quite concurred with the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite; but he objected to the constitution of this Committee for other reasons, and probably more personal reasons, than the hon. Member he referred to. This question of the prevention of floods in the Thames was considered two years ago by the House of Commons by means of a Committee, who investigated the matter very carefully, and arrived at a conclusion which, he understood, was in direct opposition to the Bill which the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was now endeavouring to promote as a Private Act. He saw, by the Papers published on this question, that the Metropolitan Board of Works declined to be bound in any way on the previous occasion by the decision of the Committee of that House, a decision which, he believed, was supported by the general feeling of the House. He was further given to understand that the whole object of this Bill was to reverse the decision of that Committee, and to return to the proposals which were rejected two years ago. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes), whose impar- tiality he, for one, was always ready to admit, had, he thought, made a mistake on this occasion in nominating a Committee which contained the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Now, he said this without reference to any personal qualification on the part of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), because he knew the great attention which his hon. and gallant Friend devoted to all matters of public discussion to which he was able to give his time; but, in this particular case, he contended that the hon. and gallant Baronet was in an official capacity compelled to support the proposition contained in this Bill when it came before the Committee; and as the Bill asked the House of Commons to revert to the proposal which it had already rejected, he did not think the hon. and gallant Member ought to be upon the Committee, seeing that he was not an impartial person. The idea of nominating a Committee containing the name of a Gentleman who was known not to be impartial appeared to him to be entirely erroneous. As a general principle, he thought his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means would agree with him in the proposition he advocated, and that was that if they were to respect the Reports and decisions of the Committees of that House, the Committees themselves should, as far as possible, be selected from persons of an impartial disposition, able to form an independent judgment upon all questions which would be brought before them. His hon. and gallant Friend, being the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, could not, of necessity, be impartial, but would feel it his duty to advocate a particular proposition. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him (Sir Julian Goldsmid) that the best plan would be to adjourn the nomination of the Committee, in order that the list of the Members of the Committee might be revised, and care taken that a more impartial tribunal should be nominated than would be the case if the name of his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works appeared upon it. With those remarks, lie would support the proposition of the lion. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) for the adjournment of the debate.

thought that a rather unusual course had been taken on this occasion by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt). It was not, however, a very unusual thing to find a Motion, brought forward distinctly on one ground, supported by another hon. Member on the opposite ground. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey moved the adjournment of the debate, with the object of securing a better representation of the interests of Surrey and the South side of the river, and he was supported in his Motion by the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), because he thought the Metropolitan element ought to be omitted altogether. This showed the difficulty there was in a matter of this sort in endeavouring to steer between two extremes, in order to settle who should or who should not serve upon a Hybrid Committee. If the House were to admit the views of the hon. Member for West Surrey, they would simply take upon themselves the duty of performing functions which were performed by the Committee of Selection; and, in that case, he ventured to submit to the House there would be no use whatever in appointing a Hybrid Committee, because all the work could be effectually done by the Committee of Selection. There were, however, others who held an entirely opposite view to that held by the hon. Member for Rochester, and who thought the Committee should consist, as much as possible, of partizans; and that, therefore, the Committee of Selection should not have any part in the matter, but that it should be left entirely to the House. The object of appointing a Hybrid Committee was to have Members who were acquainted with, and took an interest in, the subject. At the same time, one particular element should not predominate; but it was desirable to have a Committee who would be entirely balanced, and who would carefully consider the two sides of the question. In selecting persons who were willing to serve upon this Committee, he thought he had arrived as far as possible at that result. He had placed upon it the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had charge of the Bill to be referred to the Committee, and he had placed upon it also the hon. Baronet the Mem- ber for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the second reading. He thought that if they had those two hon. Gentlemen on the Committee, they would ably represent the views, pro and con, of those interested in the Bill, and they would be posted with information which would enable them to aid counsel in eliciting important facts. He thought those two hon. Gentlemen, balancing each other, would be a sufficient representation of the antagonistic forces, and that the other four Members of the Committee should be selected from the interest they took in questions of this sort, and also from their entire indifference to the special and local interests affected by the Bill. If any hon. Member would refer to the list of the Committee, he would see that they were all Gentlemen who took an interest in questions relating to water and to rating, and on that ground they would command the confidence of the House. There was another point which must not be lost sight of, and this involved some little difficulty in the matter. It was important to boar in mind the malfeisance of the Board of Works on a former occasion, when the Board refused to act on the Report of the Committee of the House. It appeared to him that if the Board of Works was to be subjected to anything like moral pressure on the part of the House, that pressure would be stronger if the Committee did not consist of any Gentlemen who sat on the former Bill; and, that being so, he had eliminated all the names of Gentlemen who had sat before, with the single exception of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) who had charge of the Bill. He thought that was a course which would commend itself to the House. It was certainly of very great importance that if the Report arrived at in the last instance was to be re-affirmed, it should be reaffirmed by an entirely independent body, and by entirely fresh minds. If, on the other hand, the circumstances of the case were such as to induce the Committee to arrive at a different conclusion, it would be very much easier for a new Committee to take that course than a Committee who were already pledged to the former decision. That being so, he had thought it necessary to dispense with the services of several Members of the House, whose services would have been exceedingly valuable, because he thought it better, as he had already explained, to have an entirely new Committee on this occasion. The adoption of this course had deprived him of the services of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), who served on the last occasion, and also of the services of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney), whom he would greatly have liked to have had. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey complained that the interests of Surrey were not adequately represented on the Committee. He (Mr. Raikes) could only point out that if he placed on the Committee another Gentleman representing the interests of Surrey, who was adverse to the Bill, it would be necessary to put also upon the Committee another Gentleman who was favourable to the Bill. The result would have been that he would have had four out of the six Members of the Committee pledged to a particular view before they entered the Committee-Room, and he did not think that would be a desirable result. If, however, the hon. Member who proposed the adjournment of the debate would withdraw that Motion now, he would be quite ready to consult with him whether it would be possible to add to the Committee at a subsequent time; and if he found an opportunity of placing upon the Committee two additional names which would satisfy the parties respectively interested, he would be willing to take that course. He should be glad if the House would now so far proceed in the matter as to say that the names he had ventured to submit were proper names to be adopted. He had only one word more to say in regard to the position of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). Of course, he knew that in a Private Bill it was not in an ordinary case the rule to appoint as a Member of the Committee the Gentleman whose name was on the back of the Bill, unless it was an unopposed Bill; but in this case they were dealing with a matter more in the interest of the public than in those of private parties, and they were nominating Gentlemen to serve upon the Committee, not on the nomination of the Committee of Selection, but of the House itself. It was said that it was a thing unheard of to place the Gentleman in charge of a Bill upon the Committee appointed to consider it. The House, however, must bear in mind that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had charge of this Bill represented a very large and important public body; and he thought the Committee would be greatly open to the animadversion of the ratepayers of the Metropolis if the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was excluded from it. He hoped the suggestions he had ventured to throw out would be adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt), and that his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion he had made, and allow the Committee to be formed, with a view, if possible, to adding to their numbers at a subsequent time.

said, he had placed a Notice on the Paper of his intention to move the omission of the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Worts, in order to substitute that of his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney). He thought the attention of the House ought to be drawn to the mode in which this important Committee had been constituted on the present occasion. On former occasions there had been two or three Committees appointed, in which the Metropolitan Board of Works were the promoters, or were otherwise deeply interested. In the present instance, there was not a single Metropolitan Member nominated on the Committee, with the exception of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). If they went back to the year 1862, when the Thames Embankment Committee was appointed, they would find upon it Sir John Shelley and Sir Samuel Morton Peto, both of them Metropolitan Representatives. In the year following, 1863, another Metropolitan Committee was appointed, and two of the Members of that were Mr. Cox and Mr. Doulton, both of them Metropolitan Representatives. Since then Committees had been appointed to inquire into the Toll Bridges Bill, which affected the Metropolis, and there were appointed upon it three Metropolitan Members from the North side of London, and two Members from the South side. Under these circumstances, he felt it was right now that some Metropolitan Members should be placed upon this Committee. The question had now been in agitation for something like a fortnight; and he thought the House must have been taken by surprise yesterday morning when they saw the names placed upon the Paper by his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes). He (Colonel Beresford) had been under the impression that, as his proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee had been accepted by the Government, he would have been entitled to nominate three of the Committee. He believed, at all events, it had been usual to accede to some of the names proposed by an hon. Member in his position. He strongly objected to the name of the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not think it right that any paid member of the Metropolitan Board should be a Member of the Committee. He did not know what the rules were in circumstances of this kind; but he certainly objected to the Committee on that ground. He had received a letter from a firm of solicitors, asking him to bring the matter before the House, and a large number of Petitions had been presented against the Bill from the South side of the Thames. The Petitioners strongly objected to the Bill in the shape in which it had been pressed forward; and, for these reasons, he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey.

hoped the Chairman of Ways and Means would not yield to the appeal which had been made, and add to the number of interested Members on this Committee. He thought it was a matter which the House might consider with advantage, whether the very best method was adopted in the appointment of Hybrid Committees, especially in regard to Committees appointed to deal with Metropolitan questions. He believed that Committees dealing with other questions of a hybrid character, and appointed in the same manner as the present Committee, were not constituted as these Metropolitan Hybrid Committees were. For instance, the Committee upon the Manchester Corporation Water Bill, upon which he had served last year, was a Hybrid Committee, and it was appointed by the House in precisely the same way as the Committee now appointed; yet upon that Committee neither of the Members for Manchester was placed, nor was there any Member for Westmoreland, or Cumberland, nor any other Member interested or committed to any particular view in the matter which had to come before the Committee. If they could get a jury of Members utterly unprejudiced, instead of having a Committee prejudiced by preconceived opinions, it would be a great advantage. The House had just nominated a Committee which he would refer to, though the House had been pleased to place his name upon it. He alluded to the Committee on the Liverpool Lighting Bill, in which the question of electric lighting was to be raised. No Member interested in electric lighting, or personally interested in gas, had been placed upon that Committee; and he had no doubt that if any Member had been proposed who was so interested he would have been objected to. A different view seemed to prevail, however, in the case of a Metropolitan Bill. He admitted that something might be said for placing the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon a Committee of this description. But, at the same time, he was bound to say there was much force in the objection of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Beresford), although he did not for a moment Bay this on personal, but solely on public grounds. It did seem to him open to question whether it was desirable to place on a Committee of this kind a Member who went there with preconceived opinions, whose vote upon every question that would arise upon the Committee would not be given upon the evidence, but according to the opinions of the Board of Works, which were well known and had been expressed in that House over and over again. He had not risen on this occasion for the purpose of objecting to the inclusion of his hon. and gallant Friend's name upon the Committee, but simply for the purpose of urgently requesting the House and his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means not to add to the Committee any more names of interested Members—he meant Metropolitan Members, or others officially connected with the Bill, or officially opposed to it—or of any Member whose opinions could be foretold, and whose votes could also be foretold; but to make the Committee, as far as possible, an impartial one—a jury, in point of fact, that would impartially consider the merits of the Bill.

said, he represented a portion of the Metropolis which was very much interested in the questions which were brought before the Committee, and he thought they ought to be represented upon the Committee when it was proposed they should be subjected to compulsory taxation. This Bill contained provisions for imposing general taxation, and yet the interests of the people who were to be taxed appeared to be ignored on the Committee altogether. He could assure the House that the people of the Metropolis had no desire to be ignored in matters of this kind. If it were a Scotch Committee, upon a Scotch subject, he presumed Scotchmen would be placed upon the Committee; and if it were an Irish Committee, would the Irish Members rest contented if no Irish Members were placed upon it? He had no desire to be put upon the Committee himself. He was upon the one that had been previously appointed; but he thought that, in regard to the present Committee, there ought to be more Metropolitan Members upon it, seeing that the Metropolis was as large, as fur as its population was concerned, as the whole of Scotland, and that the principle of compulsory taxation was involved in the Bill. He told the Chairman of Ways and Means that if he did not give the Metropolis the fair share of representation which it deserved, he should certainly oppose the Committee.

said, the subject was one upon which he was able to speak with some experience, and he wished to correct a misapprehension on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), and his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth). The hon. Member for Rochester seemed to think that a Hybrid Committee was one that was an impartial Committee. Now, his (Mr. Rodwell's) experience was totally the reverse. It had almost always been the practice of the House to appoint upon Hybrid Committees Gentlemen of pronounced opinions, and of extreme opinions, who acted often as advocates, and very able advocates, for the particular views they desired to press upon the Committee. It would be seen, in the divisions which took place, that certain Members voted throughout one against another, and were seldom unanimous upon any of the points raised. He thought that in this particular case, considering the position of the Metropolitan Board of Works, that it would be impossible to select a more fit person to represent the views of the Metropolitan Board. He understood the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was to be upon the Committee; and as the hon. Baronet moved the rejection of the Bill, it seemed to him (Mr. Rodwell) that between these two hon. Members they would have a good opportunity of eliciting the truth, which, to hon. Members who were acting in a different sense, might be difficult, if not impossible.

was desirous of saying a few words before the discussion closed. Objection was taken to the nomination upon the Committee of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). The Chairman of Ways and Means had, however, pointed out that this was not an ordinary Private Bill, but that it partook of the nature of a public measure. [An hon. Member: No, no.] At any rate, that was his (Mr. J. G. Talbot's) opinion; and, if that were so, everyone would admit that both sides of the question should be fairly elicited. Any public question referred to a Select Committee should have represented upon the Committee those who took a strong view on both sides of the subject. In the present instance, it was proposed to place upon the Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, who had charge of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had moved its rejection; and if the question partook of a public character, it would be admitted that the lion, and gallant Member for Truro was the very person who ought to be upon the Committee. The hon. Member for Chelsea, who opposed the Bill on the second reading, was also named upon the Committee, so that neither side should be unduly represented. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) had, he thought, been somewhat misrepresented—unintentionally, of course—by the Chairman of Ways and Menus. What his hon. Friend wanted was to secure a fair representation of Surrey Members who had a real interest in the question. But the Chairman of Ways and Means had met his hon. Friend very fairly, and said—"If you consent to withdraw your proposal to-day, I will do my best to put two more Members on the Committee." His advice to his hon. Friend—if his hon. Friend would take advice from him—was that he would withdraw his Motion, and allow the Committee to be nominated, as it had been proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He was quite certain that if that course were taken, a conference between the hon. Member for West Surrey and the Chairman of Ways and Means would result in the Committee being constituted in a perfectly fair manner.

was of opinion that the Chairman of Ways and Means had acted rightly in the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), and the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), both stated that persons interested in a Bill were frequently placed upon the Hybrid Committee to which it was referred. These Members, of course, went into the Committee with preconceived notions, and it was true that in every Division it might be predicted beforehand how these Members would vote. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire had had great experience of these Hybrid Committees upstairs, and could speak with much authority on the subject; and he confirmed the hon. Member for Rochester as to the preconceived opinions formed by Members of a Committee, and the want of influence produced upon them by the evidence. What, then, it might be asked, was the good of nominating upon the Committee an equal number of hon. Members who were prejudiced either one way or the other? In such a case the whole decision rested with the odd Member, probably the Chairman, who would be unprejudiced. But what had the Chairman of Ways and Means done? He simply proposed to place on the present Committee no prejudiced Member, except two. And who were those two? First, the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, who had charge of the Bill; and if he were not included in the Committee he (Lord Robert Montagu) would like to know how the business of the Committee was to be conducted? In the event of certain evidence being brought before the Committee which rendered a compromise necessary, if the hon. and gallant Baronet was not present, who was to make the compromise? If, however, the hon. and gallant Baronet were sitting on the Committee, he would be authorized in such a case to say that as the evidence was different from what he had anticipated he would accept the compromise, and agree to it on behalf of the Metropolitan Board. That question would, consequently, be finished; the difficulty would be disposed of, and the Committee would be able to go on to the next point; but, as the Chairman of Ways and Means had told the House, if they placed the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board on the Committee, they must, in order to put the different interests upon a footing of equality, also place upon it the hon. Member who was the most decided opponent of the Bill; and no more decided or able opponent could be selected than the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) who, on the second reading of the measure, had placed a Notice on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill. It seemed, therefore, that the Chairman of Ways and Means had taken the only course which he could have taken as Chairman of Committees. He suggested that the House should agree to the names placed on the Paper by the Chairman of Ways and Means until they came to his (Lord Robert Montagu's) name. That name might be omitted, and the further consideration of the matter left open until to-morrow, when the Chairman of Ways and Means would be able to bring forward two or three names to complete the composition of the Committee. He thought that was a course which would suit all parties, and he hoped that it would be followed.

remarked, that as his name had been placed on the Paper by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), he wished to make an explanation in order to prevent a misconception. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark had put down his name without having consulted him, and he had no wish that his name should remain in opposition to the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. With regard to the Bill itself, he certainly wished that either himself or some other Member representing the interests of Surrey should be upon the Committee. It was, however, a mistake to suppose that the inhabitants of Surrey desired to oppose the Bill; on the contrary, they were anxious to have it. Surrey, especially Lambeth, had been flooded over and over again, and the people living on the banks of the Thames were anxious to have some Bill which, in future, would prevent the damage which had so often been done. Considering the large amount of property in Surrey that was affected by the flooding of the Thames, and the heavy rating which the inhabitants had to pay, he thought it was not unfair to ask that some Member representing a Surrey constituency should be appointed upon the Committee, as Middlesex was represented by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. If the Chairman of Ways and Means would consent to add two additional Members to the Committee, one of whom should be a Surrey Member, he thought that would go very far towards meeting the merits of the case.

thought there was a very strong objection to the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means to place the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon the Committee. The hon. and gallant Baronet was, in point of fact, a personally interested party. The Board of Works were the promoters of the original Bill, and the promoters also of the present measure. They could not divest themselves of their interest in the matter; and it appeared to him that full effect would be given to the demand of the Metropolitan Board if the Chairman of the Board were examined as a witness. If the hon. and gallant Baronet were placed upon the Committee, he would assume the twofold character of a witness and one of the jury. That, he thought, would be contrary to all judicial principles, and even to common sense. Questions would arise in considering the Bill as to taxation, as to who were the parties to be taxed, and to what extent and degree taxation was to be borne by the district, or whether it was to fall upon the Metropolitan Board of I Works? Under such circumstances, the one man who ought not to be upon the Committee, in order to pronounce the judgment of the Committee, was the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, who would find it impossible to divest himself of the interest which he had in the measure as Representative of the Board. In that capacity, of course, the hon. and gallant Baronet would have a direct interest in saving the revenues of the Board. No doubt, the revenues of the Board ought to be saved and economized as much as possible; but the Chairman of the Board was not, as between the Board and other contributaries, the best judge of the economy that ought to be exercised. His proper position in regard to a Bill of this kind was to be examined as a witness. The Committee itself should be composed of independent Members, who had no interest whatever in the measure, and whose only object would be to do that which was right.

was certainly of opinion that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) ought to be upon the Committee. He (Mr. M. Stewart) had had the honour of serving upon the Select Committee which sat two years ago upon this very question. Although his views did not altogether agree with those of his hon. and gallant Friend, he had had great satisfaction in hearing the hon. and gallant Gentleman named upon the Committee. Upon the previous Committee the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works certainly knew more about the question than anybody associated with him; and he was therefore able to give the Committee, not only good and valuable information, but to ask many useful questions. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Stewart) should support the proposition that the hon. and gallant Member for Truro should be upon the Committee.

said, he was willing to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, on the distinct understanding that his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means would propose two additional Members of the Committee, one of whom should be a Representative of the Metropolitan part of the County of Surrey. He hoped, upon that understanding, that he would be allowed to withdraw the Motion.

said, he felt bound to move, as an Amendment, that the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro be omitted. It was not from any personal feeling in regard to his hon. and gallant Friend that he took this step, but because this was a Private Bill, and he did not think that the principal promoter of it should be asked to serve upon the Committee which was to inquire into its merits. He knew that he would be met by the argument that this, although introduced as a Private Bill, was more in the nature of a public measure. Nevertheless, it was a Private Bill, introduced into the House in the ordinary form of a Private Bill; and he could not call to mind a single instance in which the promoters of a contested Private Bill had been placed upon the Committee to which the Bill was referred in order to report to the House upon its merits. The noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) said that it would be of advantage to have the hon. and gallant Member for Truro upon the Committee, in order that he might be present to accept any compromise that might be offered. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) wished to point out that that statement was altogether inaccurate, because the hon. and gallant Member for Truro had stated some time ago, in his place in the House, that he would be prepared, on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to accept any decision the Committee might arrive at. At the same time, it was only right to say that he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) understood the Metropolitan Board had repudiated that promise made by the hon. and gallant Member, and had said that he had no authority to bind them to do what they thought was not desirable in this manner. It would, there- fore, be much more preferable that the hon. and gallant Baronet should appear before the Committee as a witness, and not as a Member of the Committee itself. The Chairman of Ways and Means had himself used an argument which went against the nomination of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro. He said that it was desirable to have persons upon the Committee with impartial, unbiased minds. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means at once proceeded to nominate upon the Committee the one person who was the least impartial person who could be selected. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mark Stewart) also told the House that he was glad the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board was to be upon the Committee, because he knew more about the matter than anybody else. It was exactly because the hon. and gallant Member for Truro did know more of the matter than anybody else that he ought to appear before the Committee as a witness, and not as one of the judges. Under these circumstances, he deemed it right, in the interests of the public, to oppose the nomination upon the Committee of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro.

thought he might fairly appeal to the House to support him in his endeavour to secure a sufficient representation of those who took a lively public interest in the matter, without allowing the Committee to degenerate into an arena for partizan warfare. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who was just as much opposed to the Bill as the hon. and gallant Member for Truro was in its favour, was already upon the Committee, his name having been agreed to. These two Gentlemen had been placed upon the Committee, on the understanding that the views of one would counterbalance those of the other. Neither of them were interested in the matter in any sense that could be called private interest; but the interest they took in the question was altogether in a public capacity. The hon. and gallant Member for Truro was nominated because, as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he had charge of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Chelsea was nominated because he had moved the rejection of the Bill. It would, therefore, be an unfair proceeding to strike off the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, now that they had already confirmed the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea.

strongly objected to the appointment upon the Committee of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, and wished to call attention to what was done on a former occasion. Some time ago, a Committee was appointed upon this very question. He did not know who the Members of the Committee were, except that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro was one of them. Well, that Committee arrived at a certain decision, and what was then done by the hon. and gallant Member opposite? He stopped the further progress of the Bill altogether. Nothing more was done in the matter; and his hon. and gallant Friend was allowed to do precisely what he liked. The state of things which it was the object of the previous Bill to remedy had since been allowed to go on for a considerable time, and he failed to see what was to be the end. He did not know what the opinions of his hon. and gallant Friend were; but it appeared to be the fact that Parliament was able to do nothing, if the Metropolitan Board of Works chose to stop the way. What was the position of the question, and what was the former attempt to settle it? It was held that as both sides of the river would be benefited by preventing the overflow of the Thames, and that great damage to property which periodical floods occasioned—it was held that both sides of the river should contribute equally to the cost of the necessary works. But what did the body say, which was represented by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite? They said—"We will not contribute any of our money," notwithstanding the fact that both sides of the river would receive advantage. His hon. and gallant Friend contended that, although this was undoubtedly the case, the parts benefited should be called upon to bear the expense. The result was that the matter had remained unsettled, and the House was called upon to consider a scheme precisely similar to that which was inquired into, and reported upon, some years ago. If it had not been for his hon. and gallant Friend, and some others, who endeavoured to keep their money in their pockets, all that was necessary would now have been carried out. He must say that, in his opinion, his hon. and gallant Friend was one of the last men who ought to be allowed to sit upon the Committee. He was at the head of the Board who were promoting the Bill, and, in that capacity, he might again feel it right to do that which was opposed to the interests of everybody else. If anybody was to be eliminated from the Committee, it was certainly the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

remarked that his name had been so prominently brought forward in the course of the discussion, almost by every speaker, that he felt it impossible to sit entirely quiet. He should not, however, have risen to address the House, if it had not been for the numerous mistakes the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had made in the two speeches he had addressed to the House. The only excuse that could be made for the hon. Member was his ignorance, which was abundantly manifested in the two statements he had made. The hon. Member said that the Metropolitan Board declined to accept the decision of the previous Committee of the House. That statement was somewhat inaccurate, and it was proved by the present Bill, which was brought in in order to meet the views of the Committee. The Bill, it was true, did not cast the whole cost over the Metropolis, a particular portion of it being thrown upon the riparian owners; but the other portion—namely, that for compensations—fell upon the Metropolitan Board. He therefore contended that the Metropolitan Board had shown a deference to the views of the Committee. Then, again, the hon. Member said that when he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) brought in the Bill the other day, he promised that the Board should acquiesce in any decision the Committee might arrive at. Now, what he said was that, as far as he had any influence with his Colleagues, he would do everything he could to induce them to accept the decision of the Committee. Of course, he would be glad to have an impartial Committee; and it would be in the recollection of the House that when he brought in the Bill he asked for an impartial tribunal that should inquire into the merits of the Bill, although it was only a Private Bill, as if they were a jury. When the House expressed an opinion that there should be a different tribunal from that to which Private Bills were usually referred, he at once bowed to its decision. The hon. Member for Rochester was now kind enough to inform him and the House that the Metropolitan Board had repudiated what he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had said. The hon. Member was entirely incorrect. The Board had said nothing upon the matter. He had not asked his Colleagues their opinion on the subject, and the Board had not attached any blame to him. He would advise his hon. Friend, before he again got up to make statements to the House, to be quite sure that the statements he was about to make were accurate.

said, he was not usually the champion of all the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but, on this occasion, he thought the objection taken to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was altogether unjustifiable and without foundation. It would almost seem, from the conversation which had taken place, that there was no part of London, except that part of it which was bounded by the Thames. He begged to remind the House that a large portion of London had really very little interest in the question of the embankment of the river, but had a great deal of interest in the question how the expense was to be spread over the Metropolis. At present, what was their position? In the names already appointed upon the Committee was that of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had already expressed his views as to how the mode of payment should be adjusted over the Metropolis; and the hon. Baronet, therefore, could not be said to be altogether an unprejudiced Member of the Committee. Then they had an offer made, and accepted, as he understood, that an hon. Member should be placed on the Committee who represented Surrey. They would thus have on the Committee the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, who directly represented the interests of a water-side constituency and was interested in having the cost spread over the whole of the Metropolis, and they would have a Member for Surrey, who would also have a direct interest in having the cost spread over the whole of London, and not confined to the localities which would derive most advantage from the Bill. What was proposed now? Simply that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro should be put on the Committee. His hon. and gallant Friend had charge of the Bill, and was also the mouthpiece of a body which consisted of Representatives from every part of London, so that he might be said to represent a large district which might probably be called upon to contribute to the cost without participating directly in the benefit. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Ritchie) that if they did not place upon the Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, or some Representative of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Committee would be unfairly constituted. For his own part, he should be glad that neither the hon. Member for Chelsea, nor the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, nor a Member for Surrey, should be put on the Committee, and that the whole question should be submitted to the investigation and decision of a thoroughly impartial tribunal. But if they were going to have two Members on the Committee who were directly interested in having the expense of the works spread over the whole of London, they ought at least to have one Representative who, from his position, would be able to speak for the other parts of the Metropolis. Upon these grounds, he should vote for the nomination of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro.

hoped he might be allowed to say a word in explanation. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro said the statement he had made was totally inaccurate. He begged to say that he was informed, on the best authority, that a Member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Board of Works, of which his hon. and gallant Friend was Chairman, did find fault with his hon. and gallant Friend's conduct in the matter. He believed he would be confirmed in this statement by the very best authority, however much the hon. and gallant Gentleman might deny it.

trusted he might be allowed to give the strongest possible denial to every word the hon. Member had uttered.

remarked, that in 1877 the proposal of the Board of Works was treated as a Public Bill; but this year it was brought in as a Private Bill, in order that it might be pushed forward. So far as he was personally concerned in the matter, he believed that he had taken a right course. His hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means had put his name down as one of the Members to be nominated upon the Committee; but he had declined to act, on the ground that he was a riparian Member. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Truro came forward as the proposer of the scheme which was rejected in 1877, and he did not think his name should be placed on the present Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that a regiment on foreign service is kept below its regulated establishment of subalterns, if the regiment with which it is linked has supernumeraries of that rank, in consequence of its establishment being reduced?

in reply, said, it was the case. The supernumerary officers of the linked regiment, in all instances where the establishment was reduced, were made available if required.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received to the effect that a consignment of rifles and ammunition has left this Country for Mozambique; if so, whether he can state by whom they have been shipped, and whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to prevent the consignment from reaching the Zulus?

Yes, Sir, we have received information that 831 muskets and 50,000 lbs. of gunpowder were shipped last week from Cardiff, in a French ship, called the Argus, for Mozambique. My hon. Friend asks me who shipped these munitions. The firm that shipped these articles is Messrs. Hutton, of Manchester, Dale Street; as well as Messrs. Hutton, of Temple, Liverpool. Sir, we have communicated with the Portuguese Government on this subject, and we have also taken other measures with the view of preventing these munitions of war from reaching the Zulus. As I have mentioned the Portuguese Government, I think I may state that we have every reason to be- lieve that this Government will act in this case, as in other cases of a similar character—that is, they will do their best to prevent these warlike stores from reaching the Natives who are at war with this country.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government is prepared to give to officers, on being appointed as Lieutenants in India, full Lieutenants pay as in England?

I can only at present say, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, that the question of applying to India the Royal Warrant regulating the pay of lieutenants is still under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any truth in the allegation in the Paris correspondence of the "Times" of Wednesday, that Mr. Rivers Wilson had pledged himself to great financial bodies holding enormous quantities of Egyptian Stock not to reduce the interest before a certain date; and if it is in consequence of any such engagement that the pay of the Native Egyptian officials was withheld?

in reply, said, he was not in the least aware of any such promise as that referred to having been given by Mr. Rivers Wilson; and no communication had been made to the Government on the subject.

said, he had a Motion on the Paper, but he was precluded by the Forms of the House from pressing it to a Division on the present occasion. He did not, however, regret that very much, as the Government had taught them the value of Divisions in a manner which did not tend to assure them that a Division was always a test of the opinion of the House. The Government had its majority in the neighbourhood, and when it was wanted it would march in and vote. Still he would call the attention of the House to the subject of his Resolution, which was—

"That the professional instruction on the most important subjects in mixed colleges and universities is necessarily superficial and imperfect when the conditions of mixed education are observed, and injurious and offensive to one or other denomination of students when the professors endeavour to be teachers in more than name."

said, though the attempted count-out occurred during his speech, he quite sympathized with the natural indignation of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). Whenever any question of Irish importance was brought before the House there was emptiness on the benches of the Legislators for Ireland. He was quite aware his hon. Friend was not opposed to his remarks, but properly desired to call attention to the manner in which Ireland was dealt with in Parliament. Neither national nor general history could be treated with any conformity to truth or science by a Professor who was under the pledge to utter no statement which might be disrespectful or injurious to the convictions of any portion of his class. It was equally impossible to deal with any other subject of importance without touching the susceptibilities of somebody. How was philosophy to be taught? How would a Professor who had drawn his philosophy from Oxford, or Cambridge, or Trinity College, Dublin, deal with the great masters of Catholic thought? What could be more calculated to unsettle the fundamental morals and mental principles of a young man than to hear his Professor vainly attempting to turn the corners of the mixed education difficulty, reciting with equal indifference the names of all the systems and sham systems and schools of philosophy and sophistry from the beginning of the Greek down to the last vagary imported from Germany? When a Professor tried to teach philosophy under the mixed system he was driven to this sceptical attitude. The objection to this system applied to every branch of human knowledge, for there was no point which could be taught in anything but a superficial way under the pledge not to hurt the individual susceptibilities of any portion of a class or audience.

resumed his speech. He asked how a Professor under the mixed system could discuss the influence of Voltaire on his century, or "the character of the Renaissance?" There would not be a single branch even of literature which must not be the arena of sectarian controversy, and in this country the system must work as an engine of attack against the convictions of Catholics. He entirely repudiated any thought of per- sonal motive. No more honourable men could be found than the Professors of the Queen's Colleges with whom he had to do, and any shortcomings in their lectures or teaching were attributable to the system under which they worked. That system was in this country an assault on Catholic doctrines; but on the Continent it was an assault on Christianity itself; and in no long time the Anglican Church would feel the destroying influence of mixed education, and would disappear before the indifferentism which was both its parent and its off-spring. Ruin had been brought on the Continent to the Churches outside the pale of the Church of Rome, and the same ruin was in store for Anglican Christianity if it destroyed denominationalism out of intolerance for Irish Catholics, and sacrificed their common Christianity before the shrine of plain and naked infidelity.

was sorry that no hon. Member connected with the Universities had risen to remark upon the speech which the House had just heard from the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The reason why he wished to make some remarks was that he considered that if this Resolution could be put to a vote, and were carried, it would be one of the strongest possible votes of censure which the House could pass upon the system of University education which prevailed in Scotland. The system there was that which the hon. Member had described as mixed education, and yet there were none of the evils which he had described attending it. The teaching was not superficial, there was no discontent on the part of the people, and there were no attacks upon the Roman Catholics or any other body of men. Everything went on quietly and there was no complaint whatever. If the effects which the hon. Member had described were inevitably connected with mixed education, it would be found that the people in Scotland would not send their sons to be educated at the Universities; but was that the case? There were, he believed, as nearly as possible 5,000 students attending the Universities of England, and there were as nearly as possible the same number of students attending the Universities of Scotland. The result of these figures was that while England had about one University student to a population of 5,000, Scotland had seven University students to a population of 5,000. Did not that show that the inhabitants of that country were highly satisfied with the system of mixed education? If they took the University of Edinburgh, for example, they would find that there was not even a chapel in it—there were no prayers—there was no kind of interference with the religious opinions of any persons who chose to enter. The hon. Member had dwelt strongly on what he called the gagging system, and he read to the House a declaration that the Professors of the Queen's Colleges were not to do this, that, and the other thing. Well, he could easily understand that, remembering as he did the discussions which took place at the time that the Queen's Colleges were constituted, and that the Government of the day were most anxious to please both parties in Ireland. He doubted whether they had succeeded, but at all events they tried, and those long and tiresome prohibitions that were made to prevent particular tenets from being taught were no doubt well meant, were intended to conciliate all, and make those Colleges beneficial to the whole population of Ireland. It did not appear that they had done so; but most certainly the system had succeeded admirably in the country with which he had the honour to be connected. It might be said—"Well, but Scotland is a Presbyterian country, all the Professors must be Presbyterians, and therefore they teach Presbyterian doctrines." ["Hear, hear!"] He recognized that cheer, but the fact was quite different. There were a number of Episcopalian Professors appointed, and they had just as good a chance of being elected as members of any of the Presbyterian bodies. He could speak on this point from personal knowledge. More than 40 years ago he was a member of the electing body which appointed the Professors in Edinburgh, and he remembered taking a deep interest in promoting the return of a clergyman of the Church of England who was a candidate for the Professorship of Mathematics, because he believed him to be the best qualified of all the candidates. He and those who acted with him were successful in procuring his election, and to this day he remained an honour to the University. He remembered another instance where, at a later period, about 20 years ago, a gentleman, who was a very distinguished Greek scholar, offered himself as a candidate for the Greek Chair. That gentleman was, he admitted, opposed by certain parties on the ground that he was not sufficiently orthodox for the prevailing Presbyterian sentiment. That objection was strongly urged, but it did not prevail; and he was glad to say that the gentleman was appointed, although by the very small majority of his (Mr. M'Laren's) casting vote. He was proud of having been the means of appointing a distinguished Greek scholar, although objected to by some on account of his supposed religious views. He would like to say a word on the departments of that University. There were four departments—namely, the Faculties of Arts, Medicine, Law, and Divinity. The Faculty of Arts consisted of seven branches—Humanity, Greek, Mathematics, Logic and Metaphysics, Moral Philosophy, Natural Philosophy, Rhetoric and English Literature—from which the students made a selection, and when they passed their examination they got their degree of MA. He would put it to anyone why an honest man appointed to be a Professor should interfere with the religious opinion of young men in teaching any of those branches? The gentlemen who were appointed Professors made the single declaration that they should not teach anything contrary to the Westminster Confession. That negative test was the only test. [Ironical cheers.] He had never heard of any dispute arising, or of any Professor being brought up or complained of for transgressing that declaration. Many Members present might never have read the Westminster Confession. It was framed and enacted by Parliament in England, but the Scotch people adopted it; and he believed that there was a great deal in it which many hon. Members who ironically cheered him would concur in if they would only read it. Then, in the Faculty of Medicine there were between 1,100 and 1,200 students. He believed it was the largest medical school in the world. Why should the Professor of any of the branches of medicine or surgery interfere with the opinions of Roman Catholic students? Why, it would be a monstrous perversion of everything that was right and proper. He did not believe it ever was or would be done. What, again, had law to do with religion? As to divinity, with the exception of the Church of Scotland, all the other religious denominations in Scotland had Professors of their own to teach students divinity according to their own views; but they sent them to the University for the purpose of going through the Arts classes. Now, if their Roman Catholic friends who complained of this system would just follow that example—would teach to their heart's content their own views of religion, and let the young men get their general education in the classes of the University which did not trench upon religious subjects at all—he thought they would find that, however theoretically wrong it might be in their estimation, that practically no injustice would be done to them. He had felt it his duty, as one of the Members for Scotland, to say these few words merely as a protest against the sweeping denunciations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan in regard to a system of education in which Scotland delighted.

said he was rather surprised at the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) having suddenly changed the scene from Ireland to Scotland, a country of which the Irish Members were entirely ignorant. He did not, however, at all complain of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who had, perhaps, added a new interest to the debate by giving them his experience of the system of education in Scotland; but as that hon. Member had abandoned the Irish side of the question, he could not expect the Irish Members to follow him on the Scotch side with the same ability and the same amount of knowledge which he had himself shown. He was informed that the Scotch Colleges, with reference to the question of religious instruction, were not in nearly so bad a condition as the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. He heard that there were chapels in the Scotch Colleges; that there was a large number of clergymen in them; and that those clergymen were of the same religion as the students. He heard also that there were schools of theology in the Scotch Colleges. That was not his idea of irreligious Colleges. If the Government were to give them in Ireland some system of that kind, under which a considerable number of the clergymen belonged to the religion of the majority of the country, and under which Divine worship was celebrated, they would be very much inclined to take the chance for teaching also. In the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge religious instruction was given. The Belfast College, which was frequented by Presbyterians, was in a condition much like that of the Scotch Colleges, and therefore it could not be an irreligious College. While religious teaching was excluded from Cork and Gal way Colleges, where the population was almost entirely Catholic, a different system prevailed in Scotland and England, where no difficulties were put in the way of Protestants. He considered this was most unfair, and he thought something should be done to place Ireland on a level with the rest of the Kingdom in this matter.

said, that the terms of this Motion were of the very widest possible description. It contained the clear and unqualified statement—

"That the Professorial instruction on the most important subjects in mixed colleges and Universities is necessarily superficial and imperfect when the conditions of mixed education are observed, and injurious and offensive to one or other denomination of students when the Professors endeavour to be teachers in more than name."

complained that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had dealt in a very off-hand manner with the most important question of mixed education, which, as practised, not only led to, but absolutely involved, scepticism as to religious matters. It was true that in several respects the system, or rather, the theory of mixed education, had not worked ill in some parts of Ireland, but those were parts of the country in which some particular form of religion prevailed almost universally, and where the views of the teachers were actually in accordance with the religious predilections of the students who had to be taught. The question they were dealing with was whether there should be a school education without history as a branch of study; and if there should not, could there be a system that did not deal with the problems of Christianity? He did not care what the religions were. Of course, he should prefer his own religion. But in all the forms of Christian faith there was sufficient protection for society at present, and to teach every man his duty to the State. Physical science in education was of great use to individuals, but of no use to the State, unless the individuals were made good members of society. That, he denied, could be accomplished without making religion a portion of the education, and therefore the wishes and the aspirations of the people ought to be consulted in the system of education. Were they to ignore the influence of the Roman Catholic faith, which had lived and taught the highest morality in Ireland in spite of every opposition? He thought they ought not to do so, and he therefore supported the Motion.

regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had not attempted to grapple with the difficulties attending the system of mixed education in the Irish Universities. As was said in nautical circles, he gave a "wide berth" to that question. It was not, however, to be wondered at, in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a distinguished alumnus of Trinity College, Dublin, in which the difficulty existed in its most complete form. Charges had been made that in a Catholic University the Professors would be slaves, and dare not teach anything objectionable to the priests. Well, he rather thought that the Universities in this country attained to some eminence under the system so impugned. In the declaration made by a Professor connected with a College or University where mixed education prevailed, he bound himself to avoid all subjects which were calculated to produce any manner of controversy, religious or political. If he gave his pupils his own ideas of the history of the Reformation, the punishment meted out to him would be that he would be summoned before the Council and formally warned and reprimanded, and, if guilty of a repetition of the offence, he would be forth with suspended from his functions, and his removal from office recommended. Well, how, he asked, could any such Professor in Ireland avoid references which would stir up such controversies on the part of one or more of his class? He remembered seeing a plate representing a scene in which some years after the battle of the Boyne an old Irish piper might be observed in the presence of a stalwart Irish soldier who was armed with a formidable shillelagh, and saying to the piper, "Strike-up 'The Battle of the Boyne;' I want to know how I can stand it." Might there not be some students to be found who would be as reasonable as that Irish soldier? He hoped that all traditions of the greatness, glory, and independence of University education had not faded from the land. Supposing that all the students were Protestants, a Professor dare not make use of phrases to them which Catholics would not shrink from using. If he was dealing with the time of Henry VIII., he might say he was a Prince of many virtues and many vices, but which were his virtues and which his vices he would leave to them. They paid their money, and might take their choice. It was an insult to Ireland to pretend this was to be the style of University education. The declaration to which he referred was a fetter on Professorial teaching. He had known cases of conscientious Protestant Professors who dared not treat the episode in history of the Inquisition in Spain in the manner in which their convictions would have led them to do, because a Roman Catholic student might be present, although they full well knew that such was not the case. The Attorney General for Ireland had asked what mischief had accrued from the present system? The answer to that question was this, that when they came to divert or to poison a system of education, the evil results could not, necessarily and naturally, be pointed to for a long time. The system had been sought to be palliated and defended by the fact that Roman Catholic students had gone through Trinity College, Dublin, and had not been prejudicially affected by the system which prevailed in that institution, of which every Irishman was proud. But the fact was due, not to the system which the Resolution condemned, but had occurred in spite of that system. If he were a Protestant parent, he would prefer to send his child to a Protestant rather than to a Catholic University, although students might have emerged from that Catholic University without harm to their religious principles. A system must be judged by its logical and consistent consequences, and not by its accidental products. If the emasculated conditions of the mixed system were maintained, he cared not whether in Ireland, England, or Scotland, learning must deteriorate, and a future race would grow up unworthy of their forefathers, imbecile as scholars, and a peril to Christian society.

said, he was surprised that the Attorney General for Ireland should have put Trinity College on a level with the Queen's Colleges, which had notoriously failed as teaching institutions. Trinity College was, at the time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was studying there, a strictly denominational College, and it was as such it had been so successful. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had argued in favour of the mixed system on the ground that they got on so well with it in Scotland. But he denied that the Scotch system was really a mixed system. Scotch Presbyterians had a habit of assimilating themselves and their religion to the mixed system of education, and of converting a nominally undenominational and secular institution into a Presbyterian College or University. This was the case with the Colleges in the North of Ireland. He would like to know whether any Catholic filled a Chair in the University of Edinburgh? They were bound to respect the conscientious convictions of the Roman Catholics, and to legislate in accordance with their requirements. They might call the Irish system a mixed system, but it was decidedly opposed to the conscientious feelings of a vast majority of the people of that country. It was admitted that the state of Roman Catholic education in Ireland was deplorable, and Parliament was driven to this position—that they must give the Roman Catholics of Ireland a system that they could conscientiously take advantage of, or else give up the pretence of supplying Ireland with any system of University education at all. The system in Oxford and Cambridge was most sectarian, and he did not see how it was possible, with a great variety of branches of knowledge, that teaching could be conducted from any other than a religious point of view. Were they going to have no history at all taught in their Universities? Were they going to have no theological or divinity schools, in order that they might carry out their peculiar ideas as to University education in Ireland? He said by all means let the Freethinkers', children be taught in accordance with the Freethinkers' wish, but that the children of Roman Catholic parents be taught in accordance with their wish, and the children of Protestant parents in accordance with their wish.

said, he profoundly objected to the proposition now before the House. He believed that the effect of the adoption of that proposition in the terms in which it had been expressed would be to strike a blow at almost everything which had been done for education in the country for many years past. He thought that the objection raised by hon. Members to the mixed educational system of Ireland might be traced rather to the way in which the inhabitants of that country regarded that system than to that system itself. In England, for many years past, a mixed system of education had existed without banishing religion from the schools. Why should not the same thing be done in the sister country? Why should it be impossible to teach history without rousing religious contention and stirring up questions which ought long ago to have been effaced from the minds of the people of Ireland, as they had already been from the minds of the Catholic inhabitants of this country? He wished to respect any man's convictions, be he Catholic or Protestant; but those convictions ought not to be wounded if they were founded on truth and a real knowledge of the religion a man professed, simply because he attended the lectures of a Professor of history. Since the University Tests Repeal Act was passed, nine years ago, the Universities of England had not lost their hold on the people of this country merely because no religious test of any kind was required of any person who took a degree. Yet there was no subject that was not introduced into the University curriculum, and nobody could fairly say that the Universities were irreligious. This debate seemed to him to be founded upon a false assumption—namely, that if Professors really taught their subjects, they must give offence to some denominational student. He declared that to be entirely untrue, and that it was quite possible to have mixed education without injury to religious susceptibilities. Hon. Gentlemen who opposed that system were trying to turn back the hand of the dial. Catholics and Protestants ought to be able to face a University in which students of other creeds besides their own were taught; and if their faith was not strong enough to hold its ground against such association with students of other creeds, then the sooner they obtained more firmly rooted convictions the better. Of all Christian creeds, that of hon. Members opposite had the longest tradition, and, perhaps, the ablest writers; but, at the same time, they now lived in the nineteenth century, and Catholics, as well as Protestants, must be prepared to face the world of scientific professors and historians. If there was one thing for which the education of this country was famous, it was that every subject was being introduced into its curriculum. He did not venture to dispute with Irish Members on their particular views with regard to particular Colleges or Universities in Ireland; but he differed from them profoundly with respect to mixed education. They were confusing mixed education with the mariner in which it might be applied in a particular country. It might be so misapplied that the system might be bad; but he was convinced the system was the only means of teaching the rising generation the truth of the great principles which ought to be instilled into them from their youth.

asked whether the hon. Member who had just spoken had ever found in his experience that educated Catholics were afraid of facing the intellectual issues of the present day? The hon. Member said Catholic youths should not be afraid to enter the arena with an army of Professors, and he asked, why should they not submit themselves to Protestant Professors? He trusted the hon. Member and the House would not forget the able arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and the declaration he made, speaking on behalf of the Catholic people of Ireland. It had been assumed that the mixed system of the Queen's Colleges was the same as the system which pre- vailed in England and Scotland. No proof whatever had been given that it was. But even if it had been proved, it did not follow that the system which was suitable to England and Scotland was also suitable to Ireland. He held the Irish University Question would never be settled except on a denominational basis, and the Irish people could not follow the advice of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) to rest and be thankful. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had risen to prove that religion had nothing whatever to do with University education in Scotland; but he admitted that Professors had to subscribe a declaration that they would teach nothing subversive of the Westminster Confession of Faith. There was some laughter at this, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh got a little testy at it. This reminded him (Mr. O'Connor Power) of the opinion of a brilliant writer, that it required a surgical operation to get a joke into a Scotchman's head. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, when he made this admission about the Westminster Confession of Faith, really surrendered the whole case. The Irish people might have purchased peace long ago from England if they had been willing to sacrifice two things—the religion and the nationality of Ireland. But they refused to accept the bribe of the English Parliament at the expense of their religious or national convictions. Though the people of Ireland had had a long struggle to sustain education on Catholic principles against the richly endowed University of Dublin and the Queen's University, they had thought it right to make the sacrifice, and there were signs every day that parties were becoming convinced that no English Government could ever hope to settle the question of education in Ireland except upon a denominational basis, and one which would give Catholics the same advantages which Espiscopalian Protestants and Presbyterians enjoyed. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had borne testimony to the good intentions with which the system of the Queen's Colleges had been introduced. They had heard of a place paved with good intentions, but that did not make people anxious to go there. If an unjust and oppressive system was to be accepted because of the claim of good intentions on the part of its authors, the most monstrous tyranny ever practised for the degradation of man might be justified. He was glad the hon. Member for Dungarvan had seized this opportunity of presenting the Irish view of the matter to the House; and he should lose no occasion of reminding the House and the Government of the day that the demand of the Catholic people of Ireland must be acceded to if they really meant to do equal justice. The Irish did not want any special favour, but they asked the House to look at the practical results of the present system, and they were convinced they would have to say what Lord Cairns and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had said, that University education in Ireland was scandalously bad, and that it was a scandal to Parliament and to Government that it should continue so.

said, it was impossible for a Professor to teach properly under the mixed system. Hardly any question in Irish history had excited such controversy as the Great Rebellion of 1641, and on that subject Mr. Froude had been the accepted authority, until Mr. Leakie proved that the atrocities attributed to the Irish people were entirely false. There were a thousand matters in which conflicting views were taken, and he asked, how could history be discussed, and how could controverted points be worked out, if the Professors who taught it were not to touch upon points which might excite the religious susceptibilities of those to whom they lectured?

remarked that although the question had been brought before the House in an abstract form, it enabled hon. Members to understand one of the subjects which at the present moment gave so much uneasiness and anxiety to the Irish people. Lord Beaconsfield once described Ireland as an island surrounded by a melancholy ocean, in which the people were discontented because they were not amused. Education, however, was no matter of amusement, and it was because the Irish people were like other human beings that they reiterated their demand to be allowed the ordinary liberty of British subjects—to educate their children in the way which seemed best to them. They asked that those who desired secular education should have it, and that those who desired religious education should have it; but the Irish people objected to Parliament giving them a system of a kind which did not exist in the rest of the three Kingdoms, and to compelling the Catholic people of Ireland to accept an education which some might call secular, but which was in reality denominational. Secularism and rationality were really religions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had felt the religious difficulty, and he proposed to eliminate from the teaching the whole of modern history, and everything connected with moral philosophy. And what was the reason why the proposal proved fatal to the right hon. Gentleman's Government? It was because he told a people fond of learning, such as the Irish were, that in order to concede what was requisite to their prejudices, he would eliminate two of the greatest subjects of education. He thus insulted, instead of conciliating them as he expected, and every man in Ireland felt that the English Government put upon him such an insult as had never been put upon an intellectual people before. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Ridley) was a promising young man, and it was not improbable that he might be sent to govern Ireland, he having the great advantage, which was generally looked for in a candidate for the post of Chief Secretary, of knowing nothing about the country which he was going to govern. As a Protestant he felt ashamed whenever this question was discussed in the House of Commons, because he felt that if the issue could be tried out before a Judge and jury, the verdict on the abstract justice of the case would be against the House of Commons. If there were a good sprinkling of Mahomedans in this country, the Government would do what they had done in India by providing for Mahomedan education, and not compel them to undergo the moral tortures of being educated in the atmosphere of a religion which was not their religion. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had made a most inconsistent speech. Why, only the other day the University of Glasgow got a grant of money from the Government. For what purpose? To build a chapel in connection with their University where the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith could be taught to the students. They had been advised to rise above the level of mere conversation; but he thought that no unprejudiced person who had listened to the speeches which had been delivered from that side of the House would deny that the question at issue was one of great importance, and that it had been advocated from their point of view with much ability. It was a noteworthy fact that two Members only on the other side of the House had taken part in the debate; and that fact might be accounted for in this way—that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not wish to advance arguments which they knew would be replied to effectively, and to have the debate thus stimulated. What the Irish people demanded in this matter was justice, and justice only. They required to be allowed to educate their children under a system of which they approved, and they would be satisfied with nothing less; and nothing could be fairer than such a demand. The subject had been introduced in a spirit of great forbearance, and no threats had been uttered or any disagreeable things said; but he trusted the House of Commons would remember this fact—that if it continued to violate the religious convictions of so large a portion of Her Majesty's subjects, it could not in fairness expect that there would be that union of hearts and minds which alone could make up a loving people.

said, he was not able to say anything new on this subject; but he would repeat some of the arguments used previously, as the greater part of the hon. Members then present had not heard the earlier part of the debate, and as, in addition, it was sometimes useful to repeat arguments which had been used before, for they then became more deeply engraven on the minds of hon. Gentlemen, and they were more likely to profit by the arguments which had been directed at them. He had not himself had the opportunity of hearing the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, who was also the Representative of the University of Dublin; but he believed that right hon. and learned Gentleman had devoted part of his remarks to dealing with the practical results of the teaching in the Queen's Colleges. If he had really made himself practically acquainted with this subject, he could not think that the result had been very flattering. The result was far better in the Catholic University, for there the Professors did give really good teaching, but they had not power to grant degrees; and, as a consequence, the students lost the practical fruits of their labour. Now, in all walks of life they liked to have the prizes of their labour, and to have value for their work. But in the Queen's Colleges the result was very different. In Galway they had literally to bribe the students to attend the lectures, by offering a very large number of prizes, in proportion to the number of students; while the teaching given there was, he was informed, of the worst description. Yet students, who were practically uneducated, and were almost ignorant of the subjects taught, were competent to obtain valuable Scholarships, and were very likely to get them. If that was the result of mixed education, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any right to be proud of the practical result of the teaching in that College. In Cork, he understood, the case was not much better; while of Belfast he could speak more vigorously, because he knew the place from his personal knowledge. There was a pretty decent medical school there, and there was good teaching for the Presbyterians; but for the mass of the population—Roman Catholics or Episcopalians—it was an open failure. The Presbyterians, however, had utilized the College in a very judicious way, for they had built divinity schools immediately adjoining the College, in which they taught their students, and then sent them into the College for the rest of their classes, so far as the curriculum was suitable for their purpose. But there was no Episcopalian literary school in Belfast; and, in reality, the College was used almost entirely by the Presbyterians. Surely, then, the Queen's College of Belfast could not be said to be in a satisfactory state for the whole of the people of Ireland. It was of great value for a small sect in the North part of the country; but, so far as the nation generally was concerned, it was of no practical value whatever, and was a thorough failure. As to the teaching in Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) referred, he believed all the Professors at Edinburgh were bound to teach nothing contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith. But that was a creed which, he believed, no man living believed. Some 35 years ago he was in the habit of going to a Presbyterian church, and there found out the way in which these affairs were managed. A number of elders were being ordained, and they had to make a declaration that they accepted the Westminster Confession of Faith. The clergyman who ordained them told them he only expected them to declare their belief in the Confession as at present understood. That must be the principle on which University education in Ireland was carried on. Again, although not universally so, he believed almost all the Professors were Presbyterians. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had, it was true, mentioned certain cases in which the Professors were not Presbyterians; but one of those was the case of the Professor of Mathematics. Surely there would be considerable difficulty in introducing anything of a theological character into the explanations of Euclid. In the teaching of mathematics, the religious views of the Professor surely might be made an open question, and it seemed that in Edinburgh that was done. On another occasion, on the election of a Professor of Greek, a Protestant Episcopalian was elected. If that was what denominational education meant in Scotland, they could put up with it very well in Ireland. If it were laid down in Ireland that nothing should be taught contrary to the Roman Catholic religion, nobody would object. Nothing would be said against it in Ireland. In these Queen's Colleges, however, so far from the Professors being Roman Catholies, they were, with very few exceptions, members of the different forms of the Protestant religion. Nobody could pretend that that was a satisfactory state of things in a Roman Catholic country, where the people wished their children educated in their own faith. Yet they could only have their wishes carried out where the Professors of debateable subjects were of their own faith, looking at all important matters of education from the same point of view. He did not intend to hold out any threats; but hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must not think it strange if this question was debated, not once or twice, but many times during the Session. In fact, they might make up their minds that they would hear a good deal on this subject until they settled it in a satisfactory manner. As to the Board of Examiners, he had no authority to speak for the Roman Catholics, or to say what as regarded University education would be considered thoroughly satisfactory as a settlement; but he certainly thought he might say that the people would not pull down the flag if something unreasonably small were offered. An hon. Gentleman had said that he did not consider this Resolution was shaped in a very satisfactory form. If the hon. Gentleman who said that had heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), he would probably have thought differently; for, as it seemed to him, the case in support of the Resolution was put in a very conclusive and exhaustive manner. An hon. Gentleman should certainly hear a speech before he ventured to offer any criticisms upon it. If hon. Gentlemen took the trouble to listen to their speeches, they would probably then be able to form an opinion on a subject which was worth the attention of the House.

said, no doubt the Members of the Government would be very much annoyed at the continuance of the debate; but they must not be surprised at it. The people of England had been both deceived and disappointed by the action of Ministers in regard to University education, and they had no right to be surprised that Irish Members should endeavour to force the subject upon the House. This was well known, and over and over again it should be repeated, in order to impress upon the Government how deeply the people were pained. The Government had undoubtedly deceived them. They had, to a certain extent, committed themselves; but in obedience to the advice of Orange Members from Ireland, and of some of their evangelical allies, they had endeavoured to ignore what they had partly promised, and had tried to set aside the wishes of the people of Ireland. This subject was of the greatest moment; it was, indeed, almost vital to Ireland. This question of mixed education was now being fought out, not merely in this country, but in every nation of the world. In the United States of America the common school system had been a bone of contention for several years past, and the Catholic Bishops of that country had called upon their flocks to come forward and sub- scribe to schools that would give purely Catholic education, so deeply did they feel the necessity for it. In Switzerland and France the same thing was going on. The Conservatism of England—the spurious Conservatism of this country— would, no doubt, sympathize with revolution in France and with the Liberal majority in the Chambers there, so long as the revolution was not brought over to this country; but they must remember that that majority refused to give the education which the majority of the French people demanded. In Germany, also, the same struggle was going on. He thought, however, that the Government would hardly care to follow in Prince Bismarck's footsteps. It would not attempt to muzzle the minority, as Prince Bismarck had tried to muzzle the minority in the Reichstag. The Conservative Party in this country were pledged to denominational education, and had fought the Liberal Party year after year upon it. They were ready to cede to the Catholic minority in this country the right to denominational education in the primary schools and in the Universities, if necessary, and yet they would not give the same privilege to the Catholic people of Ireland. It was folly to suppose that the Catholic Irishmen would be satisfied so long as that right was denied them. The Catholic hierarchy recently proclaimed their wishes on the subject in the most formal manner, and University education would be made a vital question at the next General Election. The Liberals formerly held sway in Ireland, and the Irish votes year after year gave them a majority in that House. But a third Party had now grown up, which had broken their power; and was it wise, as a point of political tactics, for the Conservatives to force that third Party into the arms of the Liberals by refusing them the justice they demanded? They owed, besides, a debt of gratitude to the Irish Party, for during the present Parliament in every vote on education questions that Party had voted with the Conservatives. On this question of Irish education the people felt deeply; and during the Session their Representatives in Parliament would feel it their duty to force the question very strongly on the attention of the Government. The teaching in the Queen's Colleges was a mere farce; and if the Professors acted honestly, must, by the nature of the terms under which they worked, be a mere nullity. In Belfast the College practically belonged to the Presbyterians; while in Cork and Galway the Catholic hierarchy had withdrawn the students from the Colleges. He believed the mixed system of education to be a most harmful one. Under Guizot it produced the Revolution of 1849, and later on its results were seen in the Commune of 1870. But the Irish were not a revolutionary people, and they held aloof from the troubles on the Continent. But though in England attacks on religion were allowed to go unchecked, and Atheism spread rapidly among their work-people, they did not want anything of that kind in their country, and would still endeavour to rear their children in the spirit of true religion, and in the spirit of true loyalty.

said, though the Resolution was in an abstract form, there was no question which at the moment more deeply affected the Irish people than this one of University education; and, therefore, he was surprised that but one Member of the Government, and he not a Cabinet Minister, had risen to address the House. Yet, unless public rumour was a liar, for the last six or eight months there had been interviews, and conversations, and interchanges of views going on between various Members of the Government and representative Catholics upon this great question. When the Irish people read the report of that debate, they would ask why no Cabinet Minister addressed the House. Had the noble Duke, who at present occupied the post of Vice Regent, been communicated with? Had he represented to the Government the desirability—as a matter of prudence, of policy; above all, of justice—of considering the demand of the Irish people? Might not that noble Duke, who had now obtained considerable popularity in Ireland, have been able to come to some agreement on this subject? The Conservative Government had given the Irish Members a polite hearing on this subject; but it had done nothing else. No one had ventured to say that the Catholic hierarchy had demanded what was outrageous and could not be granted, because they knew such a statement would be incorrect. They did not say that they were so overwhelmed with Irish Business that they could not attend to the matter. They could not say even that their attention was occupied by foreign affairs, for they all were assured the success of the Treaty of Berlin was great and manifest, and they now had the necessary time to turn their attention to domestic affairs. He did regret that the Government had not told them whether or no they had a policy, or whether they would be likely to have one before the end of the Session. There was yet time, however; and he did most respectfully beg to bring that question to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he was afraid he could not enlighten his hon. Friend (Sir Patrick O'Brien) upon the policy of the Government with regard to Ireland. They were masters of their own secrets; and he supposed, for the present, they would have to wait to learn what was the proposition they were said to have made in Ireland—if it was not to remain for ever an undiscovered secret, like the history of the man in the Iron Mask, and the authorship of Junius. He had only risen to say that Irish Members must not think, if English Members did not take part in this debate, that it was due to any want of interest on their part in the subject. The reason was, that one of the first things English Members desired to know was exactly what Irish Members desired in this matter. That point, he was bound to say, was not so clear to them all as they would desire. They heard conflicting statements of what the Irish people did and did not desire; and, therefore, at present, they were somewhat in the dark as to what really was required. On the main question he thought it was practically admitted that this was not a fortunate proposition in its terms; because it did not refer alone to Irish University education, but was directed against mixed education everywhere. In England certainly they were not dissatisfied with mixed education. He admitted, of course, that because they were satisfied with it in England and Scotland that, therefore, it ought to be absolutely satisfactory and sufficient for the people of Ireland. But he was sorry that this question of University education in Ireland should be raised on this general Resolution; and he hoped the subject would be brought up again during the Session in a more positive form. It was admitted that the Presbyterians were satisfied with the Queen's Colleges. If that were so, he did not see why they should be done away with. It was quite another question, however, whether they supplied what the Irish people—the Roman Catholic people— wanted. It would, therefore, be a very wise thing to provide some other scheme of education for them which they did not at present possess. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford had claimed the gratitude of the other side of the House for his Party for the way in which they had voted with them. He, and one or two others, it was true, had voted with the Government, and, therefore, had a very considerable claim upon its gratitude.

rose to explain. What he said was that in every question affecting education debated in the House during the last five years, the Irish Members had supported the Government.

The hon. Member said that the Irish Members had merely voted in favour of denominational education, and he (Sir William Harcourt) had remarked that his support had gone far beyond that question; and that, therefore, he had a special claim upon the gratitude of the Government. There was, in fact, no Party question upon which they had not been sure of his support.

said, he had not voted for the Government on the question of mixed education, but had walked out of the House.

said, he would not discuss any longer the policy of the third Party, which was a policy he did not understand; but wished to say a few words on another matter. He thought the Irish Members ought not to suppose that the English Members upon either side of the House were at all indisposed to consider, and that with a view of arriving at a settlement, their desire for a system of education that would give more satisfaction to the Catholics of Ireland. His noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who had just left the House, had expressed the same sentiments in a statement made by him some months ago, when he said that there would be a desire to meet, in any fair way, the views of the Catholic Members. An experiment had already been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone); but it had, unfortunately, failed, and other experiments had been talked of, but had not seen the light. It was an entire misconstruction of the intentions of English Members to suppose that there was any disinclination carefully to consider the question with a view to settlement. He had always been in favour of undenominational education; yet, as the majority in Parliament had established in England what was, practically speaking, a denominational system of education, he thought it would be unfair, on the part of a Protestant majority, to refuse to Irish Catholics denominational education. When the Irish Members brought forward clearly their views with reference to a system which could be established for meeting the requirements and demands of Irish Catholics upon University education, he could assure the House that it would receive from him the most careful and respectful consideration; because he did not think anyone could avoid seeing that the University education given at Dublin and in the Queen's Colleges, however well it might have been intended, had not met the requirements referred to, and that in one way or another some system must be discovered that would do so. At that hour he did not think that question could be advantageously entered upon. He had only risen for the purpose of saying, in answer to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that he must not suppose there existed the slightest unwillingness to consider, with the hope of arriving at a beneficial and satisfactory result, any positive proposition which might be brought forward by Irish Members.

wished to say a few words in reply to the hon. and learned Member (Sir William Harcourt), who had asked the Irish Members to state, if they could, what they desired with regard to Irish University education. He had, during the last six weeks, been in constant communication with all classes of Catholics in Ireland—amongst others, with three or four Bishops of the Catholic Church, and he could assure the House—speaking, of course, only for himself—that they desired nothing but an equitable settle- ment. The form of that settlement he thought they were justified in leaving to the Government of the country, to whom the initiative belonged, as it was felt that no Bill introduced by a private Member would have any chance of success. He could assure the House that, as far as he was acquainted with the sentiments of the Irish Bishops, they desired nothing unreasonable, and were ready to accept any adjustment of the question by which equality should be secured.

congratulated the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) on the change which had come over the spirit of his dream, when he found him expressing sentiments which were really encouraging to the Irish Members. As far as the experiment referred to by him as having been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was concerned, and which had, unfortunately, failed, he was of opinion that no speech made during the progress of that measure had tended more to bring that failure about than the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. But what was the recommendation of the measure given by him? Was it that it gave satisfaction to the Irish Members? On the contrary, he had spoken of it as one which was equally unsatisfactory and distasteful to Irish Catholics and statesmen.

said, that whether Trinity College, Dublin, was denominational or not, it was largely permeated with the religious atmosphere; and he would mention the name of Professor Hoffman, of Trinity College, who had spent many years of his life in proving the consistency which existed between the Book of Genesis—that was to say, between religious and high scientific teaching. In that way Professor Hoffman had brought about a most healthy state of religious teaching within the walls of Trinity College, Dublin. There was an atmosphere about the College lecture-room which told the Professor that religion had not been divorced from science; and he (Dr. O'Leary) trusted the day would never arrive when that retrograde state would be reached.

reminded the Secretary of State for War that, with regard to a Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) in reference to that Bill, he had stated that he accepted the principle of the Motion, which declared that there existed a necessity for its careful consideration, on condition that no opposition was offered to the renewal of the present Mutiny Act. He also asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to recollect that hon. Members on his side of the House expected him to bring forward the Bill early, and afford opportunities, both on the second reading and in Committee, for working it into a practical measure. As the Bill contained many imperfections, and had not been satisfactorily considered, he hoped the Secretary of State for War would that evening give them some assurance that the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill would be brought forward for second reading as soon as possible, in order to enable hon. Members to consider it fully, and place Amendments upon the Paper.

said, he had accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick in the same sense as that in which it was offered—namely, with a wish to facilitate the Business of the House. He was very anxious that no time should be lost in the consideration of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. The time of year was advancing, and it was necessary that the Supplementary Estimates should be passed, in order to take the Vote for the money for the pay of the Army. He had arranged that the Bill should be brought in without delay.

inquired if it were correct to bring on the Bill before the men and money had been voted?

replied that the men had been already voted.