Board has satisfied itself that the work is a necessary one, and that the manner in which it is going to be carried out is economical. Therefore, the Local Government Board possesses already a control over the proceedings of the district council, excepting that control over the expenditure on roads which the clause gives them. As to the poor law expenditure, the county council has nothing whatever to say to that.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The district council is the board of guardians, and the men on them fill a dual position. What I am sure is in the noble Marquess's mind is that the 25 per cent, can be spent upon the roads, and that then those same district councillors, filling their dual position as guardians, can administer the outdoor relief—
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: The district council cannot.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: But they are guardians as well.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: It is a different body.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: They can spend money on outdoor relief, and the Sanitary Acts, and the Labourers' Acts, and the other Acts mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. Our contention is that 25 per cent, goes on the roads, and that another 25 per cent, may go> upon all these other charges, so that the half of the poor rate is wiped out entirely. That, I imagine, is what my noble Friend means by his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: As I understand it, the same individuals act as boards of guardians and district councillors. As boards of guardians, they have to deal with outdoor relief. As far as that is concerned all the checks and safeguards in existence in Ireland will continue to be in existence after the passage of the Bill, and why on earth the noble Marquess wants to put in more safeguards I cannot understand.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, after line 26, insert as a new sub-section—
  "A district or urban council shall have the power of making by-laws for the purpose of removing or preventing the erection of manifestly disfiguring open - air advertisements within their several jurisdictions; provided, always, that if an objection is raised to any decision under such by-laws, there shall be an appeal to the Local Government Board."—(Viscount de Vesci.)
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: The Amendment which stands in my name is not a very, difficult one, but I have been asked to move it on behalf of the society formed for the purpose of preventing the erection of disfiguring open-air advertisements. The difficulty of the matter is this, that there is no clause, I believe,

  1035
  of the same kind in the English or Scotch Acts, but, as your Lordships are aware, it is this practice of disfiguring advertisements in country districts which is felt to be a great nuisance, and there is, I know, a very strong feeling about it. I do not stand by the language of the sub-section that I am proposing, but I will ask the Government if they will accept the principle of it, and then I can bring forward fresh words on the Report stage. I ought to state, as a matted of fact, that this practice of putting up these disfiguring advertisements is very prevalent in Ireland, especially in the south-west and those portions much frequented by tourists.
  *LORD CLONBBOCK: I hope that the Government will accept this new clause of my noble Friend, because I can assure your Lordships that it is occasionally very much wanted in Ireland. I remember that about 20 years ago a seller of artificial manures had his place of business near a most historical ruin in Ireland, and on that ruin he had painted in huge letters, about 10 feet long, the names of his manures, and he was perfectly surprised when remonstrances were addressed to him on the subject; he appeared to think that his advertisement rather added to the beauties of the place than otherwise. I must say he did his best to eradicate the letters, although I am not sure that they cannot be seen up to the present day. No doubt the more picturesque a place is the more likely it is to be disfigured by these kinds of advertisements. I trust that this Government will see its way to accept the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. It is what may be called a sentimental Amendment. Ireland is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. A large number of English tourists go over there, and they want to see the beauties of the country undisfigured by
  1036
  any of these monstrous advertisements, which now are so prevalent in the south of England, and in other places. If the county councils have not the means of preventing these erections, no doubt, in the course of time, as the country is developed, they will be placed much more freely in the more frequented districts. I think it is a very good Amendment; it is not a very important one; it would no doubt give a great deal of trouble to the county council, but at the same time it may hereafter be the means of doing a certain amount of good.
  *THE LORD CHANGELLOR OF IRELAND: There will be a most frightful jealousy between the two countries if this Amendment is accepted. By the common law of this country the most hideous advertisements that are conceivable can be put up with impunity in every direction. I am always greatly struck by an Amendment of this kind, which appeals, so much to human sentiment, and to a desire to look upon beautiful things and a horror of seeing ugly things, but this, is a question which has agitated public opinion for a considerable time, and I really do not think it ought to have a place in this Bill. I have a great deal of sympathy with the object in view, but I am afraid it touches the fringe of a branch of the law that is not at all peculiar to Ireland. For my own part, I really believe that we have fewer uglier advertisements in Ireland than certainly in any part of England, and why the society for the prevention of the exhibition of disfiguring open-air advertisements should begin with this I really do not know. There are some specialities, we have in Ireland, but this is not one of them, and I think the matter might be left to be dealt with by some general law which shall make some general reform in this matter. At any rate, it is hardly appropriate here. While, as said, I have every sympathy with the-noble Lord, I do not think such an Amendment should form part of a Bill

  1037
  of this; character, but that it should be dealt with aa a whole by a Bill which should make a general change dealing with the whole of the country.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I only ask the noble and learned Lord as a matter of patriotism to let Ireland lead the way.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I yield to nobody in patriotism, but I am afraid that my patriotism will not induce me to accept an Amendment which, I have said, ought not to find a place in a Bill of this character.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: Could not the county councils make by-laws?
  Sub-section, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSES 27 TO 31.
  Motion made, and question put—
  "That clauses 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I beg to move that Lord Balfour of Bur-leigh takes the Chair.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHtook the Chair.
  "Insert as a new clause—
  "There shall be transferred to every urban and rural district council the business of the board of guardians under section one hundred and fifty of the Public Health Act, 1878 (which relates to the execution of the regulations made when Ireland appears to be threatened by any formidable epidemic, endemic, or infectious disease), or under any enactment amending or extending that section, and section three of the Epidemic and other Diseases Prevention Act, 1883, shall be repealed."—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is a new clause, and it is consequential to that part of the Bill which transfers sanitary powers to the district council, and other powers of a
  1038
  kindred character, which should have been included in the Bill.
  Question put.
  Clause agreed to.

  CLAUSES 32 TO 40.
  Motion made, and question, put—
  "That clauses 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 41.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 27, line 38, after 'district,' insert 'or for adding an urban sanitary district to a rural sanitary district, or for enlarging the boundaries of an urban county district.'"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is a small change introduced to make the clause more perfect. It is really a drafted Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and question put—
  "That clause 41, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  Motion made, and question put—
  "That clause 42 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 43.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord a Question of which I have given private notice. The sanitary expenses in rural districts are spread entirely over the whole district. I want to know whether that affects the question of the Labourers' Cottage Act. I would point out that the Labourers' Cottage Act has been controlled by the boards of guardians, and I should like to know whether the charge

  1039
  now is to be to the electoral division or to the whole union. I believe in a very few instances the expenses of the Labourers' Cottage Act have been put upon the whole union at large, and I believe that it has proved very unsatisfactory, and that a great many abuses have arisen under it. My experience of the working of the Labourers' Cottage Act is that, when the expense is placed upon the electoral division, the work of the Act is much more narrowly watched. There are several divisions in most of the unions where labourers' cottages are built, event when ample accommodation exists. The object of the Act was to build in small and unsupplied districts, and to give allotments of land where there were no facilities before. I would remind the noble and learned Lord that this is not a question of union rating or of outdoor relief. Any expense incurred in outdoor relief can have its effects removed during the next financial year, but a cottage once built remains there forever. I press this point upon the consideration of the noble and learned Lord from the point of view that it is not cottages that are wanted in Ireland so much as land. The people of Ireland are not so anxious to obtain cottages as to get allotments of land, and I am sure that the power now possessed may be open to abuse, especially at the expense of the larger ratepayers. I have very seriously considered whether I ought not to put down an Amendment on this subject; at any rate, I should like the opinion of the noble and learned Lord.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: In a long Bill of this kind it is impossible to take a particular clause without collating it with other clauses in the Bill, and if the noble Lord will look at the last paragraph of clause 56 he will find a reference which I shall be glad to speak to him about, which clears the matter up. He will find that the charge for the Labourers' Cottage Act comes out of the union charges, and that if it were not so it would be a loss, because we could not get any benefit out of the
  1040
  agricultural grant This is part of a large question, and I shall be happy to go into the matter more in detail if the noble Lord so wishes.
  Motion made, and question put—
  "That clause 43 stand part of the BiLL"
  Agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That clauses 44 and 45 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 46.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 29, after 'county,' insert 'or other.'"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is merely a small drafting Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 30, leave out 'borough fund,' and insert 'funds or accounts in respect of which such rates or any of them were levied.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I move this Amendment in the interests of the city of Belfast, which has several funds—the police fund, the gas fund, the borough fund, and so on—and they wish to carry them to the credit of one fund, otherwise there will be confusion. I think there is no objection to that.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think my noble Friend is perfectly right in principle, but it is intended to deal with that by the Order in Council to provide that the funds will be kept separately in all accounts, so I shall ask my noble Friend to leave the borough fund in, and when we come to

  1041
  make the Order in Council we will take oare that the matter is put right.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 36, leave out 'or clerk,' and insert 'clerk or officer.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The city of Belfast owns gasworks, and amounts are paid to the cashier in respect of those gasworks, and they think that his receipt ought to be a valid discharge to the party paying it. I think my noble Friend has no objection to that.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This question of the receipt of money, and of giving receipts, is an extremely important point, and it is considered to be absolutely essential that we should keep something like a close precision as to those who are entitled to give receipts, and therefore I trust my noble Friend will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 43, after 'Act,' insert 'or in the case of money derived from trust funds, then by the specific trust affecting those funds.'"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That clause 46, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 47.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 1, leave out from 'canal' to the end of the clause."—(Viscount Temple-town.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I beg, my Lords, to move this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I do not like in the least to check my noble Friend, especially as I believe that this is the only Amendment he has put down, but I am afraid this is an endeavour to make an enormous increase in the agricultural grant, and that would be a substantial interference with the privileges of the House of Commons.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: The noble and learned Lord has anticipated what might have been said by most people, but it was not my intention to produce the effect with which he has credited me. I merely intended to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the very great damage done to land which is outside the borough boundary, and therefore derives no benefit from being in proximity to a large town. If this clause stands as it is now in the Bill, it is very clear that land which can derive no possible benefit from being in proximity to the town on one hand will be handicapped as against the land immediately outside it by not receiving the agricultural grant, an amount which might make a difference in increasing the agricultural grant in a way that has not been contemplated. But could not Her Majesty's Government see their way to put in a definition into this clause which would permit land to receive the benefit of an agricultural grant if it could be shown clearly that it derived no benefit from being in the borough boundary. The task of differentiating would not be very difficult, and if the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill would try and meet the Amendment in some form by saying that the agricultural grant, for instance, might be given where land was mountain land, or something which cannot be compensated for. I am not particularly anxious to exclude the whole of the words mentioned, I only seek to qualify the clause to such an extent, so as to allow the grant to be given to land which cannot get any benefit by being in the borough boundaries.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: There was nothing discussed in

  1043
  the House of Commons more keenly than all these matters of lands which are to be taken into account, and some of the land had, of course, to be disregarded. The line had to be drawn somewhere, and it was drawn in the way indicated in the clause—
  "The provisions of this Act with respect to agricultural land shall extend to every here-ditament entered as land in the valuation list within the meaning of the Valuation Acts, which is not part of a railway or canal, but shall not extend to any here-ditament situate within the boundary of any borough or of any town which is (for the time being) an urban sanitary district."
  It was quite recognised that it did work out, to a certain extent, in an arbitrary way, and that there would be some cases of hardship. But it had to be done on the lines indicated, so as to exclude the urban sanitary districts, and the grant was calculated on that basis, and we cannot enter into it now.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Under the circumstances, I will not press my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSES 48 TO 51.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That clause 47 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 48 TO 51.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That clauses 48, 49, 50, and 51 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 52.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 36, line 24, after 'shall,' insert 'except where under the terms of his contract he is not entitled to make any deduction from his rent in respect of rates.'"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I move the insertion of those words which should have been included.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  1044
  Page 36, at end of line 29, add—
  "Provided, however, that the occupier shall not be entitled to make any deduction from his rent in respect of buildings, except so far as same are liable to rent."—(The Earl of Arran.)
  *THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I have brought up this Amendment, because in many hundreds of cases where judicial rents have been fixed it has been officially noted in the pink schedule that the buildings belong wholly or partly to the tenant, and in fixing the fair rent no rent is fixed upon the buildings at all, and therefore they would be excluded from the provisions of the Act, and are to be treated as a separate holding, and it is understood consequently that there will have to be some separate assessment upon the land and upon the buildings. What I want to guard against is this, that the tenant should not be entitled to deduct from the rental any part of the poor rate or county cess which would be applicable to the buildings which do not pay rent.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have looked into this, question, and I think it does not in the slightest degree affect the amount of the deduction, and that is all that my noble Friend is interested in. Whether you transfer from one part of the farm to another, the liability to rent would not affect the amount of deduction; it leaves it absolutely untouched. The matter is one that I can make abundantly plain to my noble Friend if I go into it in detail, but I know the matter has been looked into very closely, and I believe it is perfectly plain that it does not in the slightest degree affect the amount of the deduction, whether you dissociate the buildings from the land or the land from the buildings; the amount of deduction is exactly the same.
  *THE EARL OF ARRAN: I do not quite understand, as the rates at present paid are levied upon the two—upon the buildings and upon the land. I will not insist upon it now, but, of course, if I cannot understand the noble and learned Lord's explanation, I shall have to bring it up on Report.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 37, line 1, leave out sub-section (8)."—(Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, my Amendment is to omit the following sub-section altogether—
  "Any difference which may arise as to the Amount to be deducted or paid by occupiers under existing tenancies in pursuance of this section, shall be referred to the Commissioner of Valuation, whose decision shall be final."
  It appears to me that the Commissioner of Valuation is not quite the proper person to refer these matters to, because questions of law and of fact will be likely to arise under this section. It is quite clear that questions of law will arise as to the position of certain tenancies, and my object in moving to leave out this sub-section is that the parties should be able to take their proper remedy at law, as they can now, before the proper authority.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, it is not anticipated that anything like substantial difference will arise, and in any question of figures the reference to the Commissioner of Valuation—a man of considerable intelligence and cuteness—offers a simple, expeditious, and cheap means of decision. I do not think it is desirable to tell people that if they have a small difference their best way to settle it is to rush into a lawsuit. I do not advise my friends to adopt that course.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: It is not that I doubt the capabilities of the commissioner at all. What I say is that questions will arise which at present constantly occupy the Superior Courts, and it seems to me that these questions are not questions which the Commissioner of Valuation should be asked to decide, however excellent and able a person he may be.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The questions that will arise must be largely questions of figures, and not of law, because new tenancies are not created. You make some difference in the taxes, and in the incidence of the taxes, and it is comparatively easy to determine the amount of adjustment. I think it is
  1046
  prudent, in the interests of landlord and tenant, to leave that to the Commissioner of Valuation, who is a master of figures.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: Could my noble and learned Friend see his way to leave out the words "whose decision shall be final"?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRE-LAND: No; that would be very unsatisfactory.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 52, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

  CLAUSE 53.
  *THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper, providing—
  "That in every order fixing a fair rent, after the appointed date, the Land Commissioner shall insert the amount so credited to the landlord and the tenant respectively."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I will accept that Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 53, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 54.
  "Page 38, line 32, after 'exemptions,' insert 'provided that where in any borough the council can under any existing general or local Act make such rate upon the landlord or immediate lessor and not upon the occupier, this section shall not apply unless the council of such borough by a majority of two-thirds of the members present at a meeting specially summoned, resolve to adopt the provisions of this section instead of the provisions of the existing Act.'"—(Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to withdraw this Amendment, and to substitute the following—
  "Provided that the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to a rate under a local act in any county borough, if the council of that borough, by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present, and at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose, so resolve."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I accept that Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 54, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 55 TO 65.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 66.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 49, line 21, leave out 'or,' and insert 'whether in making an order or in confirming an order made by a county council, and in the exercise of.'"—(Lord Asnbourne.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is merely a drafting Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 49, lines 25 and 26, leave out 'so far as conveniently may be,' and insert 'except in any case where the preservation thereof would cause serious inconvenience.'"—(Lord Macnaghten.)
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it plain that the boundaries and
  1048
  counties are not to be changed without good reason.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: If your Lordships will refer to clause 100 you will see that an Appeal Commission has been constituted to deal with cases of this kind.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Yes, but I think the Appeal Commission ought to-have some light to guide them.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The sub-section reads—
  "The boundaries of counties at large and unions as existing at the date of the order shall be preserved, so far as conveniently may be."
  Surely that is clear enough.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: What is the meaning of those words?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: They are as plain as the words of my noble Friend. He proposes to leave out, "so far as conveniently may be," and to insert, "except in any case where the preservation thereof would cause serious inconvenience." It is really only a question of phraseology. The Appeal Commission will know that they are not to interfere lightly with boundaries, but to have regard to the general convenience, and to the preserving of existing boundaries, "so far as conveniently may be."
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Will the noble and learned Lord accept the Amendment if I substitute, "substantial inconvenience" instead of "serious inconvenience"?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: These clauses were examined very minutely in the other House, and the Appeal Commission was called into existence to meet the case to which the noble Lord has called attention.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I do not think there is any difference between my noble and learned Friend and myself.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: There is not. I have no reason to think boundaries will be lightly interfered with. If we strike out the

  1049
  words in the clause, and insert others, it will be said that something revolutionary was intended.
  *LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I think the words my noble Friend [Lord Macnagh-ten] suggests would be better. I do not know what might not be "conveniently" done. It is a vague phrase. Lord Macnaghten puts the onus upon the parties who move of showing that the alteration must be made, because otherwise it will be substantially inconvenient.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I will accept the Amendment with the word "substantial."
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Then the subsection will now read—
  "The boundaries of counties at large and unions as existing at the date of the order shall be preserved, except in any case where the preservation thereof would cause substantial inconvenience."
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 50, line 29, at end of clause add as a fresh sub-section—
  "Such changes in the ordnance map as appear to the Lord Lieutenant in Council to be rendered necessary by this Act, or any Order in Council made there under, shall be made through the Commissioner of Valuation in manner directed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 66, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 67 TO 69.
  Question put—
  "That clause 67, 68, and 69 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 70.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 54, line 15, after 'justice,' insert 'of the discharge of his or their duties.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 70, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 71 TO 75.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 76.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 56, line 11, after 'shall,' insert 'without prejudice to the reasonable use thereof for any purpose connected with navigation.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 76, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  Question put—
  "That clause 77 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 78.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 1, after 'this,' insert 'or any ether.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is only a drafting Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 78, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  Question put—
  "That clauses 79 and 80 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 81.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 26, after 'surveyor,' insert 'who shall be the surveyor to the rural district councils comprised within the area of the county.' "—(Viscount de Vesci.)
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: My Lords, I put this Amendment down because of the difficulty which has been experienced by boards of guardians in getting properly qualified surveyors, architects, and clerks of works to carry out the sanitary works under those boards. I do not wish to make any unnecessary accusation, but there is great risk in regard to the lower class of men, who are not so well trained and educated, of getting those who will not be independent of other considerations. Some have been known to be in collusion with contractors. My desire is that these important works should be carried out by competent and educated officials Of course, my Amendment will probably necessitate an increase being made in the salaries of the county surveyors, but if the salaries of these officials were increased to the maximum it would not be money thrown away.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the desire of the noble Lord to procure adequate supervision for all the public works in the country. This
  1052
  Amendment has been considered with every desire to meet it as far as could be, but it is not thought desirable to seek to put a county surveyor under a divided authority, and to give him a divided allegiance. This is a matter that will settle itself, as every county council will be anxious that the county surveyor should give the benefit of his experience to any works needed by the county. The assistant county surveyors will also be available. The head authority is the county council, and I think it is best to give them full supervision and control of their officers.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 81 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 82 TO 85.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 82, 83, 84, and 85 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 86.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 16, after 'Dublin,' insert 'or of any urban district within the county of Dublin.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 86, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 87 TO 90.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 87, 88, 89, and 90 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 91 TO 98.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 27, leave out sub-section (1)."—(The Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  THE EAHL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will agree to omit this subsection of the clause, and thereby relieve a certain class in Ireland from the disabilities under which this Bill at present places them. I am sure the whole House will agree with me that to place any disability of this kind upon any class is a most undesirable and a most objectionable thing to do, unless there are very strong cause and reason shown why it is absolutely necessary that it should be done. And, my Lords, I submit that in this case no reason whatever has as yet been shown. To deprive the ministers of religion of the privilege that all other members of the community in Ireland will possess, of sitting upon district and county councils, without sufficient and very great cause is surely to cast a great slur upon ministers of religion in Ireland. And, my Lords, in this case disability is not only objectionable, but it appears to me totally illogical. Ministers of religion are eligible to be members of the grand juries, and why, in the name of goodness, should they not be eligible to sit as members of the boards which take over the duties of grand juries? They are capable of voting, and I do not see why they should not be capable of sitting upon those bodies. They are eligible to sit on these bodies in Great Britain, and I can see no reason whatever for differentiating between Great Britain and Ireland in this respect. My Lords, the reasons that I have heard given up to the present appear to me to be entirely unsatisfactory. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House, said, as regards this point, that he did not believe that ministers of religion in Ireland would avail themselves of the privilege of sitting on county and district councils if they had it. Well, my Lords, that may be so, but because a man is not likely, or a body of men are not likely, to avail himself or themselves
  1054
  of a privilege, surely that is no reason why you should debar them, from using that privilege if they have a mind to. In speaking in another place the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that if ministers of religion were allowed to sit on these councils it would not tend to economy or to the smooth working of these new bodies; but the Chief Secretary gave no explanation why this should be so. I confess, my Lords, I have not the slightest notion why we should suppose that ministers of religion are more likely to be extravagant than anybody else, nor do I know why I am asked to suppose that their presence would be likely to deter from the smooth working of these bodies. I find, it very difficult to advance any argument against that proposal, because I cannot understand what earthly argument can be advanced in favour of it. It is very difficult to understand what is the object and the real meaning of the exclusion of ministers of religion in Ireland. It is perfectly obvious that as they are admitted in England there must be some very strong, though some exceedingly obscure, reason which has influenced Her Majesty's Government, and the only reason that I can imagine is that some dread is entertained lest' in Ireland the ministers of religion would, in the purely mundane affairs of a county council, exercise the influence which they possess in their spiritual capacity. Well, my Lords, I will not go into the question whether they are likely or unlikely to do so. I will assume that such is the case. I will assume that it is true that ministers of religion in Ireland would use what I may term "undue influence" in purely worldly affairs. If that be so, I hold that this is the strongest possible argument in favour of, at any rate, allowing them to sit upon these councils. My own impression is that very few ministers of religion would avail themselves of the opportunity and the privilege of sitting on these boards, which I should regret. I think that one of the best things that could possibly happen in Ireland would be that they should avail themselves of the opportunity very largely. If you assume that a Roman Catholic priest or a Presbyterian minister, or an Episcopalian

  1055
  clergyman is prepared and anxious to use his spiritual influence in mundane, worldly affairs, I say that in proportion as you believe he will exercise that influence you ought to desire that he will exercise it openly on the councils and not secretly. It has been asked: what chance would a layman have in contesting an election against his parish priest? I admit he may have a poor chance. My real reason for feeling so strongly on this point is twofold. I do not imagine for a moment that the ministers of religion will very largely avail themselves of the privileges which we wish to grant them, but if they are excluded from the Bill altogether it will be always to give them a grievance. The great point is never to give a man a grievance or a chance for a grievance if you can possibly help it, but under this Bill as it stands they will always have an opportunity of making a grievance out of their exclusion. In the first place, there are no doubt a great number of men who would do very good and useful work upon these county councils and district councils, and if they are capable of such work it appears to me to be a pity that they should be excluded. In the second place, I feel very strongly that if the reason which influences Her Majesty's Government in this matter, in placing this disability upon ministers of religion, is the fear that they will exercise an undue influence upon the members of the council, I hold it very strongly that if they are prepared to exercise that influence they had far better sit upon the council and exercise it in the sight of man, rather than exercise it, as they will do if they are excluded, in the background, and in an underhand manner.
  *LORD BUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: I desire to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I belong to that class which looks with great hope to the good that this Bill may effect in Ireland. This is the first time in which, in any large Measure, power has been given to the Irish people to deal with their own affairs, and I think it would be a matter greatly to be regretted if a Bill, which I think has great potentialities for good, should start under a cloud of public disfavour. That this exclusion is directed against the Catholic priests in Ireland nobody can
  1056
  doubt. That is its avowed justification. I think, in the first instance, that that exclusion conveys an undeserved slur upon a large body of men who are just as thoroughly imbued, according to their beliefs and according to their honest opinions, with a desire to do what they regard to be in the interests of their country as any other class. They can have no motive which separates them from the interests of the great mass of the community—the great majority of the country. When, my Lords, you consider the subject-matters with which this Bill deals, purely local affairs, purely mundane, with no spiritual aspect about them at all, it does seem to me to be a most extraordinary proposal that you should do what you have not done in Scotland, that you should do what you have not done in England, exclude the whole body of clergy of all denominations from taking any part in local affairs. Why is this exclusion justified? There is but one precedent for it which is cognate to the subject, and that is that they were not eligible to be members of boards of guardians. I doubt very much whether if that poor law were put into enactment for the first time, that that exclusion would be allowed to continue, but if that precedent is to be cited in favour of their exclusion, it seems to me there is a much stronger precedent to be cited in favour of their inclusion. The Catholic priests of Ireland were, and are to-day, the law being as it is, eligible to be members of the body of grand jurors.
  *THE EARL OF ERNE: They never are.
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: That is not contravening anything that I have said. They are eligible to be members of grand juries in Ireland at this moment. The noble Lord who interrupted me says they never are. Why is that? Because that depends upon the mandate of the sheriff, and he does not choose to summon them upon his panel. But there is no exclusion based upon any exclusion of the law, and Episcopalian Protestant clergymen can be, and I have known more than one instance in which they were members of the grand jury; nor is that eligibility confined to the Protestant Episcopal Church. You start, therefore, with no precedent against

  1057
  them. You start also, as seems to me, with, this: that the result of this exclusion is to cast a slur upon a large body of persons who command, to a large extent undoubtedly, the sympathy, as well as the support and respect, of the great bulk of the people amongst whom they live. But see what consequences follow from it. It cannot be denied that your object is to prevent the Catholic priests taking their part in local affairs. What is the consequence of that? You cannot single them alone out, and you do not single them out. You exclude also Episcopalian Protestant clergymen and Presbyterian ministers in the north of Ireland, than whom—I speak from personal knowledge and experience—there are no men more capable of usefully taking part in local affairs than they are. Surely, at this time of day, it is possible that clergymen of different denominations may sit side by side getting to know one another better, getting to dispel prejudices which interfere with their relations in life to one another, and where they may at all events work upon a common ground where no question of religion, and where no question of anything concerned with religion, in any way is involved or interferes to disturb their calm and dispassionate judgment of any subjects that may come before them upon the merits of those subjects. My own impression is that the noble Lord is quite right in saying that it is very doubtful whether, so far as regards the Catholic priests, any considerable number of them would even seek a place upon these local boards. But the objection is that you render it impossible for them, if any of them desire to do so, and thereby you cast upon them a slur which undoubtedly to some extent will rankle as recent pronouncements of Irish bishops show; they at any rate regard it as a slur upon their general body. Why do you exclude? It must be nothing but this: that their influence in these purely—I might almost say these trivial—mundane affairs, roads, sanitary arrangements, and the like, is so great amongst the Catholic people of Ireland that the Catholic people of Ireland will not have any will of their own, and will follow blindfold the teachings of their clergy upon such matters. The notion is, to my mind, ridiculous, and I should have thought that observation of events in Ireland from 1879 to the present time would
  1058
  have informed this House that while the Irish people may be largely influenced by their clergy even in these matters, apart from religion, yet that, where their views differ from those of the clergy in such matters, the clergy are not followed. In other words, when the clergy lead where the people desire to go, then they are followed; but since 1879, on more than one occasion, which will be easily recalled by noble Lords, the people have not followed the lead of their clergy. It seems to me that there is a stronger argument yet. Your exclusion of this body from being possible members of these local representative bodies does not deprive them of their influence. Does it prevent them, if they wish to use their influence for malign or wrong purposes? Does it deprive them of that power? Not in the least. And the result is that you leave them with their influence, and at the same time you deprive them of that sobering sense of responsibility that ought to go along with it. That is absolutely the result of this policy, which, I think, is short-sighted, and I hope that the Government, even at this late hour, will reconsider this matter and will allow this Bill to have fair play, and to work out what I believe it can honestly work out, and result in great good to the country. I hope, my Lords, that you are not going to start it upon its career with this cloud upon it.
  *THK EARL OF ERNE: I have never been able to see why a slur should be supposed to be cast upon the clergy by their exclusion from these county councils. Of course, the case of England it always cited, but in England things were entirely different. I understand that in the rural parts of England the magistracy is largely recruited from the clergy, and, as magistrates, they were entitled to sit at quarter sessions, and to take a part in the fiscal business of the county, and when you were bringing in a local government Bill for England, a slur would indeed have been cast upon the clergy if you had said that they were ineligible to sit on the councils; but it is entirely different in Ireland. I heard with great astonishment that the clergy were not disqualified from sitting on the grand juries, but, is a matter of fact they never do sit on them.
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: That is not so. Clergymen—Episcopalian clergymen—have again and again served as members of grand juries.
  *THB EARL OF ERNE: They have served because they were landlords—by virtue of that qualification. I think the noble and learned Lord will find that to be the case. They did not serve on the grand juries, they did not attend presentment sessions. They are disqualified from being members of boards of guardians, and, certainly, within the present generation at all events, successive Lords Chancellors, whether Liberal or Conservative, have refused, and I think very wisely refused, to place them upon the Commission of the Peace. I trust that I shall not be accused of disrespect for the clergy of my own-Church when I say that I do not consider that their previous training is at all a fitting preparation for the discharge of those duties which the noble Lord now seeks to place upon them. I think their present avocations would be seriously and injuriously interfered with if they are called to take part, in the business of their county, and I think (and this is probably one of the strongest objections) that they would be brought into relations—I might almost say into collision—with their parishioners on these councils, which would certainly not be dignified, and would perhaps be altogether undesirable. Of course, what applies to the clergy of my own Church also applies to the Roman Catholic priests and to Presbyterian ministers. I do not believe there is any desire, as far as I know, among the clergy of any die-nomination to serve on these councils, and a very influential body of Nationalist Members in the House of Commons oppose their inclusion, and I trust that your Lordships will adhere to the decision come to by the House of Commons.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: After the forcible argument brought forward in support of this Amendment, there is naturally very little for me to say; but, as I understand the argument in favour of the subsection as it stands, it is this: that as the clergy have hitherto been debarred from serving on public bodies, therefore it is desirable that that disability should now continue. Now, my Lords, this subsection has excited a great deal of feeling
  1060
  in Ireland. I am not able to quote many expressions of opinion against it, but I believe, that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church at Maynooth have expressed resentment at the presence of this sub-section in the Bill, and they have distinctly pointed out that their sole resource is to use their influence outside the councils, a course which everybody will deprecate. But the Roman Catholic clergy are not singular in this respect, for one of the most eminent prelates of the Episcopal Church in Ireland who approved of the exclusion of the clergy, said at a meeting of a diocesan synod lately—
  "There will be less temptation to introduce the religious element into the elections. But, on the other hand, there is much you can do to influence and mould men's minds in these matters."
  I think that is very much to be deprecated—that ministers of religion should be driven to use their influence, which should be devoted to sacred matters, on such purely secular matters as elections, and the other matters which will come before these local bodies. I cannot under-stand why one particular class should be excluded. If one particular class is to be excluded, I should prefer to exclude the medical profession. I should feel much more dread of the ultimate consequencss of a heated discussion with my medical adviser than one with my spiritual director on one of these boards. I think I ought to mention one thing to your Lordships. The clause, as it stands, says they are not eligible to serve on these new councils, and yet clergymen of all denominations are capable of sitting and acting as members of the present dispensary committees, and there are many of your Lordships who serve on boards of lunatic asylums who know that there are a very large proportion of clergy on those boards, and that they prove in the generality of cases most useful members. I will go further still. Speaking from my own experience and knowledge, I may say that I am acquainted with a board which does, a great deal of work in the west of Ireland—the Congested Districts Board. On that board there are two clergymen, and one of them is a prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He is, I may say, a man who has taken a very large share in, and has very strong views upon, political matters, but I know no more

  1061
  fair-minded man, and no man more desirous of working to support the views and objects of that board. I hope that my noble Friend will go to a Division, and I hope that he will be supported with the majority of your Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I desire to say a very few words on this question, because it is evidently one in which I cannot agree with my noble Friend. I view myself with supreme satisfaction the clause in the Bill excluding the clergy of all denominations from taking part in the administration of the district or county councils. As far as I can gather from the speech of the noble Lord opposite, it is thought that 'this Bill, as it stands at present, casts a slur on the Roman Catholic Church. I deny that entirely.
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN. They are eligible in England, and are eligible in Scotland, and by this Bill they are made ineligible in Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble and learned Lord will not deny that there are other clergy in Ireland besides the Roman Catholics. They are all excluded. I allude to the subject with great diffidence because I am so closely connected with the north of Ire-land, where the religious views of the majority of the population are not the same as they are in the south of Ireland. But those other ministers have not objected. The Episcopal Senate recently met, but no allusion was made to this exclusion, and evidently did not consider this clause to be a slur. Why, therefore, should it be considered a slur on the Roman Catholic clergy, when other clergy do not think it a slur at all. I think that the expression of the noble Earl below me was absolutely correct. I think the clergy are much better at home looking after their flocks than dealing with the county business, or with business of any sort or kind other than that strictly belonging to the Church and to the parish. I think they have plenty to do, and I have seen, with considerable regret (and I wish to say nothing of a controversial character, because many of the Roman Catholic clergy are intimate friends of my own), that when I was responsible for the government of Ire-
  1062
  land, in many parts of the country our difficulties of administration were greatly-added to by the action of certain priests. That, I am sure, the noble and learned Lord will not deny. Taking the experience of the line, that can be taken by some of these reverend gentlemen, I do confess that I shall look forward with considerable regret avoid apprehension to the dealings of certain boards in Ireland if these reverend gentlemen were in a position to what I may call direct the business of the various district or county councils. I have seen, only within a very few days, an instance to which I may allude of clerical intervention, which took place in Ireland. Only within the last few moments I have had put into my hands a resolution which was passed by the Board of Guardians of Mullingar, at a meeting; held on Thursday last, and I believe a question is to be put to the Chief Secretary in another place in a few days. The Mullingar Board of Guardians passed the following resolution—
  "That on this day fortnight the Board take action in regard to the vile and anti-clerical speech made by Mr. John P. Hayden, M.P., last week in Parliament, with the view of having his paper deprived of the advertisements of the board in the future, and that his reporter be excluded from our meetings in future."
  You could not have a case of greater clerical intimidation than that. This resolution was passed denouncing and punishing Mr. Hayden because he supports the clause.
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: Are any of the clergy members of that body which passed that resolution?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That I cannot tell you. It shows, however, the feeling that will exist if these-clerics are allowed to occupy a prominent place on the councils, and it will lead to the boycotting of men who do not do as they wish. I merely mention these facts because I do not think this clause casts any slur on the clergy, and I therefore trust that my noble Friend will adhere to the clause exactly as it stands.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: When this Bill first came before Parliament, I was strongly of opinion that the priests and

  1063
  ministers of religion should become members of the county councils and the district councils, and I maintained in an article I wrote the necessity for that being so; but after what I heard from the Leaders of the two Nationalist parties in the House of Commons I now think it would be better for the proper working of this Bill, and also for the harmonious proceedings of the county councils and the district councils, that ministers of religion should not be elected to these bodies. The people will elect these county councils and district councils, and the people elect their representatives that come to Westminster, and when those representatives do not agree upon this question I think it is better that the matter should remain as it is in the Bill, and that the ministers of religion should be excluded. If the representatives of the people did agree, that would be another matter altogether; but certainly the two sections of the Nationalists do not agree upon this question, and I think they are very good judges of the opinion of the country. That is my reason for saying these few words, and, having changed my opinion upon the subject, I shall not vote on the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: As far as I am concerned I do not say, and I do not think, that this exclusion of ministers of religion casts any particular slur upon the Roman Catholic clergy more than it does upon the clergy of any other denomination. But your Lordships at the same time will admit that it is quite impossible not to believe that this special clause is, more or less, aimed tolerably directly against the Roman Catholic clergy, because when you find that in portions of the United Kingdom, where the Protestant clergy are in a great majority, the ministers of Religion are entitled to sit upon the county councils, and that in another portion of the United Kingdom, where the Roman Catholic clergy are in a great majority, ministers of religion are not so entitled, it is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that this disability is aimed particularly at the ministers of the Roman Catholic Church. At present I have not heard any stronger
  1064
  argument in favour of retaining the clause than I have heard before. I have heard that the ministers of religion will not want to sit upon the county councils, and that if they did sit upon them they had much better not do so, but I have not heard a single good reason as yet why it should be anticipated that any harm could possibly be done to the smooth working of these new bodies by the presence upon them of ministers of religion than could be done equally as well, or perhaps a good deal better, by the same ministers of religion keeping behind the scenes and working there. Unless your Lordships hear from the noble and learned Lord [the Lord Chancellor of Ireland] a very much more cogent reason against the Amendment, I, with some confidence, hope your Lordships will agree to it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am rather disappointed in not hearing anything from the bench opposite, but I suppose the Bill is to be adhered to as it stands. If that be so, I deeply regret it. It seems to me a more unwise step could scarcely be taken than to exclude one of the most influential classes of the community from any participation in the administration of local affairs. The noble Earl who has just sat down has indicated what I should have been rather reluctant to assert, but for which I may conclude there is some foundation, that in reality, although this clause excludes all clergy, the object of it is to exclude the Roman Catholic clergy. If that be so—and I should be very glad to be convinced to the contrary—I think it is open to this most serious objection, that it tends distinctly to the promotion of that bitter feeling which, unfortunately, still exists "and has so long existed between the two most considerable sections of the Irish people. Could anything be more likely to produce and prolong such a feeling than the exclusion of the whole body of the Catholic priests in Ireland from these councils? As a matter of fact, whatever may be our opinions politically, we know that there is and has been no more influential body in Ireland than the Roman Catholic priests. Could anything be more unwise than not

  1065
  to make use of that influence when you can have the guidance of men who would exercise it upon these local councils? Could anything be more unwise than to leave them to work in the dark against you, which we know they can do to a considerable extent? Why not allow them to come into the light and exercise the influence which belongs to them, which they enjoy before their countrymen, in the administration of their local affairs? As to the argument that the clergy are better engaged in attending to their flocks, and so forth, we entertain a very different view in this country, and we are very glad indeed in our local affairs to have the assistance of many of the clergy, who have the advantage of being acquainted with the particular communities which they have to represent, and who exercise the most salutary influence in the management of local affairs. Why should you make in Ireland an excluded caste of men whom you profess to respect, but whom you exclude from one of their most natural avocations? It surpasses my understanding to comprehend it, unless, indeed, it be on account of the jealousy of one portion of the population to the influence that the Roman Catholic priests possess, and with the idea that by such an exclusion as this that influence can be diminished. Exclude them or not, their influence will remain the same, but if you do exclude them that influence will be exercised in a manner much less creditable than if it were exercised in the light of day.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think the proposal in the Bill is a fair and reasonable one. I am aware that there is a difference of opinion on the question. I said so before, but I think the preponderance of prudence and the balance of argument is in favour of what is contained in the Bill. Anyone would think from what the noble Earl has said that there is some startling innovation, some extraordinary change to be worked out and accomplished by the Bill. In what system of Irish public life are clergymen admitted? They are not on the municipal councils, they are not on boards of guardians; and I am not aware of any single representative body where the
  1066
  clergy sit or where it is suggested that it is desirable that they should sit.
  THE EARL or KIMBERLEY: They ought to be on those bodies.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The noble Earl spoke as if there were some startling change accomplished by this Bill. In the English Bill I am quite aware that there is no exclusion. That may be right; but still in England the clergy are not allowed to sit on municipal councils, and it is not suggested that there is anyone who desires to bring them into the House of Commons, and therefore we have to consider this question by the light of precedents, which all goes to support the continuance of the course which is adopted in the present case. Now there are a good many ways in which people can look at this question. How many people are there who would desire to see the clergy taking an active part in these councils? I venture to think not many—in my opinion there are very few. I have no doubt, from the speeches made and from what I have read, that a certain class would desire to see them not disqualified from sitting. I admit that, but I am of opinion that there is; a class far wider still who think it is more prudent and wise neither to have them sitting or authorised to sit on the county councils. They have ample duties to perform without sitting upon those bodies, or without taking this active part in these local affairs. They have great and important duties to perform, which everyone wishes them "God speed" in fulfilling and attending to. They can well take their part in charity, in philanthropy, in the teachings of religion. They can also give wise and prudent advice in the many matters that people in many spheres of life refer to them. But where is the point contained in the suggestion that while you leave to them their influence you deprive them at the means of exercising it in a proper manner? I cannot myself see the substantial force in that argument. If the clergyman would be likely to use extreme or extravagant influence to accomplish an election, I am not sure that the man who would so act would be likely to have his usefulness increased by putting

  1067
  him in a sphere where he could apply those methods in a more vigorous and open way. It is said that a slur is sought to be cast upon a particular class of the clergy in Ireland. I entirely repudiate that. A great effort has been made to suggest that a slur has been uttered and expressed, but I have not littered it, and I do not intend to. The Bill is perfectly open and fair and impartial, and there is not a word to suggest anything of intolerance, or bigotry, or unfairness, or want of charity or consideration. None of the clergy have at present any right of membership of these bodies, and I do not believe there is any very keen desire that they should take their places there. I do not believe there is any urgent desire on their part to do it, and I think it is prudent, and wise, and fair to leave the Bill as it is, which is, I venture to think, in accordance with the views of the great majority of people.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I think the Government is wrong. I think the Saxon Lords ought to understand that this Bill is taking the government of Ireland out of the hands of those who have not only known how to do it, but who have done well by their country in that government, and handing it over in the ultimate result to the priests. As they have the power I think they ought to have the responsibility. I am all for their being on these councils, and if I know anything about them and my countrymen they will remain there a very short time. They are much too wise to remain there any length of time. I think it is unwise if they have the power that they should not exercise it openly, because you know perfectly well how these elections will be managed. The priests will control all the elections, and therefore they ought to have some responsibility. I do not understand the argument of the Government. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord say what he did say. The Leader of the Opposition—one of the best debaters in this House'—made use of a great many arguments which I think were entirely fallacious. He showed more ignorance of Ireland than he ought to. He has been Viceroy of Ireland before this, but I do not think he knows anything about the country; in fact, I do not know
  1068
  whether Members of the front benches on either side of the House do know anything about Ireland—they are all tarred with the same brush. The priests have got the power—I am talking about the south of Ireland, I know nothing about the north—and why should they not have the responsibility? I shall vote for their taking their proper part on the councils.
  The House divided:—Contents 62; Not-contents 26.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Addington, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President)

  Ardilaun, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Bagot, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Belper, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Bolton, L.

  Braye, L.

  Portland, D.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Canysfort)

  Abercorn M. (D. Abercorn)

  Castlemaine, L.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Bath, M.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Crofton, L.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne)

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Harris, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  James, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Dartrey, E.

  de Montalt, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Massy, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

  Onslow, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde)

  Selborne, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Plunket, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Rathmore, L,

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

  Hood, V.

  Saltoun, L.

  Templemore, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Aberdare, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Crewe, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Morley, E.

  de Vesci. L. (V. de Vesci) [Teller]

  Spencer, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Digby, L.

  1069

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

  Russell of Killowen, L

  Harlech, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl) [Teller]

  Stanmore, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Windsor, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford)

  Methuen, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 99 AND 100.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 70, line 3, leave out from 'thereof' to the end of the clause, and insert 'for a period of ten years.'"—(The Duke of Abercorn.)
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I have a small but important Amendment with reference to this clause, and that is that the period for which the new local inspector shall be appointed should be extended from five years to 10 years. Tour Lordships will all agree that it is moist necessary that the Local Government Board under the Bill shall be as strong as possible. For that purpose an additional inspector is about to be appointed by the Government, but the period of his office is very limited—it is only for five years. Those who know Ireland and the working of government boards consider that we shall be able to obtain a stronger man, and a higher class of ability, if the period of the appointment is extended from five to 10 years, and, therefore, I trust that the Government will be able to agree to this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Of course it is very undesirable to call into existence any unnecessary officer, particularly an officer of this high position, who would get a substantial salary. This matter was considered very fully and very closely by those who are responsible for all these matters, and power has been taken to appoint this temporary member of the board for a period of five years, and that is thought to be an extremely fair and
  1070
  ample period; but I must say, in addition, that this is actually a money clause: the House of Commons has to set up a Committee, and move a Resolution of Supply, in order to carry this into effect; therefore, even if the proposals of the Government were not as I think them, the best, it is not competent to go into these matters in this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment of my noble Friend, and I should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down that the Government and the Treasury prefer 10 years to five. The noble and learned Lord says, "Oh, this is a matter for the Treasury"; but I do not quite see, if 10 years is preferred, why the period should not be extended.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The House of Commons has to set up a Committee of Supply and pass a Finance Resolution to justify the appointment being for five years. That makes it a purely Treasury question, and we are not competent in your Lordship's House to deal with it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Notwithstanding that, it seems to me that my noble Friend is justified in endeavouring to get the period extended. To my mind, the whole of the responsibility of the working of this clause must rest in the future on the Local Government Board in Ireland. My noble and learned Friend knows as well as I do that the Local Government Board in Ireland has discharged its duties most admirably in the past, but he will not contradict me when I say that on that Local Government Board there is not a single man who has any practical experience whatever of what is known as the grand jury system, and the government of the various counties. We pressed upon the Government some time ago very strongly the necessity of recognising not only that the Local Government Board is going to have extra work imposed upon them, but that the members of the Local Government Board had no experience whatever, and therefore we requested that there should be put

  1071
  upon that Board some gentleman who had thorough and practical knowledge of the working of the grand jury system, and who would be able, in the interests of the grand jurors and of the large ratepayers, to discharge the duties of inspector in that capacity. I am not going to make any comments on the gentleman who was appointed to this post—he was an extremely able member of the Congested Districts Board. That I do know; but I also know that when I was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland he was removed from the district of which he was local inspector to another place in a different part of Ireland, because he took a somewhat too prominent part on an estate connected with, the Plan of the Campaign. That I also know for a fact, and I also know that till recently his views were certainly not those of a follower of the present Government. He may be the most ardent Unionist, but I believe no one will contradict me when I say that a very few years ago the convictions he held politically were very different to those he holds now, and consequently I think we are justified in thinking that if the Local Government Board is to be strengthened, that strengthening should be, at any rate, accomplished by a Unionist Government, by appointing gentlemen who have always held Unionist opinions, and not by a man who has only recently taken to holding those views. As I say, a good deal of extra work will be placed upon the Local Government Board, and naturally it should be strengthened, and I believe my noble and learned Friend wishes it to be strengthened, but I wish to look forward to the future to an even greater extent than I do to the present, and I cannot think that you will in the future get good men who have practical experience to give up their own professions, their own pursuits, and their own duties in the various counties, if they are to feel that at the end of five years they are liable to dismissal, or that their services will be dispensed with. I therefore support my noble Friend, because the Local Government Board, as I reminded your Lordships the other day, will now have to be responsible for no less than 326 presentment sessions, and over 33 grand jury sessions, which are held twice a year. This will
  1072
  give an enormous amount of work to the Local Government Board, and therefore it is necessary that they should be practical men and good men, and I think that if the term were extended to 10 years, the Government would be able to secure the services of really first-rate men, who would look after the interests of Ireland and who would be accustomed to the duties with which none of the other members of the Local Government Board were acquainted, and therefore they would be men who could be regarded with every confidence. I do not know whether my noble Friend will be justified in pushing this Amendment to a Division, but I trust we shall receive some assurance that, at any rate, his very moderate request shall receive consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's. Government.
  LORD RATHMORE: I should like to ask a question of my noble and learned Friend. This proposal has been resisted on two different grounds—one ground is; that it is impolitic, and the other is that it is an Amendment which, if carried, would be a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, because, as my noble and learned Friend said, it was necessary to set up a Committee of Supply and to pass a Finance Resolution The case stands at present in this way. An office has been created which may be filled from year to year, or for five-years. Now, I want to ask this question, because we were about to commit a breach of privilege which is a very serious thing. I agree entirely with the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Duke who proposed this Amendment. Is it really a breach of privilege on the part of this House that, when an office has been already created and provision has been made to provide the funds necessary, in order to pay the occupant of it for five years, or from year to year, the period is extended from' five years to 10 years? I have not really considered the question, and therefore I do not want to dogmatise about it, but it seems to me to be pressing the question of privilege rather far to say that we may not extend the period of appointment. It would be a different thing if we were asking to create the office, but the funds have been provided by the

  1073
  House of Commons, and everything has been properly done. The question I would like to put is, would it be a breach of privilege on the part of this House to extend the period from five to 10 years?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I put my points with reasonable clearness. They were perfectly clear to my own mind, and I endeavoured to prove that this Amendment was wholly unnecessary. This matter was considered closely by those responsible for the general working of the Bill, and for the administration of the country. They considered it was desirable and expedient to appoint a temporary officer to the Board. They took power for making the appointment for one year, or that that one year should be prolonged to five years, being satisfied in their own minds that they were making the amplest and fullest provision that was possible for dealing with all cases of emergency that might arise after they were called into existence. That is practically and substantially the merits of the case. Everyone is liable to errors of judgment. It was the duty of the Government, who are responsible for the whole administration of this great Act, to see that they did not make a mistake in this respect, and accordingly they took the power, not tastily, or rashly, or carelessly, but proceeded with caution, and they were satisfied that five years was the amplest possible measure of stretching the appointment that could possibly be required. The House of Commons have only given their sanction to pay an officer for five years, and that was a matter to be borne in mind by your Lordships when you proceeded to act upon this matter. I have no right to presume upon being an authority upon points of privilege, but I mentioned that as a matter to be borne in mind.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We have no authority upon this subject, but I think it is a matter which lies really in a nutshell. If money is voted which is to be spent during a period of five years, and that period is extended to 10, it is quite obvious that by so extending it you put an additional burden upon the finances of the country, and accord-
  1074
  ing to the usual view it is not held competent for this House to vote money. The consequence is that it would be clearly contrary to our practice to introduce such a clause as this. If I am wrong, I shall be most delighted to be corrected, because, as I said at first, there is no authority upon such matters.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I am not speaking as to the general merits of the question, in which I should not differ from my noble Friend. The noble Lord has raised a question of privilege, and I rather wanted to indicate that I thought there was a difference between the position which he maintains and that which is the accurate position. We have no power of voting money five years hence, but we have the power of voting that a man shall occupy a post which up to that time is paid out of money already voted. What would happen at that time is, of course, a matter for the authorities to decide.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Marquess is perfectly correct.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I think, after the answer of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, I will certainly take a Division.
  The House divided:—Contents, 46, Not Contents 35.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Kimberley, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Devonshire, D. L. President)

  Morley, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Onslow, E.

  Powis, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Grafton, D.

  Portland, D.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Bagot, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Balfour, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Belper, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Bolton, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Crawshaw, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Harris, L.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  James, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl)

  Coventry, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  1075

  Kinnaird, L.

  Russell of Killowen, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Saltoun, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn) [Teller]

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne)

  Bath, M.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Abingdon, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

  Dartrey, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Massy, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Monck, L. (V. Monck)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

  Templetown, V.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

  Morris, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

  Clonbroek, L. [Teller]

  Cloncurry, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

  Ventry, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford)

  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 99 and 100 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 101.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 72, line 7, at end of line, insert as a fresh paragraph '(a) The making of registers of electors according to street order.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 101, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 102 TO 105.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 102, 103, 104, and 105 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 106
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 76, after line 28, insert, as a new paragraph—
  "The expression 'revising barrister' has the same meaning as in the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 106, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 107 and 108 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 109 AND 110.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, lines 34 and 35, leave out 'except in the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry.'"—(Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment, my Lords, deals with the cities of Belfast and Derry, and I am informed that both of those cities have a municipal franchise almost similar to that under the Bill. Belfast obtained that franchise in 1887 and Derry in 1897. The last municipal general election, on 25th November, was conceded by the Government, and they considered it unnecessary to have a new election for these cities. The councillors for Belfast and Derry retire one-third each year, and this 'mode of retirement is reserved in this Bill. The Bill as originally drafted preserved the day of election fixed by the Municipal Corporations Act—the 25th of November, but in some boroughs it was stated by the clerks that they could not have the burgess lists ready by then. That is entirely wrong, so far as Belfast and Derry are concerned, because the lists can be ready in good time without the slightest difficulty, and the date would be more convenient as preserving the existing state of matters; and should the date of the Bill—15th January—be adopted, there will have to be a lot of

  1077
  unnecessary changes made that would not be required if the existing date was adhered to. The fiscal arrangements are made on 1st January, and the whole machinery of the corporation is based on the November election, and the people of those two cities consider that great expense and inconvenience would be caused should the date of the election be made on 15th January. Under the circumstances, I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is most desirable that there should be some uniformity and general rule laid down, and that is the reason that one day is fixed for the whole of these elections to take place. My noble Friend wishes, by his Amendment, to make an exception in the case of Belfast and Derry; but I do not think it will be desirable, or that it would lend itself to general convenience. I think that the clause as it stands, to have one day for all the elections, is by far the wisest course, and therefore I trust that my noble Friend will not press this Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: After what the noble Lord has said I will not press the Amendment, but will withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 109 and 110 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 111.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 33, after 'matter,' insert 'other than one affecting qualification.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 111, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 112.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 82, line 37, after 'service,' insert 'and the service of any existing county surveyor, whether in one or more counties, shall be reckoned as part of his service.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: County surveyors in Ireland are appointed after examination by the Lord; Lieutenant, and it has been the custom in Ireland, when a better surveyorship becomes vacant, to get a transfer into that county in which the vacancy occurs. If the clause remains as it is, and a county surveyor has services in two counties, his services only in his present county will be reckoned. Your Lordships, I think, will readily understand that a county surveyor, in his professional career, naturally wishes to better his position by removing into a better paid post in a larger county, and his appointment to that better paid and larger county practically proves that he is a good officer. I submit that it is unreasonable that these good officers should lose part of their service solely by reason of the fact that they have not served their entire time in the same county. In point of fact, the Amendment is in order to enable a county surveyor, who has served a certain portion of his time in one county and another portion in another, to have both services to count when it comes to a question of those services being remunerated by superannuation.
  LORD TEMPLETOWN: I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment, as it does seem to me hard that a man who has worked in two counties should lose the benefit of his services because he has not confined his work to one county. I do not propose to detain your Lordships in this matter, because it seems to me to be so eminently just a proposal. I only express my hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept it.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is the first of a number of Amendments which have been put down in consequence of the mass of correspondence that I have no doubt many of your Lordships in all parts of the House have received. This is a question of existing officers and people who desire to

  1079
  continue to be officers with pensions enlarged and conditions of service improved. Of course, everyone is anxious to make their friends the existing officers on as good terms as is possible and with the best rate of pay that is conceivable, and with the most generous system of pension that can be devised. But all this has been threshed out and discussed over and over again on every platform; everything was done that conceivably could be done in the way of considering this matter. I trust that your Lordships will consider that we are dealing now not with questions of sentiment or generosity, but we are dealing with the status of officers whose position has to be considered in these new public bodies from a purely business standpoint. The particular Amendment of my noble Friend, Lord Mayo, who has been supported by my noble Friend, Lord Temple town, is one which might have been very reasonable if the high contracting parties had expressed their minds at the outset. In the future it may be wise to say, "If you choose to take into your employment a man who has been a county surveyor of another county, remember that you are doing that cum onere; if you take him, you will have to reckon that you may only get four or five years of his service, and that he will be entitled to a pension calculated on the time he has served in another county. That would be very well if they knew the nature of the obligation they were incurring; but to go and make an ex posté facto case of this kind would not be reasonable or just, I venture to think, to a county council that takes over the obligations of the grand jury. I therefore much regret that it is not in my power to say a very easy "Yes," instead of a more difficult "No." I trust your Lordships will not assent to this Amendment.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord cannot accept the Amendment. I thought that under the Bill as drawn a county surveyor's service did reckon from another county. Up to the present time the Lord Lieutenant has had the power of transferring a county surveyor from one county to another. Take the case of my own county; the gentleman there who
  1080
  has been county surveyor has served in two counties of a lower class. If, instead of being transferred into the higher class, he had remained in the lower class, he would have been entitled to a higher superannuation. I do not think there would be any injustice done if my noble and learned Friend will accept the Amendment that I have put down. It is fair that his past services should be counted, but it is equally fair that the county which has had the advantage of those services should contribute to the superannuation allowance. If that is done under the supervision of the Local Government Board it will be perfectly fair.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have not got the Amendment of my learned Friend.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: It is on the Paper. But, first of all, I should like to ask what is the meaning of sub-section 3 to clause 112—
  "For the purpose of the enactments relating to superannuation, the service of any existing officer of any authority before the transfer to a county or district council shall be reckoned as service under that council, and the service of any existing secretary as assistant or deputy secretary in the same county shall be reckoned as part of his service."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Services before the Act are to be taken into account after the Act. If they have served before the passing of this Act, that service is to be placed to their credit.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: They may have served in the county. If my noble Friend will read the clause he will see that in the case of the secretary it is indicated that the service should be in the same county, but in the case of the surveyor it is not so indicated—
  "For the purpose of the enactments relating to superannuation, the service of any existing officer of any authority before the transfer to a county or district council shall be reckoned as service under that council, and the service of any existing secretary as assistant or deputy secretary in the same county shall be reckoned as part of his service."
  So that I do not conclude, when I read the Bill, that the services of the surveyors are to be taken into consideration.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: For the future that is to be so.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I do not understand what my noble Friend means by "the future."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Provisions, after the passing of the Act and when the councils know what they are doing, will apply; but to deal with the general question now of the services of the county surveyors in the past, when they have become existing officers—may be two or three years ago under another grand jury—that is another question.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: The Amendment that I am proposing later on is this—
  "When the service of a county surveyor (whether transferred or appointed under this Act), reckoned for the purpose of the Acts relating to superannuation, includes service in more than one county, the amount of his superannuation allowance shall be apportioned between the counties in which such service was performed, in such manner as the Local Government Board may think just, and shall be raised and paid as the Board may direct."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I will consider that before Report. I have only just seen it.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Perhaps my noble Friend will consider the whole subject, because it is rather a hard case.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have only had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment just now, because it was not placed on the Paper that was distributed, but I will consider the whole matter that he has called attention to.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: After hearing what Lord Macnaghten's Amendment is, I will withdraw mine. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will favourably consider the matter on Report, because it covers all the ground.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 2, after 'them,' insert 'or at any time thereafter during the period of five
  1082
  years immediately following said last five days of March.'"—(Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If this Amendment were adopted, the clause would read as follows—
  "Any existing secretary of the grand jury, unless he dies or resigns, or is removed with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, shall become and continue the secretary of the county council up to the last day of March, nineteen hundred, and may then, or at any time thereafter during the period of five years immediately following said last five days of March, if he has given three months' previous notice in writing to the county council of his intention to retire, retire from office, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive an allowance under this Act of the same amount as if his office were abolished."
  This Amendment does not deprive the county council of the right of dismissal, but to my mind it greatly increases the chances of the secretaries continuing with the new council—it will enable them to remain after the 31st March without losing the right of retiring on the abolition of office. The clause, as it now stands, compels almost every secretary to serve notice to retire on the date named. It is impossible for him or for the county council to form a satisfactory opinion as to whether his continuance in office would be mutually desirable. I have been given an instance of a secretary of a grand jury who can retire now on an allowance calculated at 38 years' service, but if he retires in 1901 he will only be allowed to retire on allowance calculated at 29 years' service. It seems to me to be somewhat of an injustice that those who have served faithfully and well should be so treated, and I therefore trust that my Amendment will be considered favourably.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I support this Amendment. A great many secretaries will retire under the operation of this Act next year, whereas the insertion of these words would secure their services for a further period, otherwise they will not be able to secure the full superannuation to which they would be entitled, unless they serve till 1910. I hope the noble and learned Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I am very sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. These things are all

  1083
  considered on a very broad and fair point of view. We have to consider every aspect of the case. The secretary of a grand jury is an important officer—he performs great duties. It is most desirable that he should be encouraged to remain with the new body until they become familiar with their duties. It is also desirable that he should tell them all that he knows, and put them in privity with all county work according to his knowledge. But then the particular clause that my noble Friend is seeking to amend is the first that provides an alternative. It is sub-section 4 of clause 112, and it provides—
  "Any existing secretary of a grand jury, unless he dies or resigns, or is removed with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, shall become and continue the secretary of the county council up till the last day of March, 1900."
  It is thought that that would enable him—I am speaking now of his point of view—to consider how he likes the change and how he likes his employment, and whether he sees his way to go on with his duties. He is given that opportunity up to the last day of March, 1900, and then he may—
  "If he has given three months' previous notice in writing to the county council of his intention to retire, retire from office, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive an allowance under this Act of the same amount as if his office were abolished."
  Those are generous terms to give, and he could stop if he pleases; but if he thinks, having regard to everything, that after the last day of March, 1899, he would sooner make a change—that he does not like the new employment as well as the old—then, under the circumstances, he is entitled to be treated with all the generosity that it is right to treat him with on his office being abolished. The Amendment suggests this: that instead of taking the date as the last day of March, 1900, he shall be given a further period of five years. I do not think that is reasonable; I think that a man, after he has had experience, should be able, if he is a sensible and intelligent man, to know whether he likes his new employment or not. I think that keeping him in a state of
  1084
  suspense for a period of five years would not be at all satisfactory or in the interests of efficiency. The next paragraph gives reciprocity to the county council, and it might be that from various reasons not reflecting on the honour or integrity of the man—it may be from age or infirmity, and not having the requisite gifts needed for the change, that he was not at all to the satisfaction of the county council as regards efficiency. Even that course is taken care of. Subsection 5 of the clause says—
  "The county council may, by notice given three months next before the said day of March, require such secretary to retire, and if they do so without the concurrence of the Local Government Board he shall be entitled to the same compensation under this Act as if his office were abolished."
  These have to be taken together. First, the wishes and opinions of the man who has performed the duties of secretary—his interests are considered—and then, the county council must be given their point of view as to whether they can see that they think he is a man with whom they can work. And in either case the option is given which will secure to the man the extremely good terms that are given in the case of abolition of office.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: My noble and learned Friend has said that the great thing was to secure the services of efficient men to start the working of the county council. Surely six months is not a sufficient time for anew county council to get into working order with their new officers. All we ask is an extension of a few years to enable either of them to make up their minds. As this clause stands now, a large number of efficient men who have passed the term will leave, with a rush.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have not wearied your Lordships by reading the entire clause, but if the secretary likes he gets a substantial period to come in and serve, and then his condition is provided for in the sixth sub-section, he will be entitled to go on and get his pension.
  "If at any time after the said last day of March such secretary retires voluntarily, he shall be entitled to receive from the county council a superannuation allowance on the scale

  1085
  provided by the Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service, and the amount of such allowance in case of dispute shall be determined by the Treasury."
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: He will have to wait for 10 years.
  *LORD MORRIS: I think the Amendment suggested by my noble Friend appears to me to be a reasonable one. My noble and learned Friend says there is ample time for the parties to find out whether they like each other or not. I do not follow that there is ample time from now to the month of March, 1900. The Act is not to come into operation until September, 1899, so it does not appear to me that there is any time in which the parties would have an opportunity of seeing whether they suited each other as it is suggested. I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that there is a reciprocity in subsection, 5, and, as far as I can see at present, it ought to be introduced into sub-section 4, as well as into sub-section 5. It does not seem to me that there would be any difference in doing that, and that the secretaries of grand juries who, to my knowledge, held appointments which were considered, not in point of law, but in point of fact, just as satisfactory as the appointment of judges on the bench, should get a reasonable time, which I should have thought five years was, but under the Bill it will not be five months.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is quite a year. The elections to the first county councils are to take place in March.
  *LORD MORRIS: Do they come into this at once?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Yes.
  *LORD MORRIS: Why, there is a grand jury to be held in March next. I certainly do not understand how two suns can be shining in the same hemisphere together.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 10, after 'abolished,' insert 'provided, however, that such compensation shall not be less than one-half the emoluments payable to such secretary.'"—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: I move this because it seems to me that under this sub-section some practical injustice might be done to the secretaries. I quite agree that in the former sub-section injustice, I do not think, could be done. If a man dies I suppose he cannot help himself. If he resigns it is his own act, and if he is removed I presume that may be taken to mean that he is removed with sufficient cause. But under sub-section 5 he may be removed without sufficient cause; that is to say, the county council may remove him without cause, or without assigning any cause. I certainly think the county council ought to be empowered to discharge their secretary for any cause they like. They may discharge him because he has red hair, or any other reason; but in that case the man should receive proper compensation. He is compensated to the extent as if his office were abolished according to the Civil Service scale, but in the case of the Civil Service, civil servants generally enter the service young, and according to the provisions of the scale, they get a very substantial pension to a percentage of one-sixtieth if they serve 20 years or five years. But in the case of these grand jury secretaries, they very often eater into that business comparatively late in life, and their service is not generally very long, and the hardship is perhaps still greater in the case of a man who may have served as baronial constable, and he gives up all that in order to take up the position of secretary to the grand jury. I know a gentleman who gave up an office of that sort to accept a secretaryship to the grand jury, the emoluments being £800 per annum. According to this section he would have one year added to one-sixtieth—that is, according to the Civil Service scale—and his retiring pension would amount to about £40 per annum. I do not think that seems to be exactly just or fair, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I have put down one-half, but I am not

  1087
  particular as to the amount. If the Government like to make it more I should have no objection.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Nothing could be more conciliatory or frank than the speech of my noble Friend, which I am not surprised at, because people are very often frank and generous with the money of others. My task is monotonous, but still it is necessary. I am aware this is only the beginning of the question of these officers, because their name is legion, but the abolition terms, everybody knows, are extremely liberal, and to attempt to add to the abolition terms so that they would never be less than one-half of the emoluments, would make some very substantial and large and wholly unjustifiable addition to the burdens which the public already bear, having regard to what is due to them as taxpayers. It is a very disagreeable thing to have to always give reasons in the negative. I am very sorry that I am unable to assent to this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE MABQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I ask leave to withdraw the next Amendment standing in my name, and to substitute—
  "Provided that any county or district council may, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, make a special agreement with any of their existing officers as to the terms and conditions on which he may continue to hold his office, and remuneration he shall receive therefor."
  I beg to move that.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I see no objection to it.
  Question put.
  Amendment accepted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 85, after line 28, insert as a new sub-section—
  "Any existing officer of a board of guardians transferred under this section, and who shall be employed as an officer by any county or district council, shall, in the event of his becoming qualified for a superannuation allow-
  1088
  ance by reason of length of service, old age, or infirmity, be entitled to receive such superannuation, on the scale and according to the Acts and Rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service, from the council to which he shall have been transferred, if the Local Government Board shall, on the application of such officer to them, declare him to be so entitled."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  *LORD CLONBROCK: The object of this is to provide for one class of public servants—the poor rate collectors, who, if transferred to the service of the county councils, fear that not having been originally appointed by the county councils, and not having worked before for them, they may not be treated with as great tenderness as they would be treated by boards of guardians. It merely secures to this class of people that, being entitled by length of service of 20 years, they should receive a superannuation. I hope that Her Majesty's Governmen will be disposed to accept this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Without saying anything in the slightest disrespectful to my noble Friend who moved this Amendment, I should say that this is an Amendment which is very craftily drawn, because it does not at the first glance show that there is any distinction between itself and the clause in the Bill; but there is a substantial difference, and that is, it omits all reference to the fact that the person who has got those terms is to be now entitled to superannuation. I am very sorry, therefore, that I am not in a position to accept the Amendment.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: But in the event of his becoming qualified?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: That refers to a future event.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 85, lines 40 and 41, leave out 'within five years from the date of the transfer,' and insert 'at any time.'"—(The Earl of Erne.)
  *THE EARL OF ERNE: This sub-section covers the case of the solicitors to the grand jury and the barony constables. I will state the case to your

  1089
  Lordships on behalf of the barony constables, because those are cases in which there is practically fixity of tenure. They are elected by the grand jury, and, of course, they can be dismissed by the grand jury; but they never are, excepting for misconduct. If they elect to retire or are compelled to retire now, or within five years after the passing of this Act, they are entitled to a gratuity not exceeding five years' pay. I think that is small enough in all conscience, considering the income they will be obliged to relinquish. If they continue to act after a period of five years, they will be liable to be dismissed without that gratuity, and without a reason given, no matter how exemplary their conduct may have been. I do not think it is right to leave these men at the mercy of these new county councils, who may possibly have a grudge against them, or who may want their places for their relatives and friends. It appears to me that this Amendment should be accepted. It involves no charge upon public funds, and I think it would be a slight compensation to a class of men who will be great sufferers through this legislation.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: With regard to the solicitors, these are a strong class of men, and have always been appointed from year to year. In the first instance, they are elected, and then they continue in the position from year to year. There has hardly ever been a case known of a man having been dismissed. Under the Act they will have the option of continuing in office for five years, and then they will be dismissed without any remuneration whatsoever. The solicitors of some of these grand juries have come into contact with a contractor who, very likely, under this Bill, will become a county councillor, and such a man would have an animus against the solicitors, and would cause their dismissal in five years. Under the Corporation Act of 1890, the full compensation to the solicitor is provided for, and under one of the sub-sections of this Bill the provisions of that Act with regard to compensation are taken, but the solicitor to the grand jury gets no compensation for loss of office, and therefore the noble
  1090
  and learned Lord will not think that what is omitted to be given to the one should not be given to the other, because they both belong to the same class of deserving officers. Therefore, I earnestly hope that your Lordships will take that into consideration, and that the solicitors should not be dismissed at the end of a period of five years.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The Amendment that has been proposed by my noble Friend Lord Erne is to leave out on page 85 the words "within five years from the date of the transfer," and to insert in the place of those words the words "at any time." It is obvious that that is a most wide and comprehensive and sweeping Amendment, and it has been presented with great moderation of tone and manner, and one would like to be able to yield to some of the Amendments which are so moved, but I am extremely sorry that I cannot. Everything has been done here to consider the matter from a most fair and reasonable point of view. It was considered with the minutest and closest attention, and the words that are sought to be amended are these—
  "If any officer transferred by this Act to a council who can be removed without the concurrence of the Local Government Board or the Lord Lieutenant (and is not a banking company), is within five years from the date of the transfer removed from his office for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, his office shall be deemed to have been abolished within the meaning of the said section."
  Having regard to everything—to the tenure and experience—that is not an unreasonable clause. It seems to me that it is a fair and considerate one, and I am sorry I am unable to accept the Amendment.
  *LORD MORRIS: I am astonished at this Amendment not being conceded to as regards the solicitors to the grand juries. My noble and learned Friend says that it has been so well considered before that it is impossible to reconsider it; but he has made no statement as to why he cannot accept it, excepting that it has been considered somewhere else. If we are only to register everything that has been considered elsewhere, then let that be said. But as a Member of this

  1091
  House, when we are exercising our own judgment, I should like to hear reasons assigned, and one reason I should like to hear is a reason why a solicitor, who is dismissed without cause, is to get compensation; but if he is dismissed at the end of five years he gets no compensation. That is an extraordinary proposal. I quite understand his getting no compensation under any circumstances, but if he is dismissed without cause, or for misconduct, or without the approval of the Local Government Board, he is to get compensation, and because a greater wrong is done him, namely, that at the end of five and a half years' service he can be dismissed without any reason, he is to get no compensation whatever. I should like to hear some reason given for such a suggestion as that, because at present I have heard none.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The reason is perfectly obvious. You have to consider the circumstances and the tenure of each office. It has been stated that the tenure of office of a solicitor to the grand jury—a most highly respectable gentleman—is not a tenure entirely for a term of years, because the appointment is renewed every year, and the way it is measured in considering the question is this: you cannot say that a man shall hold such an office for life or for 20, 15, or 10 years, but he is given a tenure for five years, and then it is said if he is dismissed within a period of five years he shall be entitled to compensation. But why is it hard? It is a question of degree. You have to consider the circumstances of the case, and it is not a case in which you can give a tenure for life. It would Tae unreasonable to give it for 20 years, it may be unreasonable to give it for 15 or for 10 years, but it is thought, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of his present tenure, that it is not an unreasonable thing to say five years.
  *LORD MORRIS: That is not the first time that I have heard my noble and learned Friend say, "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is so and so, or that is so and so." I have heard no reason yet except "having regard to all the circumstances of the case." I ask this question: If it is a
  1092
  right thing to do to give these people compensation if dismissed within five years, why is it not a right thing to give them compensation if dismissed after five years and a day? I have asked that question before, and the only answer I can get is: "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case," and "This matter has been largely considered somewhere else."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I did not say "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case"; I asked your Lordships to consider the circumstances of the tenure of his office, which was an office to which he was appointed from year to year. Some degree of measurement was necessary, and it was not thought unreasonable, as I have said before, having regard to the tenure of his office, that five years should be the measure of time. I may add that there was, I believe, no such measure for the English solicitors under the English Act.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: In a drastic Measure like the one which is now occupying your Lordships' attention, the. Government should, I think, deal liberally with the officers who will be affected by this Bill. There will be very great changes in their lives. They are a very worthy, hard-working body of men, and they will find their position, when the Bill comes into working order, far less satisfactory than it has hitherto been. But, as it seems useless to try to press any Amendments as regards compensation, I shall not press any future Amendment of that description.
  The House divided:—Contents 39; Not-contents 32.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Salisbury, M.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President)

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Abingdon, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Denbigh, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Portland, D.

  Kimberley, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Morley, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  1093

  Powis, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Selborne, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  De Mauley, L.

  Digby, L.

  Harris, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Aberdare, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Belper, L.

  Windsor, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne) [Teller]

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Hertford, M.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

  Harlech, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Massy, L.

  Mayo, E

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Rosse, E.

  Vane E. (M. Londonderry) [Teller]

  Monk, L. (V. Monck)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Morris, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde)

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

  Rathmore, L,

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtowh)

  Castlemaine, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 113.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 86, line 17, after 'clerk,' in two places insert 'or of any other officer.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The officers that are affected by this clause are the officers of the various local bodies in Ireland who have served for many years, and who would be appointed under section 1 of the Act of 1868, called The Local Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Act. What these officers are afraid of is, that owing to the extension of the franchise which
  1094
  permits of persons serving as aldermen, councillors, and township commissioners, though not ratepayers—for the service franchise permits of this—many of them will be dismissed for various reasons, in which event, if the dismissal takes place within five years, he will get compensation under clause 112, sub-clause 19, but, if he be dismissed at any time after the expiration of live years, he will not get one shilling compensation, no matter what, number of years he may have served, should the local body so decide. Therefore it is that officers like the treasurer of the City of Dublin, assistant town clerks, and other officials, wished to have the words "or other officers" inserted in clause 113, so that their rights may be protected after the expiration of five years from the passing of the Bill into law. They also want an appeal to the Local Government Board instead of to the Treasury, in the event of dispute as to the amount they should be fairly entitled to, as it is not the Treasury but the ratepayers who have to pay the salaries; and as clause 113 made the Local Government Board the judge of what is right as to increase of salary for increased duties, the officers submit that the question of the amount of superannuation or gratuity they should get should also be left to the arbitrament of the Local Government Board. To put the matter simply, the "other officers" say we ought not to be placed in a worse position than a town clerk to a borough or a clerk to township commissioners, many of whom have not the same responsibilities in the discharge of their duties nor length of service. To give one more instance, take the chief accountant and members of his staff of, say the Corporation of Dublin, Belfast, and the other boroughs scheduled in the Bill. I have put down on the Paper several Amendments with reference to clause 113, and I trust that the noble and learned Lord will allow them all to pass.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is a clause which deals with the case of the existing town clerks of the borough or clerks to the commissioners of the town, and the Amendments sought to be accomplished in that clause by my noble Friend are three in

  1095
  number. He seeks to extend the clause from the particular class for whom it was intended to a wide and general class whom he calls "any other officers." That, of course, is not reasonable to the principles of the Bill. There is a part of the Bill that deals with the general class that may be affected, and that are mentioned in the last schedule dealing with compensation, and I do not think it is reasonable to take a clause that is intended for a narrow class and seek to apply it to a great many others. Then my Friend's second objection is one that we have been hearing about in other cases—the getting rid of a five years' limit that is put into this clause. But, having regard to the tenure of these particular officers, and having regard to the reasons that I have already given, I am unable to assent to the arguments which he has advanced. As to the point by which he seeks to substitute the Local Government Board for the Treasury, that is a question more or less of a choice of tribunals, and my noble Friend does not seek in the least to avoid the reasonableness of having a perfectly competent and reliable body to be arbitrators in case of a difference of opinion. I think it is not unreasonable to use the Treasury for that purpose, and I do not think anything would be gained by the substitution of the Local Government Board. It may be seen almost all through the clause that the functions of both the Treasury and the Local Government Board are kept steadily in mind.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 113 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 114 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 115 TO 120.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 87, line 14, leave out 'if he were to retire on the appointed day,' and insert, 'when he shall hereafter retire.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: This Amendment has been suggested on behalf of the county surveyors. It also affects other local officers, all of whom under local Acts would be qualified, for superannuation on attaining 60 years of age, and having served 20 years (in the case of these officers) and 10 years (in the case of surveyors). There are 39 county surveyors to the 32 counties of Ireland. By clause 115, page 87, of the Bill as now printed, superannuation is secured to those who would be qualified for it on the "appointed day" only. This would benefit two or three only in this body, while the greater number would not be in a position to satisfy the necessary conditions which are prescribed by the "County Surveyors' Superannuation. Act (Ireland), 1875," which are that the surveyor seeking superannuation must be 60 years of age, or have become mentally or physically incapacitated from work, and in either case he must have served 10 years at least in the county from which he seeks superannuation. With two or three exceptions the ages of the existing surveyors vary from 60 down to 30 years, the average being about 45, and the length of service from 30 to 32 years, the average being about 20 years. It may be noted that as a county surveyor cannot be appointed if under 26 or over 40 years, he must serve from 20 to 34 years before he is entitled to a pension on the ground of old age. Again, many of the men who will probably be elected to the new boards have been contractors under the present county surveyors, who have, in the discharge of their duties, found it necessary to put in force the penal clause of the Grand Juries Act against many of them, while with others it may be in their attempts at jobbery they have been in frequent conflict. To such, an admirable opportunity would be afforded by the Bill as it stands to pay off old scores by refusing a county surveyor his superannuation when he comes to retire hereafter. It would therefore be a manifest injustice to leave the existing officers without that protection which a reasonable expectation of pension has hitherto conferred on them, and that protection, as well as their independence in administering the duties, which will devolve on them under the new boards, which it

  1097
  should be the vital interest of the ratepayers to see established, can be secured only by making their superannuation when they come to retire, mandatory on the county councils. This would be effected by the Amendment to clause 115, page 87, in line 14, leaving out "if he were to retire on the appointed day" and inserting "when he shall hereafter retire." This Amendment would also secure to other officers, who, under local Acts, are qualified for superannuation on attaining 60, and having put in 20 years' service, the certainty that they will get some superannuation in their old age. All these officers feel strongly that the authority who appointed them, and under whom they served the best years of their life, is now being changed, and to this new body the power should not be left to deprive the officer of any superannuation. Though by the Act of 1875 the granting of superannuation is optional with a grand jury, it has always been looked on as morally "certain on good behaviour," as since the passing of that Act in no case has superannuation been withheld, and in every case the full pension which could be sanctioned was allowed. It was in this belief those who took office after that date did so, many of them giving up good positions in other services, namely, the Public Works Department of India, or the Civil Branch of the Royal Engineers, or Admiralty, for the sake of the pension which was believed to attach to their office. It should be remembered, too, that the county surveyors are nearly all university men, and are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant after a very difficult examination by the Civil Service Commissioners. In this respect they differ from all other local officers, and are not recognised as civil servants only, because their salaries are paid out of local rates and not out of the consolidated fund. The Act of 1875 is not repealed by the Bill, and pensions are left at the discretion of the new boards; but the conditions of the office are radically changed, for it must be admitted that superannuation in the hands of men such as will compose the county council will be a very uncertain issue to a long service, and they feel that a breach of faith would be committed if they are
  1098
  transferred from the board under which they took service to another authority whose views, social and economic, are likely to be so widely different, without making their superannuation secure as it was in effect under the present grand juries.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The acute point of this Amendment—the point on which it pivots—is to take out of clause 115 the qualification that is attached to this provision, that on the appointed day persons qualified for a superannuation allowance be qualified for that superannuation by reason of some status, and it is absolutely necessary to take a date in which that status can be ascertained. That is shown in the clause. The clause says if on the appointed day a man is entitled, then, he is qualified for a superannuation allowance; he shall them have certain rights which are fully and fairly recognised. By his Amendment, my noble Friend seeks to get rid of that governing date, and to leave out altogether the words "if he were to retire on the appointed day," and to leave him the rights whenever he shall retire—at any time and under any circumstances.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: Supposing he does not retire on the appointed day—March 1st, 1889; the county council may give him the option or they may not, just as they choose. It seems rather hard on these men, considering that the secretaries of the grand juries and the county auditor are protected.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: His status is measured by the possibility of his retiring at the appointed day. After that his rights may attach whenever he ceases to hold office, but his status on the appointed day cannot be forgotten.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 87, lines 22 and 23, leave out 'age, and length of service, and.'"—(The Duke of Aberrant.)
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: This Amendment is moved in the interests

  1099
  and on behalf of some of the officers of the Corporation of Belfast, and I venture to, suggest that the qualification for superannuation allowance shall be service only, and that the maximum shall be 20 years. Sixty years of age is the extreme age at which a pension can be given, so that it will also be necessary to remove the age disability. The effect of the clause gives superannuation to officers of 60 years of age with 20 years of service, while any officer who may have had 20 or 30 or 35 years of service, and has not reached the age of 60, cannot receive a superannuation. I think your Lordships will admit that that is rather hard, and if the extreme age of 60 years was done away with and service only was admitted, those difficulties would be overcome. As to the devotion of his whole time to the service, that refers, to the medical officers attached to public places, and these men, who are a high class of men, say if they are not allowed to devote their services to any other practice it will not be worth their while to take up public work. It is well known that medical officers of high ability have very often private practice which adds not only greatly to their income, but also to their knowledge of the profession they follow, and thus it seems rather hard that they should be debarred from following out this private practice, and it is on behalf of these men that I venture to move this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is an Amendment dealing with the same clause to which I have already referred, and I have to remind your Lordships that I indicated that the governing date in the earlier part of the clause was that on the appointed day the officers that were to get the benefit of the provision were to be then qualified for a superannuation allowance. That must now be taken to be accepted. But this Amendment which is moved proposes to put a perfectly fresh and novel meaning upon the word superannuation, and if that method of interpretation were accepted we could never be quite sure of where we were. The Amendment that is sought to be made to this clause is this: superannuation at present is referred to three things—age, length of
  1100
  service, and devotion, of time to public service, and the proposal of the Amendment is to obliterate from the calculation for superannuation, two of the three essentials that are needed—that is, to get rid of the age and the length of service. This is not a pensions Bill, it is not brought in with a view to creating rights to pension that are not found already to exist in substance, and therefore I am unable to accept the Amendment for the reasons to which I have referred. Now, the position that has been referred to by my noble Friend with regard to the medical officers rests on a different footing. The medical officers in Ireland—the dispensary practitioners—are entitled to every sympathy and regard, and their position all through has been that of officers who do not devote their whole time to the public service; the salary would not permit it, although, of course, they must be always available to discharge the public service. That is a matter which is engaging the attention of the Government, and we will endeavour to deal with it on the Report stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clauses 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 120 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I have an Amendment down, or I should say, a new clause, to move, after clause 120, but as the noble and learned Lord has promised to consider it on Report I do not propose to move it.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the first schedule stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.
  *LORD MORRIS: I have an Amendment to that—
  "After Cork,' insert 'Galway.'"
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have intimated to my noble Friend that, of course, I shall not question to-night the Division of a few hours ago on this subject, and not now put the House to the trouble of another Division. I am, however, informed of a matter I should mention. The acceptation by this House of this Amendment may be regarded as the creation of a new rating authority. I do not presume to give any specific opinion as to that, but it is something that will have to be looked into more closely than I have had an opportunity of doing yet.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 93, line 19, after 'Cork,' insert 'Kilkenny.'"—(The Marquess of Ormonde.)
  THE MARQUESS OF ORMONDE: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name, namely, that the city of Kilkenny be inserted after that of Cork. My reason for doing so is the extreme antiquity of the corporation of that borough, although I am aware that the population of some 12,000 inhabitants is not so large as that of other cities named, but if your Lordships will allow me I will give you a few facts and figures to bear out my remark as to the antiquity of the corporation. The first charter was granted as long ago as the year 1190, and subsequent charters were granted by Richard II., Henry III., Henry IV., James I., Charles I., and James II. In the reign of James I. Kilkenny was created a city and the county of the city in 1609. Besides this there were no fewer than 20 Parliaments held there, the principal of which perhaps may be considered to be that held in 1310, before Richard, Earl of Ulster, and that which was held on the morrow of Ash Wednesday in 1367 by Lionel, Duke of Clarence, in both of which many new enactments were made. I merely give your Lordships those facts
  1102
  and figures in order to show that there is some excuse for moving this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I am sorry to say a word against my noble Friend. I have no doubt the antiquity of Kilkenny is I absolutely true. A more beautiful town—from a distance—I do not know, than the city of Kilkenny, built on limestone, with the most perfect springs of water, which, however, are unfortunately all adulterated with sewage. I do not mean to suggest that the people do not adulterate the water also with something else afterwards, but of all the municipalities in the United Kingdom it is about the worst. They increase their debt year by year; they do no good to themselves, I aim afraid, or to anybody else. They have this lovely stream, running through it, and they turn it into a common sewer; and, upon my word, I do not see why any stretch, of this schedule should be made for the city of Kilkenny. My advice to the noble Marquess would be, leave it alone.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, the Amendment moved by my noble Friend, Lord Ormonde, on behalf of the city of Kilkenny, is a very natural Amendment. Everyone knows the close way with which he is bound to that ancient city, and how identified his family have been with its history for many centuries. But, my Lords, even though a Parliament was held there and passed these great Statutes, we cannot divest ourselves—looking at the actualities of the present day—of the fact that whether this population is 12,000—a little more or a little less—it is a good way off the limit of 17,000 that already has obtained a certain sanction from your Lordships. But, my Lords, must not the line be drawn somewhere? I am sorry that it should be drawn so that it will exclude Kilkenny and my noble Friend; but I am afraid I must ask your Lordships to do even that, and I venture to hope it may be that my noble Friend will be satisfied with the protest he has made on

  1103
  behalf of his ancient city and acquiesce in the hard and fast line which the Bill necessitated our drawing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the second schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I want to move an Amendment to this schedule. It is—
  "To omit the words 'Corporation of The city of Dublin,' in line 20, and insert 'the council and the borough or other urban districts in which the premises are situated in respect of which the duties are paid.'"
  The licensees' fees are £100 a year, and they have hitherto been paid to the commissioner of police. It is now proposed that they should be paid to the Corporation of Dublin, and it is contended, on behalf of the urban townships outside the city of Dublin, that they should not be paid to the corporation but should be paid to their councils instead. I think the noble and learned Lord will see the justice of the Amendment, and I hope he will be able to accept it.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think I shall be better pleased if this matter were put off to the Report stage. There is every desire to meet the wishes of my noble Friend, but the Amendment would have to be carefully drafted. The matter is being considered with a desire, if possible, to meet the views of the noble Lord has expressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the third schedule stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 95, after line 6, insert '41 and 42 Viet., c. 26, the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, section 21.'"
  "After line 20, insert '51 and 52 Viet., e. 10, the County Electors Act, 1888, sub-section 3 of section 4.'"
  "Line 31, after 'seventy-four,' insert 'and.'"
  "Line 32, leave out 'and,' and insert 'subsection 2 of section 76, section.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendments accepted
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the fourth schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the fifth schedule stand part of the Bill,"
  Agreed to.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the sixth schedule stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
  Motion made, and Question put.
  "That the seventh schedule stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Bill passed through Committee and ordered to be reported to the House.
  House adjourned at 11.20.