Commons Sitting of 14 February 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Public Accounts nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance.
First Reading—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance [28].
Second Reading—Public Schools [24].

TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he rose to give notice that on Monday he would ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (unless the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to answer the Question now), Whether he has any objection to lay on the table the Copy of the communication made by the Judges to Her Majesty's Government relative to the proposed transfer to them of the trial of Election Petitions?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it may be rather irregular to do so, but perhaps I may be allowed to reply at once to the inquiry of the hon. Member. I have already moved that this Paper—a letter from the Lord Chief Justice of England to the Lord Chancellor—should be laid on the table, and I hope it will be in the hands of hon. Members tomorrow morning.—[Parl. P. No. 50.]

  PROBATE DUTY ON LEASEHOLD PROPERTY.—QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendations made by the Inland Revenue Commissioners in their last Report, relative to the assessment of Probate Duty on Leasehold Property subject to mortgage?
  MR. HUNTsaid, in reply, that he proposed to introduce a measure upon this subject in the course of the present Session.

REPORT OF INLAND REVENUE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORD, said, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended the 31st March, 1867, which was presented to the House in August last, will be printed and placed in the hands of Members?
  MR. HUNT, in reply, stated that the Report of the Commissioners had been received, and that it would be distributed to hon. Members to-morrow.

MALTA AND GIBRALTAR SHIELDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When the Report of the Committee appointed to superintend the experiments upon the Malta and Gibraltar Shields will be placed upon the table; and whether the same Committee had been instructed to superintend and report upon the experiments to be made with reference to the Bermuda Fort and the Plymouth Breakwater Fort; and if the Committee have not been so instructed, is it his intention to place those experiments also under their superintendence?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that the Committee on the Malta and Gibraltar Shields had almost completed their Report, and he expected to be able to lay it upon the table of the House in the course of next week. That Committee was not instructed to superintend and report upon the experiments made with the Bermuda and Plymouth Breakwater Shields; their duty was performed when they reported on the Malta and Gibraltar
  730
  Shields, and, that duty being completed, their labours would be at an end. But four shields on the Gibraltar principle had been sent to Bermuda, and those would be included in the Committee's Report. As the hon. Gentleman had referred to the Bermuda Shield, he was, no doubt, aware that the shields intended for Bermuda and Plymouth were on the same principle. A target had been constructed on that principle, which was to be experimented on shortly, but it would not be by the same Committee.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it be the intention of the Government to bring forward, this Session, an Irish Reform Bill; and, if so, when it will be introduced?
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in reply, that the same Question was put on the previous evening to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he (the Earl of Mayo) had to give the same answer as his right hon. Friend—that the Government would fix a time in a few days.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1867—THE COMPOUND-HOUSEHOLDER.—QUESTION.
MR. SANDFORDsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to bring forward any Measure to relieve the Compound-Householders from the personal payment of Rates, to which they have been made liable by the repeal of the Small Tenements Act?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I infer, Sir, that my hon. Friend intends to limit his Question to those ratepayers who dwell in Parliamentary boroughs, but I need not remind him that in Parliamentary boroughs there are no compound-householders. The House will remember that the alteration in the position of those persons who were compound-householders was carried unanimously here, and also that the Act which terminated their existence has, comparatively speaking, only recently come into operation. So far as the compound-householders are concerned, it only came into operation on the 29th of September; and, generally speaking, I believe, that during the interval which has elapsed, from the passing of the

731
Act to this moment, only one rate has been levied throughout the country. It must be obvious, therefore, to the House that we are in possession of very limited experience upon the subject; and Her Majesty's Government would hardly think it seemly, as the result of so limited an experience, to impugn an alteration unanimously acceded to by the House of Commons.

BRITISH RULE IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House a Copy of the Papers containing the Opinions as to the comparative merits of British and Native rule in India, which have been collected and sent home by Sir John Lawrence?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, there will be no objection to produce these Papers. I will move for them on Monday.

THE WEST INDIA MAILS.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Royal Mail Steamers are to continue running to St. Thomas's as the place for delivering and receiving the Mails, or whether it is intended to adopt any English Island for that purpose; and, if so, what Island and Harbour?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that the West Indian mails would not continue to call at the island of St. Thomas. One of the English islands would be selected for the new station. In deciding which should be selected several considerations occurred, such as which would be the best point of departure for the mails to other islands, from Bahamas northward to Guiana south, and which was on the best line to Panama, as well as the suitability and capability of the harbours offering themselves in the different islands. The matter was still under the consideration of the various departments concerned, but no final decision had yet been come to.

ACCIDENTS ON THE TRENT VALLEY RAILWAY.—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the dangerous state of the Nuneaton Station and level crossing on the Trent Valley Railway, and to the fatal
732
accidents which have recently occurred there; and, whether he will have any objection to lay upon the table of the House two Reports of Colonel Yolland to the Board of Trade on this subject?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE: Sir, the attention of the Board of Trade was directed to the dangerous state of the Nuneaton Station crossing by a Report of Colonel Yolland in January, 1865, and in consequence of a fatal accident which occurred there last month Colonel Yolland has again inspected the station, and reported that the crossing has not been altered, and that owing to the increase of traffic the danger is greater. A Copy of each of these Reports was sent to the Directors, which is all the Board of Trade can do in such matters. The last Report will shortly be printed among the Returns of accidents presented to Parliament. And I propose to move, at the proper time, that both be referred to the Committee on the London and North-Western Company's Bill of this Session. If the hon. Gentleman still wishes to move that these Reports be also laid upon the table of the House I shall offer no opposition.

THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether an Architect for the New Courts of Justice has been appointed, and, if not, what is the present state of the question?
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, before the hon. Gentleman answered this Question he would wish to ask another on the same subject. He understood that the Commission on the Courts of Judicature had under their consideration a proposition which was laid before them by Lord Justice Cairns, the effect of which would be to abolish all the Law Courts in London, and to have only Courts of Appeal in London, confining the Courts of First Instance to the country. He wanted to know if Her Majesty's Government had had that subject under their consideration, because if it were adopted so large a building as was originally projected would not be necessary? He also wished to ask the Government if they were aware of this proposition, and what its effect, if adopted, would have upon the building which was now proposed to be erected?
  MR. HUNT, in reply, said, in answer to the first Question of the hon. Member

  733
  (Mr. Bentinck), that no Architect had yet been appointed. The present position of affairs was this: In consequence of what passed in that House during the short Session a communication had been made from the Treasury to the members of the Commission, and the Commission had replied by a suggestion to the Treasury that the opinion of the Attorney General should be taken on the subject of what would be the legal effect of the recommendation of the judges of designs. The Treasury had adopted that suggestion, and a case was now being prepared for the opinion of the Attorney General. As to the other Question, put by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), the Commission had not yet made its Report to the Government, and therefore the Government was not in a condition to take the subject into consideration.

THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BEAUMONTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Boundary Commission will be delivered to Members of Parliament?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the Report of the Boundary Commission was delivered to me yesterday; it was laid on the table of the House last night, and, although a very bulky volume, I believe it will be in the hands of Members in a few days.

  ARMY—DISTINGUISHED-SERVICE MAJORS.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, after the consideration he has been able to give the question, he is prepared to place the distinguished-service Majors on the same footing with regard to promotion as the distinguished-service Lieutenant Colonels?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I am afraid, Sir, that I shall not be able to put the distinguished-service Majors to whom my hon. and gallant Friend has referred on the same footing as Lieutenant Colonels; I hope, however, to be able to make a concession to those distinguished Officers which will be satisfactory to them; but I cannot state at present the exact mode in which it will be done.

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

EDUCATION.

  QUESTION, OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERrose to ask a Question of which he had given notice; and though he put it on going into Supply, he could assure the House that he would not detain them long. It was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, the Education of the People having been referred to in Her Majesty's Speech, it is the intention of the Government to bring forward during this Session any Bill affecting the Elementary Education of the People of England and Wales? The words of Her Majesty would, no doubt, be in the recollection of most Members. They were—
  "The general Question of the Education of the People requires your most serious Attention, and I have no Doubt you will approach the Subject with a full Appreciation both of its vital Importance and of its acknowledged Difficulty."
  He thought he might state on behalf of the great majority of the House that they felt a deep interest in this important question, and that the only reason why it was not referred to in the debate upon the Address was the feeling that, as Parliament had been called together for an exceptional purpose, it would be hardly fair to ask Her Majesty's Government what their intentions were until the usual time. The right hon. Gentleman indeed had, in the course of his speech on that occasion, volunteered the assertion that that passage in Her Majesty's Speech was not to be regarded as a rhetorical flourish; but that was hardly in accordance with what passed elsewhere on the same occasion. He had been informed that the Prime Minister, in "another place," referring to the passage of the Queen's Speech which he had quoted, used these words—
  "In regard to education in England, it requires much more information than we possess, and I cannot but feel that the time is hardly ripe for coming to a definite conclusion in regard to it."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 49.]
  On hearing that interpretation put upon the passage by the highest authority, he felt it his duty to ask on the first opportunity what the real intentions of the Government were on the subject? He could not help saying that he ventured most humbly to dissent from the statement of

  735
  the Prime Minister, notwithstanding his high authority. If it was information merely that was necessary to settle the question they need not wait any longer. They had information. What with Committees and Commissions, information had been abundantly obtained. There had been the Duke of Newcastle's Commission on the subject, and since that time there had been two or three Committees, one of which sat for two Sessions under the presidency of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Sir John Pakington). Besides, the House from year to year had been in possession of the most complete Reports from the Inspectors who were appointed to examine and report on the state of the different schools, and from the Committee of Council. And, in addition to this official information, they were in possession of a vast mass of un-official information, so that it could not be said they had not information enough to enable them to proceed to legislate. The statement which had been made by the highest authority was made three months ago, which now-a-days was a very long period, events marched so quickly. Nearly three months after that expression of opinion on the part of the Prime Minister a very different statement was made by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary at a great gathering at Bristol. The Prime Minister had said "the time was hardly ripe for coming to a definite conclusion;" but his noble Relative said he thought "the present time was favourable for the passing of a wise, a large, and a well-considered measure for the education of the people." The noble Lord's exact words were, "I do hope that the next two or three years will not pass away without leaving behind them something not less memorable than the Reform Bill of 1867"—a statement which was received with loud cheers; and he gave a most excellent reason for coming to that conclusion, for he added that "the present time was favourable for the passing of a wise, a large, and a well-considered measure for the education of the people." It was quite true the noble Lord had said he hoped two or three years would not pass away without leaving behind something memorable, but they all knew that this question of education was not one to be finally settled in a day; but if Her Majesty's Government were in possession of "a wise, a large, and a well-considered measure" he hoped they would not keep it back from Parlia-
  736
  ment. He was not at all surprised that there should have been some change of opinion in the Government. The Home Secretary, following the noble Lord at the same gathering, alluded to the business of this Session, the Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland, the Boundary Bill, the Bribery Bill, and besides this, there must be some measures for Ireland, but, though he seemed to come to the conclusion reluctantly, he added that it would be necessary to have an Education Bill. The arguments for delay were strong, but there were stronger arguments still for proceeding to action, one of the strongest of which was to be found in the Acts which had been passed last year. In that year they had greatly extended the Factory Acts, and had passed the Workshops Act, measures which seriously affected the question of education. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated on another occasion that he did not think the country would ever consent to base popular education on compulsion. As regarded direct compulsion the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps correct; but with respect to indirect compulsion, and compulsion of a very strong kind, the House had already consented to it. They had already passed Acts which might be said to base the education of the working children of working men in towns on compulsion, because they had made their labour before the age of thirteen possible only upon condition of a certain amount of education. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, having taken that step, that it became doubly incumbent upon Parliament, after having decided that parents should not receive their children's wages, nor employers obtain their labour, unless they attended schools, to see that there should not only be schools, but good schools, to which they could go. Another reason why it was important that something should be done was the way in which the money was voted out of the taxes of the people for educational purposes. There was a great injustice in the present distribution of that money, for many districts received no benefit from it, and what made this the harder was that those districts were the poorest. To meet that difficulty by lowering the qualifications would have no good result, as would be evident to any one who had read the remarks of Sir James Shuttleworth, who had probably studied the education question more than any man in the coun-

  737
  try. He had shown that the diminution of the qualifications of masters had led to a great disregard of higher teaching, and also to a lowering of the tone of the schools, so that even elementary instruction became less successful. The arguments he had just adduced for immediate action were based on what Parliament had done; but undoubtedly the strongest arguments rested on what Parliament had not done, and he thought there was now a prevalent feeling that it was time for us to change our system, and that the State should take the initiative. That feeling was founded on the fact, which he felt himself compelled to admit, that, notwithstanding all the money which had been voted, half the children of the working population of England were destitute of anything that could properly be called education, the present system giving help, not where it was most wanted, but merely to those who were helped by others. He also agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) that the present was a favourable time for settling the question, seeing that the present Government were not a whit behind their opponents in the desire or the power to deal with it. The noble Lord, in his Bristol speech, said, and very truly—
  "This is a question on which the Conservative party are not one whit behind their opponents in their desire and in their power to deal with it, for Lord Derby was the founder of the system which, with certain modifications, now existed in Ireland, and my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) long ago took up the question as relating to England, and others have helped according to the measure of their ability."
  The noble Lord might properly have mentioned himself, for the main principle of the Bill brought in by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) last year, and on which the right hon. Member for South Lancashire and himself put their names, was borrowed from a Bill brought in by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War—namely, the principle of a rate in aid. The supporters of that Bill, moreover, were the successors of those who induced the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet to bring forward the Manchester and Salford Bill in 1852. That principle of rating, which had now gained considerable popularity, was advocated by the right hon. Baronet at a time when it was by no means popular, and he was glad to find by the excellent draft Report which he submitted to the Committee over which he presided, that the right hon. Baronet
  738
  had not changed his opinion. For these reasons he thought it desirable that the settlement of the question should be undertaken by the present Government. In addition to that, it was possible that a Government led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able in one very important respect to deal with the question better than any Government on that (the Opposition) side of the House, for his Government might very possibly—nay, very probably—carry with them more completely the clergy of the country, for whose past efforts in the cause of education he felt very grateful, and whose continued co-operation he wished to secure, because he could quite understand that they might place greater confidence in a measure introduced by a Conservative Government than in one promoted by the Liberal party. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) being absent in consequence of a domestic affliction, he hoped the House would allow him to explain the reason's why, besides putting this question to the Government, he had, on his behalf, given notice of the re-introduction of the Bill of last year. Promoters of that measure, of various political and religious opinions, had agreed upon important alterations in it, and it had been thought due to the House and the Government that the Bill in its modified shape should appear on the Votes. The noble Lord, however, having promised a large, wise, and well-considered measure, he could hardly suppose that the Government contemplated a mere tinkering of the Revised Code, and he trusted that their measure would be such as to render it needless to proceed with the Bill of last year. If there ever was a question which was not a party question it was the question of education; and, indeed, he thought party would have to be dispensed with in dealing with most social matters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made it not very easy either to oppose or support him as a party Leader; but in this case, there being a general unanimity as to the principle and the object, with great differences of opinion respecting the details and machinery, a free discussion in Committee would be necessary on any Bill, whether brought in by the Government or not, and it would probably require extensive modifications before it was passed. As to the principle, there was, he thought, a general conviction that the old haphazard system could no longer be trusted to, and

  739
  that the education of the poor must not remain at the mercy of the inability or unwillingness of the parent or the apathy of the neighbours. The position of the question had very much changed since last year, for the very influential party, more powerful in the country than in the House which had been opposed to State interference, now admitted that the facts were too strong for them to struggle against, and were anxious, under certain safeguards for a good system of State education. Those, moreover, who had strongly insisted on a secular system, not from any dislike to religion, but from a belief that education could not be successfully provided by denominational schools, were now mostly in favour of giving aid to the latter, while on the other hand the friends of denominational education no longer objected to grants to secular schools. The agitation, too, against the Conscience Clause was now resuming its proper proportions, for vast numbers of the clergy, and men of very strong opinions, were evidently coming to the conclusion that nothing could be more fatal to the interests of religion than to allow popular education to be delayed by what was called the religious difficulty. Most people, he thought, agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), who, in his speech at Bristol, said the object of the Government should be to bring education home to every child in the country; or, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) stated, it was the duty of every district to provide the means of elementary education for the children who lived in it. With this concurrence of opinion, however, as to the principle, there were differences as to the extent and the manner in which a district should be rated. Next came the question what aid should be given to the rates out of the taxes of the country, and under what central control it should be administered; or, in other words, how they could best preserve that principle of local self-government, so dear to their traditions, while also maintaining a high standard of efficiency by central supervision. Then there was the very important question whether the schools should be free, or, if not, to what extent they should expect the parents to pay? There was likewise another most important question—namely, how they could best preserve the present voluntary zeal on behalf of education while supplementing it by public assistance, either by taxes or by rates,
  740
  and in what manner and on what conditions they should help existing schools? Lastly, there was the question, how they could best reconcile the rights of conscience of individual parents with the general desire felt by most parents for the religious education of their children? Those were all of them important points of detail, which would require in their discussion the exercise of that spirit of give and take to which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had so well alluded; but they could be better handled in a Bill brought in by the Government. He had, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman in what manner he meant to call upon the House to respond to Her Majesty's expressed wish that the serious attention of the House should be given to that question, and more especially whether the Government intended to introduce a measure relating to it during the present Session? A chief argument in the minds of many for at once tackling the subject of education was the passing of the Reform Bill of last Session. That was not, with him, a reason for immediately settling that question. He had been anxious before to settle it, and he did not know that he was more anxious to do so now. If the Reform Bill was likely to do harm, the harm would be done before their educational measures took effect; and, on the other hand, he believed that the great good of the Reform Bill would be shown before those measures took effect. He admitted, however, that it would be wise, while giving the working classes an increased share of political power, to make a better provision for their education. It might be said that they should wait till the next Parliament before attempting to pass a bold, large, wise, and well - considered measure; but if they wished to pass such a measure now they need not fear that the new and enlarged constituencies would be hostile to it. There was no question on which our working-men were so earnest, on which they felt so strongly that the State ought to act, on which they were more ready to make sacrifices, or on which they were more thoroughly convinced that the honour and welfare of England depended than on that of education. The working-men were a class peculiarly accesible to sentiments of national pride and honour; and he believed that a feeling prevailed among them that this country could not much longer afford to be as uneducated as it was; that, as we must

  741
  expect other nations, especially on the other side of the Atlantic, to grow greater in population than we were, it was only by adding to the power of the individual, and not by increasing our numbers, that we could hope to hold our own in the world. The working-men believed in the old saying that knowledge was power, and they were fully as anxious as any other class that the power of England should be augmented by the improved education and better culture of its inhabitants.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Question put by the hon. Gentleman is a very fair and natural question on his part. The subject to which it refers is one which was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and acknowledged by both sides of the House to be of paramount importance. I am, therefore, not surprised that the hon. Member should make an inquiry as to the course which the Government intend to pursue with regard to it, particularly after the mention of the subject in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, and knowing as we all do that the hon. Gentleman, much to his honour, has taken a lively interest in this subject. But, although I admit the fairness of the question on his part, and although I am ready to recognize that it was a very natural step for him to take, I confess that I do not so entirely approve the manner in which his inquiry has been made, because he has availed himself of an opportunity which the forms of the House allow to hon. Members to enter into a great deal of argument upon points of magnitude and controversy bearing on the question of national education, and has at some length given the reasons which have induced him to arrive at certain conclusions on the subject. Now, there are two reasons why I cannot follow his example at the present moment. In the first place, I think it is a very inconvenient thing to have a debate upon education on so desultory an occasion as this, which, although convenient in many instances, is hardly adapted to a subject which would require sustained and complete discussion on both sides, and from which the interest of the House might, in a moment, be diverted by another topic being suddenly introduced. That is one ground upon which I feel myself precluded, under any circumstances, from embarking in a lengthened discussion on a matter of such magnitude as that to which the hon. Gentleman now invites
  742
  our attention. If the question had been brought forward as a Motion, of course Her Majesty's Ministers would not have shrunk from entering into debate, and stating the policy which they think the Government and the House ought to adopt. But the other reason why I hold that it would be extremely inconvenient for the Government at all to enter into discussion now is, that great misapprehension might thereby be occasioned at the outset as to their purposes and views, seeing it is their intention, and has been their intention for a long time, to introduce a measure with respect to the elementary education of the children of the labouring classes in the present Session of Parliament. Therefore, I think the House will agree with me, under these circumstances, that it is with no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, whose position in regard to this question is generally recognized and does him credit, that on the present occasion I refrain from further trespassing on the attention of the House.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL— [BILL 24.]
(Mr. Walpole, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. WALPOLE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, thought it as well to enter into some of the details of the proposition sent down to them by the House of Lords, inasmuch as it had never yet been fully considered by the House. The measure was substantially the same as the one which came to them from the House of Lords last year, with a few alterations and exceptions. It was founded on the Report of the Royal Commission, and its object was to carry into effect the recommendations of that Report in the manner and after the example adopted in the case of the Universities when a similar Report preceded the measure brought into Parliament with respect to those learned bodies. The House would bear in mind that the Report on which the present Bill was based referred to nine public schools, whereas the Bill itself referred only to seven. The reason why the whole of the nine public schools were not included in the measure was that two of them—

743
namely, the Merchant Taylors' and St. Paul's Schools—had been deemed more or less schools of a private and not of a public character; that they were under the management and control of two of the great City companies, who had the power of applying the property now devoted to those schools, or a great proportion of it, in such a manner as they might think fit, instead of continuing to apply it to educational purposes; and that, therefore, there was no public trust attached to those two schools, making them subject to the same obligations, or to the same Parliamentary control as that to which the other schools reported upon were liable. The first of those schools was omitted from the Bill by the Chairman of the Commission, Lord Clarendon, who introduced the Bill into the House of Lords, on the ground he had mentioned; and the second had been omitted from the Bill since it was first introduced, because the House of Lords, after hearing counsel in Committee upon it, appeared to have arrived at the same conclusion as that which Lord Clarendon had arrived at in proposing the Bill with reference to the Merchant Taylor's School. The seven public schools to which that Bill related were, according to the order of the date of their foundation—Winchester, founded in 1387; Eton, founded in 1441; Shrewsbury, founded by Edward VI.; Westminster, founded by Queen Elizabeth; and the two schools of Rugby and Harrow, founded during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, by Lawrence Sheriff and John Lyon. The last school was that of Charterhouse, founded by Thomas Sutton in the reign of James I., and in the year 1609. As this was the first time Parliament had been called upon to legislate for these schools, it was only fair to state that the proposal to legislate for them was not based upon any condemnation or censure of the way in which these schools had been managed. But it was thought, and rightly, that great improvements might be made in them if they were authorized and empowered to make such improvements. They all knew with what interest and affection these schools were regarded by those gentlemen who had been educated in them. They looked back to them and to their education with pride and gratification. He thought that the nation itself would look to these schools with equal pride and pleasure, for they were a part of our national life. They were the fruits
744
of the wise and liberal benevolence of private individuals or Royal founders. They were, like our other institutions, the free growth of a free people, and they had left their mark on the social, moral, and intellectual character of the nation. That was not a reason why we should not deal effectually with them now. While, recognizing their great claims upon the gratitude of the nation, as well as to those educated at them, it was rather a reason why we ought not to rest satisfied with things as they are, but retaining the good which we know to be in them, it was rather a reason why we should endeavour to extend that good still further, to enlarge the sphere of their usefulness, and bearing in mind how they adapted themselves in past times to the intellectual and social requirements of the period in which they were founded, and of the times through which they have passed, it was rather a reason why we should enable them to adapt themselves still more readily, completely, and effectually to the modern requirements of the age in which we live. That being the object of the present Bill, there were only three modes in which that object would be best accomplished. First, they might adopt the recommendations of the Commissioners and incorporate them bodily into an Act of Parliament; or, secondly, they might take advantage of the information furnished by the Commissioners' Report, and embody in an Act of Parliament those particular rules which the Legislature wished to prescribe for the management of the schools or the course of the education to be given in them. The third course would be to follow the example set with regard to the Universities, and give power to the authorities of the schools in the first instance to suggest the mode in which the alterations and amendments should be made, with an Executive Commission at their back to direct and control the school authorities, and to carry into effect their views; or if the latter failed in their duty, then the Commissioners would have to do what the Legislature intended, by carrying into effect those views themselves. The first of those modes would be not only unadvisable but impracticable. The recommendations of the Commissioners were so numerous and minute that to embody them in an Act of Parliament would be almost an impossibility. They were further of such a character that as the Commissioners themselves pointed out in their Report, al-

745
though the action of the Legislature might be required for many purposes, there were other purposes for which direct legislation would not be advantageous. The Commissioners divided their recommendations into five distinct heads, the fourth and fifth of which related to the management of the schools and the system of study pursued in them. With regard to the first three—the functions and constitution of the governing body, the rights of foundations, and the endowments and properties—they thought that legislation would be desirable; but that with regard to the fourth and fifth heads, as those were both matters of great public policy, they considered that they had better be entrusted to the authorities of the school to work out for themselves. With regard to the second mode of dealing with this subject—namely, to stereotype in an Act of Parliament the course of study and the system of management which would be pursued in the schools, it was clear, not only from the authority of the Commissioners themselves, but from the interesting discussions which had taken place in authorized publications of various kinds, that the difference and divergence of opinion was so great that no legislation of an extraneous character would be satisfactory until the authorities of the schools themselves had had the opportunity of considering for themselves in the first instance what was the best course and system of study for each of those particular schools. They all agreed that the two-fold purpose of education was either to discipline and train the mind as an intellectual exercise, or to furnish information and knowledge that might be useful for all the after-purposes of life. But in what way those objects were to be accomplished—which was to have precedence, if either—which was to have the predominance over the other, or whether both could not be reconciled together—these were matters on which the greatest difference of opinion had been expressed. The Commissioners were of opinion that in our public schools the classics should be the staple of the education given. They would also introduce or continue mathematics, one modern language at least, one physical or natural science at least, drawing or music, ancient and modern geography and history, and the training of the pupils in pure grammatical English. How all this could be accomplished could hardly be prescribed by any Act of Parliament, but
746
must be left to the authorities of the schools to regulate from time to time. On the question of classical education moreover, there were some who argued in such a manner as to lead to the inference that classical education, in many instances, had better be altogether superseded. That, however, was wholly opposed to the Report of the Commissioners, who thought that classics should form the basis of education for our public schools. Then there was the greatest divergence of opinion, if classics were to be continued, whether they should not in many cases—he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford would say in all cases—confine the pupils to Latin and exclude Greek. But, then, as regards poetry, history, sculpture, architecture, mental and moral philosophy, and even in science, his hon. Friend would probably be the first to admit that Greece was almost in every respect superior to Rome. Then, again, there was a great divergence of opinion as to the extent to which Latin composition should be prosecuted in those schools; one great authority says that compulsory versification in Latin was fruitless labour; while another, of equal authority, says that composition in Latin prose was not only a waste of time, but one of those things which might be classed among the curiosities of literature. Then, with regard to the sciences, one gentleman thought botany was one of the best studies for forming the mind in a scientific mould, while another maintained that it was one of the least available studies for the purposes of after-life. A gentleman of great repute also held that chymistry was one of those subjects which would most interest the minds of youth at the same time that it conveys instruction, whereas the advocate of botany objected to it on the ground that chymistry was of all others the science in which a boy might be most easily "crammed," that when crammed it was most unprofitable, but it would tone the manners and do little more. Looking at those different opinions so forcibly urged by various writers, the Government had come to the conclusion that whatever study was to be introduced, its introduction would be wisely effected only on the responsibility of those who were the governors and managers of those schools. If that position were sound, then he would contend that, coming to the third mode in which the object in view was to be accomplished, the best way to improve the management of the schools,

747
or the terms on which their foundations were to be held, or the course of study which was to be pursued in them, was to follow the example which had been set by Parliament itself in the case of the Universities, and to regard the school authorities or their governing bodies as having imposed upon them the primary duty of prescribing how those various matters should be dealt with, and in the event of their neglecting that duty, and in that event only, throwing its discharge upon the shoulders of the Executive. That course had, in his opinion, the great recommendation that it would make the proposed reform a self-working reform, and it would, he believed, be invariably found that whatever is done willingly of our own accord, is sure to be done more wisely, and is likely to prove more lasting, than that which is done under compulsion and constraint. By this mode of proceeding very great advantage would be secured. Before, however, he endeavoured to show how far the objects which he had just sketched were provided for in the clauses of the Bill, he might observe that the Bill itself was divisible into two distinct parts—the one containing the general provisions which were applicable to all the requirements of all the schools, the other those special provisions which some schools specially required for their effective management. The House would perceive that in Clause 3 certain bodies were mentioned as the governing bodies of schools for the purposes of the Bill and for the purposes of the Bill only. He apprehended that they would not continue to be the permanent governing bodies, and that very considerable changes would have to be made in their constitution, and the power of making those changes is one of the alterations introduced into the Bill. The seven governing bodies of the seven different schools being thus introduced into the 3rd section of the Bill, they were to have the power in the first instance of making statutes and regulations for those different schools, each governing body being empowered, of course, to make them for its own. The powers to which he referred would be found in the clauses from 5 to 11. The difference between the statutes and the regulations which those powers would enable them to frame was, that while the statutes related to matters of more permanent character, the regulations related to matters of internal arrange-
748
ment. The statutes were matters which would continue with probably little or no alteration; but the regulations might have to be varied from time to time and made applicable to the internal arrangements of the school, and the course of study to be pursued in them. The statutes, he might add, would have relation to the foundations, the exhibitions, the scholarships connected with the school, and to the endowments on which the students might enter any of the Universities, also to the property belonging to the school, and the disposition of any surplus property for its benefit. The clause in the Bill which related to the making of regulations was Clause 12, and the sub-section which most severely bore upon the course of studies to be pursued in the schools was numbered 7a in that clause. That sub-section conferred upon the governing bodies in the first instance the power to make the regulations—
"With respect to the introduction of new branches of study, and of the suppression of old ones, and the relative importance to be assigned to each branch of study and with respect to the system of promotion in the school."
Everything, therefore, the House would see, was left to the governing body in the first instance, and after, as he should presently show, to the Commissioners, should the governing bodies in any way neglect their duty in the framing of statutes and regulations. But with regard to the introduction of new statutes, or the suppression or alteration of old ones, or the variation of the different studies now pursued, or deciding upon the relative importance to be attached to one branch of study or another, the governing bodies would have the fullest power to make suggestions to the Executive Commission, and might, in conjunction with them, adopt or modify the propositions originally made, or the Commission, if not satisfied with those propositions, would have a subsequent opportunity of introducing something which they might deem still better for the schools, and in that case the matter would be submitted both to the Queen in Council and to Parliament. So that, in point of fact, the authority of the Queen in Council and that of Parliament might be brought into operation to secure that the alterations made were those which were really most conducive to accomplish the important objects which the framers of the Bill had in view. Such, then, were the general provisions of the Bill, and such the mode in which it was sought to

749
carry them into effect. He came in the next place to those particular provisions which were applicable to particular schools. To Eton and Winchester certain provisions especially applied. In the case of Shrewsbury those special provisions were two. For Westminster, also, there were such provisions, as well as for Harrow and Rugby. There was, besides, a special provision for the Charterhouse, which bore on the Amendment of which the hon. and learned. Member for the Tower Hamlets had given notice. One of the special provision with regard to Winchester and Eton specified that the appointment of the headmaster of the lower school should be vested in the governing body of each school instead of being left in the hands of the head master of the upper school, the reason for that provision being that in those two schools the head master of the lower school had as much control over that school as the head master of the upper had over his own. Another special provision relating to Eton and Winchester was the giving of a power to deal with their property which was held on renewable leases, so as to enable those leases to be brought to a speedier termination, and to have larger funds to meet the wants of the schools provided. To such provisions no objection could, he apprehended, be raised. The special provisions having reference to Shrewsbury were of two kinds; the first gave power to sell certain curacies and livings in order that the proceeds might be applied to the purposes of the school; the second, constituting an alteration in the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, gave power to continue the appointment of the head master of Shrewsbury in the Masters and Fellows of St. John's College, by whom it had been heretofore exercised. The reason for inserting that provision was that the trustees and governors of the school desired to keep up the connection between the school and the college, the mayor and corporation believing that that connection had been very advantageous for the school, and the burgesses also being impressed with the desirability of continuing that connection. The appointment of the last two masters, Dr. Kennedy and Dr. Butler, who had brought up so many good scholars, and had given such great satisfaction, constituted a strong reason for leaving the appointment in the hands of the Masters and Fellows of St. John's College. One special provision with regard to Westminster School was the appropriation to the governing
750
body of a certain portion of the Chapter property, which was now with the permission of the Chapter enjoyed by the school, and was essentially wrapped up with its well-being. Another special provision with regard to Westminster School, and also with regard to Shrewsbury School, was the power given to remove the schools to other sites, but this point would be more properly adverted to when the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets should be proposed. The special provisions for Harrow and Rugby Schools had reference to a peculiarity in their foundations, which were especially intended for persons residing in the localities of Harrow and Rugby. Of late years, however, persons had gone to sojourn for a time in those localities, for the purpose of getting the advantage for their children of the education given at the schools, though the children who were intended to be benefited by the founders were the sons of farmers and tradesmen of small property living in the localities, and not of persons going there merely for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of the education for their children. Still it was the intention of the founders to give a distinct benefit to those localities; and as it was believed that it would be better for the schools that that peculiarity in the foundations, though qualified or altered to a considerable extent, should be preserved, a clause was inserted in the Bill enabling another school to be founded within each of the localities, where children of the small traders and farmers might be received, with the opportunity of promotion to the upper school in the event of any of them desiring instruction in the higher branches of education. The rights of the inhabitants of Harrow and Rugby had been fully discussed before a Committee of the House of Lords, and, as ample evidence had been produced upon the subject, he thought that they were now in a position to deal with it in Committee of the Whole House, and that it was not desirable they should refer the Bill to a Select Committee for that purpose. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had given notice of a Motion specially relating to that clause in the Bill which would save rights of the Charterhouse as established by a private Act of Parliament passed last Session. The words of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment were—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to

751
inquire into the condition of the Charterhouse and other endowed schools in the metropolis, and the best means of adapting them to the educational requirements of the metropolis."
The hon. and learned Member wishes to refer the whole question of the metropolitan schools to a Select Committee. The object of his Motion was very clearly and ably set forth in a letter which he addressed to Lord Granville in the year 1865, and which had already been laid before the House. The hon. and learned Member was anxious to obtain a different appropriation or distribution in many respects of all the metropolitan schools. He would retain some of those establishments as classical schools, while he would employ a portion of the funds in the erection or maintenance of what are sometimes called commercial schools in the East End and in other metropolitan districts. Now that proposal raised a very important question, and a question which a Select Committee was not, in his opinion, the proper tribunal to determine. It was a question of such magnitude, that if it had to be discussed at all, it ought, he thought, to be discussed by the whole House. With respect to the two metropolitan schools mentioned in the Bill—Westminster and Charterhouse Schools—the hon. and learned Member would find less reason for dealing with them in the manner he proposed than with either of the other two schools which are omitted from the Bill. According to the original foundation of the first, it was intended for instruction in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and therefore it was a school not for commercial education, but for classical education. With regard to the Charterhouse, the hon. and learned Member, in order to carry out his views would have to set aside the Act of Parliament passed last Session which provides that that school shall be sold to the trustees of the Merchant Taylors' School. The Act in question was calculated to produce a double advantage; it would enable the Charterhouse scholars to obtain an exchange from the town to the country, where they would enjoy purer air and a less confined space, and it would secure a playground for the scholars of the Merchant Taylors' School, which is a day school, and in which such an addition is much needed. It appears, too, that the Charterhouse was originally founded for a double object: for educating boys either for the Universities, the army and the navy, or for trade and
752
business. The founders thus contemplated a two-fold system—a classical and a commercial education. He would further remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it could not be said the Charterhouse was intended to be a metropolitan school on the ground that its property was derived from the metropolis; because, in point of fact, its property was drawn principally from other quarters. The Merchant Taylors' School and St. Paul's School, which were day schools and intended for the benefit of the metropolis, were not included in the present Bill. For the reasons he had stated he thought the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets wished to raise ought to be considered and determined by the House itself; and he ventured to think that it was not one which could be properly dealt with in reference to the schools included in this Bill. He therefore hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not think it necessary to make his Motion on the present stage of the Bill, but would reserve himself for another opportunity when he could bring the question substantively under the consideration of the House. He did not know that it was necessary to add anything to the brief statement he had made with reference to this Bill; but there were many matters of detail that would require very grave and earnest discussion when they came to consider the Bill in Committee. He repeated that he thought the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets ought to be decided by the House rather than be referred to a Select Committee, and with that observation he should conclude by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Walpole.)
MR. AYRTON, who had placed the following Amendment upon the Notice Paper:—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of the Charter House and other Endowed Schools in the Metropolis, and the best means of adapting them to the educational requirements of the Metropolis"—
said, he felt very great difficulty in following the right hon. Gentleman who had made an appeal to the House in favour of this Bill because it had been introduced

753
and backed, in his opinion, by a considerable weight of sentiment and authority. Now, there was nothing which had so much misled the public as appeals to sentiment and authority. In dealing with public schools they were asked to be guided by the sentimental feelings of gentlemen who happened to be educated in them. He could not see what they had to do with such sentimental feelings; they should deal with them having reference to those who were now in the schools, and more especially to those who should come into them in future times. Another statement offered in favour of these schools was that classical education had peculiarly contributed to the morality of the country. He, on the other hand, had always thought that during the particular period of our history, when a certain class of public men were most under the influence of classical education, society was sunk in the lowest moral pollution, and just as it had elevated itself above the influence of grammar and classical schools society had advanced in morality. When the literary world was under the severest control of classical and grammar schools education was narrow and cramped, and just as they had emancipated themselves from that state of things had literature improved. They must either go back to pre-classical times and delight in Shakespeare, or come down to the literature of the present day. The intermediate period was not one either of public or private morality to which they could look with any feeling of satisfaction whatever. They were also told that this measure was introduced with all the authority of a Royal Commission; but his complaint was that the Commission was not constituted for the very purpose of examining the question which he desired to submit to the House. It was very fairly constituted for the purpose of examining into the condition of Eton and Winchester, and other provincial public schools, but not for the purpose of considering the condition of the metropolitan public schools and their relation to the education of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Therefore, the authority of the Commission could not be quoted with reference to the consideration of the question he was desirous of examining. Then, again, it was said that, in dealing with this subject, they should have great regard to the views of the founders of these institutions. Now, he thought they had come to that time of day when they ought to take their stand in relation
754
to this question on the firmly and distinctly expressed opinion of all the jurists who were respected throughout Europe, that no man could have a right to regulate to all eternity the enjoyment of property he happened to be possessed of in his lifetime. That was a principle recognized in our jurisprudence, and uniformly acted upon in the law of all civilized communities. The man who gave property to any purpose of charity bequeathed it absolutely to the nation, and it was for the nation, in the exercise of its own pleasure, to consider how far it was convenient for the public good to respect any views he might have entertained. Of course, Courts of Justice, in the administration of the law, acted within a more limited sphere, and looked at the intentions of the founder simply because they had nothing else to look to; but when they came to that House he utterly denied that they were at all bound to consider that any founder—a man living any given number of centuries ago—entertained some particular opinion. Whenever the interests of the public, from any change which had taken place in society, rendered a new appropriation of property necessary, Parliament had the moral and legal right to take that property into its own hands and dispose of it as it thought proper. Even with regard to the Charterhouse, it had been in the main established by Act of Parliament, and if it was competent for Parliament to act, then had they no right to consider what was best to be done now? After all, what was the value of what Mr. Sutton thought? The right hon. Gentleman had passed very lightly over the other public schools, which he said were not in the Bill, and it was not fitting that they should be considered on the present occasion. But his objection was that they were not in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the public schools, they ought all to be in his Bill. The real point of contention was whether they should deal with all the public schools in the metropolis as if they were entirely separate institutions like Winchester and Rugby, or as a group of schools, to be considered in relation to each other and the general wants of the whole city. Without extensive alterations of its provisions this Bill could not be adapted to meet the circumstances of the metropolis. Indeed, as it stood, it would not work at all. He put it to the Government whether it was right to pass by, in the manner the Bill did, a question which

755
affected the education of the 20,000,30,00 0, or perhaps 50,000 families occupying houses of £20 per annum and upwards in the metropolis. If an endeavour were made to estimate the number of persons interested in the provisions of this Bill it would be found that their claims to the consideration he was demanding were overwhelming. Perhaps it was not very easy to estimate the exact number in the metropolis who would be affected by the provisions of the measure now introduced; but very little calculation was requisite to show that about one-third of the total number who were interested in and would take advantage of the higher schools were resident in the metropolis—a circumstance that strongly went to show the necessity of some such action as he was advocating being adopted. Moreover, not only the number to be educated, but the importance of means being adopted for giving a right tone and direction to a system of education which was in reality the centre of our social and political system, demanded that some such course as he was pressing upon the attention of the Government should be adopted. It was quite evident that whatever was well done in the metropolis must have an influence either directly or indirectly upon all the other towns in the kingdom. For these reasons he thought all must admit that the question was one worthy of the gravest consideration, and that it ought not to be slurred over, as there was a danger of its being, by the scheme of the Ministry. He would show in a few words how important the practical bearing of this question was upon the interests of the community. There were very large educational endowments in the metropolis, which, if properly regulated, might be of great service, although, relatively to the number of its population, perhaps no place had a less amount of endowments devoted to educational purposes. These large endowments were in the hands of two or three schools. When the right hon. Gentleman, in moving the second reading of this Bill, asked them to take into consideration the authority and the character of the governors of these bodies, the House of Commons was entitled to inquire what had these governors been doing all this time with these great endowments? The answer to that inquiry was a simple one. The House had found it necessary to appoint a Commission to find out the misdoings of these governors, and then the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to in-
756
troduce a Bill to compel them to do what was right, and yet the right hon. Gentleman believed himself to be in a position to say that these people were so intelligent and so active in the discharge of their duty that the best thing Parliament could do was to leave in their hands the sole power of dealing with these institutions. The governors had really not done what they might and ought to have done in the administration of the funds committed to their care. It was lamentable to reflect how large were the sums at their disposal, and how infinitesimal were the results achieved. Taking the Governors of the Charterhouse, for instance, what had that body done to improve either scientific, classical, or any other description of education? Why, absolutely nothing! They possessed an enormous revenue, amounting to upwards of £11,000 per annum, with which they profess to teach Latin and Greek to some forty boys free, to some forty odd who pay a large sum for their education, and to a still smaller number of day scholars. Was that an adequate result for an annual expenditure of £11,000? The pupils in the institution were selected, not in consequence of their showing any peculiar aptitude for learning, or on the ground of their poverty, but at the caprice of the governors, who bestowed their patronage at their mere will and pleasure. The pupils were not selected by competition, because that would interfere with the patronage of the governors. It was true that there were competitions among the scholars for the scholarships at the University, but what was the use of competition where there were no persons to compete. The competition was confined to a few of the first-class boys, and the result was, that scholars of very moderate attainments were sent to the University at the expense of a public endowment, a practice which was contrary to the whole policy of the Universities, which required that all scholarships, instead of depending upon mere accident, should be thrown open to competition. He did not see how it could be maintained for a moment that such a course was likely to lead to a high scale of education or to any useful public object. He would then refer to Westminster School, and what was the case there? No doubt the system adopted at this school was superior to that in force at the Charterhouse, and the results attained were most creditable to the Dean

757
and Chapter; but still the area of selection was exceedingly small, and the benefits of the school were not sufficiently diffused. It was said that there was a sentiment in retaining the school at Westminster, so that the boys might be educated near the dormitories of the old monks of Westminster; but, for his part, he could not see much sentiment in the matter, nor how boys were likely to be made more moral by being educated near the dormitories of a number of lazy monks of a character so bad that they were universally condemned and driven out of their place, which was stated to be rendered almost uninhabitable by their course of life. He was anxious that the usefulness of Westminster School should be extended, that it should be made to answer fully the great purpose for which it was founded, and that, instead of being turned into a mere menagerie of boys, it should be rendered available for the education of a considerable number of day scholars to be selected from among many thousand boys who resided in its neighbourhood. It would be a melancholy thing if the House were to pass a Bill which would stereotype permanently education at Westminster in its present form. It would be far better for them to give the inhabitants of Westminster the benefit of the resources of the school, and afford education for some 4,000 or 5,000 children, instead of keeping up, as was now practically the case, a mere boarding school for the advantage of a few. Instead of adhering to a state of things that was suitable enough 300 years ago, they should rather strive to adapt such institutions as those he was referring to to the requirements of the present day, and the present necessities of society. The next metropolitan school to which he had to refer was St. Paul's School—the governors of which possessed a revenue of about £11,000. That school was originally founded for the education of 150 boys, at a time when its endowments were comparatively small. The boys were to receive a free education as day scholars, and were to enter it by competition. Competition, however, had been altogether thrown aside, and the boys were nominated at the discretion of the governing body, and the result was that boys who were not properly qualified got into the school. That was a large foundation of £11,000 a year, and it was quite clear that if the money were properly applied to education in the metropolis, 1,000 boys instead of
758
150, might be educated through its instrumentality. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Parliament would have to leave St. Paul's untouched because it belonged to an influential City company, who might set up claims of its own. Now, he never knew any City company that was not willing to set up claims of its own, and the City Companies were always fond of perverting the charities which came under their control until they were afflicted with a scourge in the shape of the late Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, who, by filing bills against them, brought them, in many instances, to a sense of their misconduct. If they might believe the evidence of the Report, the claims made by these bodies afforded no grounds for withdrawing these great foundations from the control of Parliament. St. Paul's School ought, therefore, to be included in the Bill. The Merchant Taylors' School, he admitted, contrasted very favourably with the other foundations to which he had referred. The Merchant Taylors' School was, to a certain extent, a day school, and therefore did not present—what to his mind was extremely painful—the spectacle of masters, whose thoughts should properly be concentrated upon study and learning, developing into a kind of licensed victuallers, deriving their emoluments from feeding instead of teaching the children. It was perfectly natural for a master whose income was derived more from feeding than from instructing the children to follow the example of the licensed victualler, and to bestow his chief attention upon the former branch of his duties. It would be infinitely better that these gentlemen should be the masters of day schools, having nothing whatever to do with eating and drinking, than that they should be continually engaged in this kind of mixed professional business. The Merchant Taylors' School was an illustration of the soundness of the principle for which he contended, because it educated 250 boys, while the public endowments by which it attained this result did not exceed £2,000. He had called them public endowments, though the Merchant Taylors' Company contended that the school was their property, and that it was not supported by public endowments. He objected, however, to any such claim being admitted without challenge or examination. Looking at all the facts, he thought it could not be doubted that the Merchant Taylors' School was the property of the public,

759
and the Merchant Taylors' Company could not establish any claim in opposition to this title. Parliament surely had a perfect right to control the action of the governing body of a municipal company if that governing body endeavoured to defeat the legitimate demands of the public. If the school were the private property of an individual who had expended upon it his own money, the case would of course be very different; but no such argument could be employed by the Merchant Taylors' Company. That company was simply a public body, established for municipal purposes; and Parliament had a perfect right to put its legislative power into force for the purpose of securing to the public the benefits to which they were entitled—a result which, in this instance, might be attained with very little alteration. It was the duty of the House, now that they were dealing with a portion of this subject, to grapple with the whole question, and not to say that this was not the right time for bringing it forward. He could not help thinking that no time was so appropriate for making this examination as a time when it was proposed to legislate even in one direction. He was not going to ask the House to adopt either his own theories or those of any one else. He simply desired that the House should not shut its eyes to what was growing up in this country, and say that because a certain system had been in vogue for 300 years, therefore it should remain unaltered. Whatever might be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen whose minds were filled with an infinite reverence for the ancient Universities, there could be no doubt that there was gradually spreading throughout the country an opinion that there was another kind of education which, if not better, was at least as good as that which was taught in the grammar schools. It was, he maintained, the duty of Parliament to give to that opinion the weight to which, upon consideration, it might be found to be fairly entitled. He was not there for the purpose of attacking the ancient system, but when they were told that they could not have any new system adopted because there was a diversity of opinion about it, he thought he was fairly entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the concurrence of opinion about the ancient system. Were there no differences of theory about the teaching of Latin and Greek? Why, instruction in Latin grammar had been carried on for more than 300
760
years, and yet it was only the other day that half-a-dozen schoolmasters throughout the country could be found to agree upon the adoption of any particular grammar. The differences in the mode of teaching the Latin language were just as great, and while by some one particular method was rejected as being too difficult, by others it was contended that the method advocated by their opponents was far too easy, and did not in its study afford that training to the mind which it was absolutely necessary for the pupil to acquire. Where, then, was the force of contending that a scientific education could not properly be established, owing to the diversity of opinion regarding science? The argument had just as little force in the one case as in the other. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading of the Bill spoke, according to his understanding, disparagingly of a scientific education, as if it were a purely commercial and not a learned education, meaning evidently to degrade it by the comparison. [Mr. WALPOLE: No, no! I had no intention of doing so.] He was glad to learn that he had misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman. At all events, no valid reason could be urged against a scientific education on the score of diversity of opinion with respect to what should be taught. There was equal diversity as to the teaching of languages, and the various systems had not only warm advocates, but were carried out so as to produce different results upon the mind. He hoped that the House would show a disposition to accept that which was not only the opinion of the many, but which was the increasing opinion of the community, and which, in the end, he was convinced that the House would be forced to accept. There was no better way of approaching the task than by appropriating endowments to such an extent as they had increased in value, merely by reason of the growth of wealth and the increase of population in the metropolis. The endowment of St. Paul's School had materially increased from these accidental causes. Its property was situated in the East End of London, where population had greatly increased since the school was endowed. The £6,000 or £8,000 a year which the Charterhouse possessed, had accumulated from the same causes, and it was the same with regard to the revenues of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. To these and other similar endowments he looked as the legi-

761
timate fund from which to minister to the increasing wants of society, because they had been created by the growth of society. He therefore asked the Government to meet the question in a fair and liberal spirit by taking the metropolitan schools out of the Bill, and leaving them to be dealt with as a whole. If the Government would not do this, he asked them to put all the metropolitan schools into the Bill, and refer it to a Select Committee. His only objection to this legislation was that it did not go far enough. He would not press the Motion he had put on the Paper, because the effect would be to isolate the metropolis from the operation of the Bill he had merely placed it there as an appeal to the Government, and he hoped the result would prove he had not appealed in vain. Some seemed to be under the impression that the Bill had been left a legacy to the present Government by their predecessors; but, as a matter of fact, the Bill had been brought in by the Chairman of the Commission on Public Schools as such. It was carrying the notion of solidarity too far to say that because the Chairman of that Commission happened to join the late Government before he brought in his Bill, the whole of his then Colleagues were to be held responsible for it. He hoped the Government would send the Bill to a Select Committee upstairs, where it might be examined in detail, and justice might be done to the children of the inhabitants of the metropolis who stood in greatest need.
SIR HARRY VERNEYstated that the people of Harrow and Rugby believed that great injustice would be done to their poorer townsmen if the Bill passed as it was framed. At Harrow the first, second, and third forms had been done away with during the past fifty years by raising the standard of examination of those who entered the schools so high that none but those who could afford an expensive preliminary education could get their sons admitted, and in that way great injustice was done to the sons of tradesmen and other inhabitants of Harrow. A similar complaint was made with respect to Rugby, and he did not think the remedy in those cases should be left to a Commission. Then there were not nearly masters enough, and the paucity in number enabled those who at present held the position to divide large profits among themselves. Some feared ill effects would result from the commingling of classes in a
762
public school. He had no such fears; the better classes would certainly not be lowered, and the result might prove highly beneficial to the poorer boys. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would introduce some clauses to secure an education for the poorer inhabitants of Harrow, whom John Lyon, the founder of the school, had originally intended to educate, and not leave so vital a matter in the hands of the Commissioners.
MR. GLADSTONE: I think it but just, Sir, to make a remark upon one observation which fell from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, towards the close of his speech, where, doubtless out of a sentiment of kindness towards Members of the late Government, he expressed an opinion that they were not bound by the Act of Lord Clarendon in the introduction of his Bill. It is only just to Lord Clarendon and others that I should state frankly that Lord Clarendon did not introduce that Bill simply in his individual capacity, but did introduce it with the distinct approval of the Cabinets of Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell; and, therefore, undoubtedly we must be considered as responsible for the introduction in the main outline and purport of the recommendations of the Committee, to whom we are deeply indebted for its labours and for the general character of this Bill. I do not feel that in saying that I necessarily place myself in opposition to my hon. and learned Friend; because I confess I am not sorry that my hon. and learned Friend has applied himself with great interest, vigour, and ability to the consideration of the important question of the claim which the metropolis, considered as a local though vast community, has to the disposal of these school funds. It is not necessary to follow my hon. and learned Friend through the course of his observations, because, as far as his general doctrines are concerned with regard to the right and duty of the State to examine into and revise and extend and enlarge those foundations, and as far as regards his strong opinion that we are not to look upon the intentions of founders, formed under the circumstances of the time, as laws which are to remain free from any interference on the part of the authorities, I find myself in great concurrence with him, and I would sympathize with him in his desire to give effect to the principle he laid down—namely, that some attempt should be made to obtain a com-

763
prehensive view of the schools of the metropolis as a whole, and to apply the resources of those schools, with a fair and just reference to the wants and necessities of the metropolis. But then comes the question, what are the schools to which the principles he laid down will properly apply? And it appears to me that doubt and difficulty arise when we come to consider that part of my hon. and learned Friend's proceedings which relates to his interposing his Motion as an obstacle to the progress of this Bill. This is a Bill of very great value. It brings into existence new powers, which will be in a condition to act with great effect, both upon the constitution of these schools and upon their studies. The general effect of the Bill is very much like that of the Oxford Act, and undoubtedly the Commission, though it may not have been able to undertake all that was desirable, has proved an instrument of very great power for the purpose of introducing practical improvement. If Parliament approves of the general scope of the provisions of this Bill, it would be a very great mistake, after the laborious investigation which this subject has undergone, extending over several years, if we should send the Bill to be re-investigated in its general bearings before a Select Committee, simply on account of the question, important though it be, which my hon. and learned Friend has raised with respect to the metropolis. I am not quite certain what are the schools that would be embraced within the scope of my hon. and learned Friend's Motion. I heard him speak of several. [Mr. AYRTON: Four.] Exactly so; but it appears to me that on the one hand it includes too much, and on the other too little. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not shrink from recognizing the breadth of his own proposition, but will take into his view the whole of the endowed schools of the metropolis downwards as well as upwards. The hon. and learned Member spoke of the Charterhouse, the Merchant Taylors', St. Paul's, and Westminster; but I apprehend that the whole of the revenues of those schools, which were considered as so vast, perhaps do not exceed—and I am not sure that they even equal—the revenues of one endowed school which he did not mention at all—namely, Christ's Hospital. It appears to me that there is nothing which requires more to be considered in the whole of this question, so far as the metropolis is concerned, than the condition of Christ's
764
Hospital. I have, sitting near, Members of a Commission which has inquired into this very subject, the Report of which is likely to be in the hands of Members very shortly. If we are to have a consideration of this great question, if the special interest of the metropolis in the schools that are all certainly situated within its limits is to be considered, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not exclude Christ's Hospital, the largest of all the endowed schools, and others of considerable revenue and importance. But it appears to me on the whole proposition, that the legitimate method in which the hon. and learned Gentleman should proceed would be, not to interpose any obstacle to the progress of this Bill, but to allow us to read it a second time, and carry it into Committee, and then, when we come to the discussion of that part which includes within the operation of the Bill any schools that he thinks ought to be dealt with upon a different principle, then I think would be the time for him to raise the question whether that school should be excluded from the operation of the Bill, in order that it may be dealt with, not as a public school, in the strict and understood sense which is one applicable to the whole of them, but rather in the sense of a local school connected with the metropolis. The only two schools in the Bill to which the Motion would directly apply are the Charterhouse and Westminster. With regard to Westminster, I will not anticipate a discussion which I think will come with more propriety at a later period; but with respect to the Charterhouse, I by no means express the opinion that the constitution and the views of the governing body do not require to be examined, and what is called overhauled; but as regards the question whether it is a local school of the metropolis or a public school, that was considered and decided by Parliament last year. The Governors of the Charterhouse had come to the conclusion that the site on which the school was placed was one exceedingly unfavourable to the development of the purposes of the school, and they determined to sell it to another body, and to purchase a site removed from the metropolis to which they could transfer the school, if they could obtain the sanction of Parliament for the purpose. The question was brought before Parliament, and they obtained the powers they wanted. But if Parliament in 1867 had given to the Charterhouse the distinct recognition

765
of its character as a public school, which was implied in permitting and empowering it to remove itself bodily from the metropolis altogether, I do not quite see how it would be possible for my hon. and learned Friend to bring the Charterhouse within the view of his Motion as a local school. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will accede to the suggestion I have made, because it would be a great misfortune if he were to introduce the application of his principle in such a form that it should prove an obstacle to going forward now that at last we have an opportunity of going forward with a Bill which, I believe, has been conceived and framed in a very enlightened spirit, and which promises great advantages to establishments of immense importance.
MR. NEATEsaid, he regretted that his hon. and learned Friend had not put his Motion in a more definite shape, for he believed this to be one of the most delusive and reactionary measures ever put before the country. It was an anti-popular inheritance bequeathed by the late Government, and he recommended the present Ministers to take the earliest opportunity of disclaiming the legacy. Through the fault not of the schools themselves, but chiefly owing to the change of manners which had taken place in modern times, causing Latin to be regarded as a luxury, and not as an essential part of commercial education, these great schools of the country had passed into the hands of a class totally different from the classes for whom they were originally founded. At Eton, for instance, the qualifications for admission were poverty, in the first instance, then aptitude for study, good character, and competence in reading and grammar. At Winchester, which was a still older foundation, even the sons of serfs were admitted. Those who had looked into the subject knew that 300 or 400 years ago the son of the great nobleman of the district sat on the same bench with the son of the farmer or grocer of the neighbourhood, and continued there till he was fifteen or sixteen years of age. After that the son of the nobleman either went back to his father's house, where the continuance of his education was intrusted to a private tutor, or else he was taken into the house of some great man, like Cardinal Wolsey, where provision was made for the education of the sons of the nobles. What was the case in the present day? Advertisements constantly appeared—not
766
from the public schools, it was true, but from private foundations little less opulent—winding up with this announcement—"None but the sons of gentlemen admitted." A respectable wine merchant told him that he had applied to have his son admitted into one of these modern colleges and was told, "We don't take the sons of wine merchants." It was too late to bring the sons of the wealthy and great again under the same roof for the purpose of education with the sons of farmers and tradesmen; but it was not too late to take back from those funds which were originally intended chiefly for the benefit of the sons of the farmer and tradesman some part of that which was now exclusively appropriated to the benefit of the rich. Provision had been made for the education of the upper class, but the middle class had been cruelly wronged, and this was the time to consider whether obligations could not be imposed upon the public schools to repay to the middle class something of what had been improperly withheld from them in the past. In Committee he would urge that care should be taken, more especially in connection with the opulent schools of Eton and Winchester, to found middle-class schools subject to the same government. The income of Eton, which was returned in 1860—and such returns were never above the amount—as between £20,000 and £21,000, would ere long, when the leases were run out, amount to between £35,000 and £40,000, besides forty livings whose joint income was returned at £10,000. The income of the provost—and he did not say it was too dear—was £876 a year, and of course there was a house and other advantages; and each of the seven fellows had £850 a year, and they held, together with their fellowships, some of the best livings. The income of Winchester School, when the leases ran out, would be £32,000 or £33,000 a year, and it had a warden and fellows who did very little work; and the income was chiefly of use as affording retiring pensions to those who had done the real work of the college and schools. He wished to insist upon having in connection with both a school for the class for whose benefit mainly the incomes were originally designed; and the Bill made no provision for securing that object. Indeed, the tendency was in another direction, for it gave power to make regulations which would still further prejudice the foundation boys. We were waiting for the

767
Report of a Commission which would raise questions as to our means and obligations in the matter of middle-class education. This in itself would be a sufficient reason for deferring the progress of the Bill until they had an opportunity of considering the Report. Again, the use of classics was still an unsettled question, especially at Oxford, and the recently published work, Essays on a Liberal Education, showed that great progress had been made on the part of those who were concerned in the business of education, a fact of which the framers of the Bill seemed to be wholly unconscious. Recently he (Mr. Neate) attended a meeting at Oxford of some eighty or ninety of those actively engaged in education, and certainly not revolutionists, and he was in a minority of two or three in opposing the idea that it was time to open the University to persons who knew neither Latin nor Greek. He himself thought that a revolutionary proposal, and denounced it as such, but certainly it was adopted by those who were not revolutionary men. He had long come to the conclusion that the gentlemen of England should be absolved from the necessity of learning Greek, for the result of the present system, in the majority of cases, was that gentlemen spent ten or twelve years in learning Latin and Greek, and nothing else, and knew less of those languages than their sisters acquired of French and Italian in two years. It was beginning to be generally thought at Oxford that the studies at our schools and Universities required re-consideration. The Commission had not embraced any advocate of these new ideas, and he suggested that a vacancy, caused by a death which all would regret, should be filled up by some one of advanced views, say the right hon. Member for Calne. If the Bill was to go on, it was desirable to have that sort of Commission which would have the knowledge and the disposition to avail itself of new lights; and clauses ought to be introduced into the Bill giving the Commissioners powers in that direction.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had insisted upon some common points, and some of which had reference to Westminster School. But first, as regarded the site of the school, he must inform the hon. and learned Member that a meeting was held some time ago in Westminster School to consider whether the site should be removed, and the majority of the
768
meeting came to the conclusion that it had better be removed, and no doubt it would have been removed into the country if sufficient funds could have been obtained for the purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the foundation boys slept in a dormitory formerly occupied by a set of drunken and rebellious monks, but the fact was that the dormitory of the monks had long ago disappeared, and the present dormitory was built by Lord Burlington. He thought, however, that the hon. and learned Member had done good service by bringing the subject under the consideration of the House, because the discussion had served to show that the provisions of the Bill ought not to be hastily acted upon. Now, as regarded the case of Westminster School, he believed that the majority of the parents who had boys there would rather that their children should remain under the instruction of their master than reside in their own houses. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the system of competition was adopted by the Dean and Chapter; but it was nothing of the kind, for competition was established by the original statutes of Queen Elizabeth. His right hon. Friend who moved the second reading of the Bill referred in detail to the schools therein named, and among others he described the provisions under which Westminster School would be ranged. He was bound to say he thought those provisions very insufficient, because there was no guarantee that the income which the school ought to acquire under the statutes of the Church would be obtained from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The school was in this unfortunate position, that like other grammar schools attached to cathedrals of the new foundation, the educational trust funds were gradually absorbed by the Dean and Chapter, who preferred to fill their own pockets rather than to promote the interest of the schools. When the Bill of 1840 passed the Ecclesiastical Commissioners stepped in, and all the profits of the suspended stalls, instead of being applied to educational trusts, were put into the hands of the Commissioners, and made part of the common fund. Now one of their first duties was to bring back such portions of the fund, and apply them strictly to educational purposes according to the statutes. It was perfectly clear that the boys on the foundation

769
ought not to be taxed to pay for masters for whom the statutes provided out of the educational fund. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would take the advice tendered to him by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire and not press his Motion; though, if he did press it, he (Mr. Bentinck) would be obliged to vote with him. When the clauses were considered one by one there would be ample opportunity to bring forward this matter; and he himself should be prepared with Amendments to raise the points on which he had made these few remarks.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would take that opportunity of stating that in Committee he would ask the House to agree to certain Amendments with respect to Harrow, which would preserve to the people the rights they had enjoyed for nearly 300 years under the provisions of the will of John Lyons. The tendency of public schools was to increase the expense of education, and to draw a line which would limit their advantages to the sons of the rich; and he, as a public schools-man, saw that tendency with regret. Feeling strongly on the point, he would at the proper time move an Amendment which would secure the rights of the people of Harrow. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) had alluded to the lamented death of Sir Edmund Head, one of the Commissioners. He ventured to endorse what had been said on that subject, and he would express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would put in Sir Edmund Head's place a distinguished man of science, who might secure the respect and confidence of the public.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he regretted that no discussion had taken place as to what was really the merits of the question, the curriculum of education that should be adopted in the higher class of public schools. He wished to know—and it would be interesting to the public also—what were the ultimate intentions of the House with regard to these great establishments? Were they to disregard the manifestations of public opinion, and to allow the present opportunity to pass without taking some decisive steps? By the present Bill it was proposed simply to change the government of the schools, by placing it in the hands of Commissioners but such Commissioners as the Archbishop of Canterbury would not be likely to concern themselves much as to the regulations
770
of the schools. He (Mr. Darby Griffith) thought that the great body of those interested in the schools, that is to say, the parents and guardians of the boys should have some means afforded to express their opinion upon the matter. The Commission to be appointed would be very much above its work, and there were no means of knowing what precise changes it would effect. Public opinion had been strongly expressed as to the modification of certain branches of education; but no response was made to that in this Bill. John Milton, and many others of the most enlightened men, had condemned the system under which boys scraped together some Latin and Greek during a period of seven or eight years, which, if properly instructed, they might be taught in one, and were called upon to string some stupid Latin verses together which to be done really well required a more advanced stage of the powers of the intellect. This system was rather an impediment than otherwise to the practical education of our youth, when no necessity existed for composition in any of the dead languages. The only use to which a dead language could be put was to d the author's book in such language. They could not, as in the time of Milton, write despatches to foreign Courts in that language. He was, however, the last person to deprecate the knowledge of the dead languages, believing that it was the foundation of all superior education and was essential to a thorough understanding of our own language. But if we had to make a choice between the study of them and that of the modern sources of information, he should be unwilling to determine which ought to be given up. If their youth were, however, to learn Latin and Greek, they should be taught the knowledge of them in the easiest and simplest way possible. Before the House gave large powers to the governing bodies of those schools they ought to know how they proposed to exercise them, under what influences they would act, and whether in harmony with public opinion.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTErejoiced to find that the House had arrived at the conclusion of making progress with the Bill, and of reading it a second time, instead of referring it to a Select Committee. He felt grateful to his hon. and learned Friend opposite for the course he had taken in deferring to the wish of those who were anxious to make progress

771
on the question, and agreeing to bring forward the views which he had advocated with such ability in a discussion upon the Bill, when the House might be able to entertain them in a manner much more useful and practicable than on the present occasion. What the Government were afraid of, in regard to this Bill, was, that if it were to be much examined upon one particular point of view or another the measure would never make any progress. It was now six or seven years since the Commission was appointed to examine into the system of public schools, to which reference had been made, and it was just four years since they presented their Report. Since that Report was presented a Bill founded upon it had been introduced every year into either one or the other House of Parliament. Upon one occasion a Select Committee had been appointed by the House of Lords, before which a great deal of evidence was taken and counsel heard, and the subject had been fully considered from that point of view especially which had been touched upon by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield) and other hon. Gentlemen. They had now come to that point at which it was desirable, if anything could be done in the matter, to make a move onwards. He was afraid that if they referred the Bill to a Select Committee they would simply be losing another year. And, after all, what was a Select Committee to do with the subject? If it were to hear evidence on the subject and go into the whole question, of course the inquiry would go through the whole Session. He very much doubted whether the deliberations of any Select Committee would prevail over all that had been done by preceding inquiries. On the other hand, if the Select Committee were not to take evidence, but only to confine themselves to the evidence already taken, that would be tantamount to the discussion of the question of principle, upon which the House was as capable of forming an opinion as any Committee, and as to which they could not bind the House. Referring to the discussion which had just taken place, he was really very much surprised at the tone taken in regard to the meaning and tenor of this Bill. A stranger coming into the House, and not knowing the nature of the Report made by the Public Schools Commission, would think that the proposal was one of a reactionary and narrow-minded character. On the contrary, though some of their recommen-
772
dations might not go so far as some thought they should go, he put it to anyone who had read that Report whether the whole tenor and spirit of it were not in a progressive direction, and especially in reference to what had been said that night? He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had challenged the expression of his (Sir Stafford Northcote's) right hon. Friend as to commercial education. He agreed with him in the propriety of attaching the greatest importance to scientific education—not for its commercial value, but for its own sake. The whole spirit of the Report was to give due prominence to scientific education from that point of view. He especially called attention to that most able portion of the Report—although it appeared in the form of a dissent from it—of their Colleague, Mr. Vaughan, in which he put forward the claims of science as the basis of education in a manner which excited their admiration, and only led them to regret that his views were not incorporated with the Report. The Commissioners were anxious to improve as far as possible the higher education of the country. The point he thought they had to consider was not so much how the education of the inhabitants of a particular locality or of a particular class could be best provided for, but, assuming it was desirable that the highest education of the country should be to a great extent of a classical character, but at the same time that it should also embrace other fields of learning, they considered how far and in what way those schools charged with imparting that education could be best organized and be brought into harmony one with another. The Commissioners said that if they improved the higher education, and did it in schools which were well organized, and opened those schools at proper times for those who might wish to avail themselves of them, they would indirectly—though it was not their main object—supply the wants of a particular locality and of a particular class. They did not deal with endowments as if they had been given for the benefit of particular inhabitants, such as those of London, Harrow, or Rugby, because they saw that the state of things and circumstances had very much changed since those endowments were first given. They believed that the main object of those who made those endowments was to improve the education of the people of the country, though

773
no doubt the special desire of some persons was to improve the education of their particular neighbourhood or the education of the poor or of some particular class. But they must remember that the state of the country and the means of communication between one place and another were very different now to what they were when those endowments were made. The number of schools was also much, smaller than it was present. The Commissioners thought that the founders, if they were living now, would act very differently in effecting their object than they had done when they made those endowments. And when they made the proposal with regard to Harrow School they had to take into account the fact that the inhabitants of Harrow had now the benefit not only of their own school, but of the schools established in the different parts of England, to which it was comparatively easy for them to send their boys. That argument applied with still greater force to the schools of the metropolis. It was open to the inhabitants of the metropolis, not only to educate their boys at Westminster, the Charterhouse, or the other schools established here, but to send them to Harrow, Rugby, Shrewsbury, Winchester, or any of the other schools scattered throughout the kingdom. And that was a compensation to them for any exclusive advantage they might lose by the transfer of any of their own schools to a greater distance. They also came to the conclusion, from the examination of the schools in which this education was given, that the boys could be best educated, on the whole, at boarding schools. They therefore thought it desirable that there should be an adequate number of boarding schools, which would be just of as much importance to the people of London as to the inhabitants of any particular town. But they also came to the conclusion that if they were to have those boarding schools, it was desirable that they should be, as far as possible, in the country—not at any great distance from the metropolis—but in situations where the boys would have the advantage of good playgrounds and country air. They considered that if a certain number of schools were removed out of the metropolis to the country, those schools would be more useful even to the people of the metropolis themselves than they would be if they were allowed to remain. Looking, then, to the four schools under their immediate view—
774
namely, Westminster, the Charterhouse, Merchant Taylors', and St. Paul's, they thought it was desirable they should have both boarding schools and day schools available to the inhabitants of the metropolis. By removing Westminster and the Charterhouse Schools to a reasonable distance from the metropolis, and by greatly improving the position of the day schools in the metropolis, they felt that they would be doing the best for the metropolis itself. He had merely referred to these points, rather than have entered into any discussion of them, in order that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets might know that they had not been overlooked in the consideration of this subject. The conclusions arrived at might, or might not, be right; but he should be able to defend the views put forward when the proper time arrived. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, they had not overlooked the claims of persons of moderate means; but, looking to the circumstances of the country at the present time, and considering the advantages of these schools if thrown open to competition, the great object they had had in view was to throw them open to competition among those who would endeavour to qualify for them. With regard to the Charterhouse, it was desired that it should as far as possible be thrown open to competition. He certainly felt the force of the interesting speech that had been delivered upon the subject by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he agreed with much he had said; and he thought the Government were much indebted to him for his having confined himself to stating his views upon the subject, and in not delaying the progress of the Bill. He might say that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, that this question should be discussed in Committee, would be accepted, and he had no doubt that when the Bill was committed notice would be given of some practical Amendments which might be discussed with great advantage.
MR. AYRTONwished to know whether the Government would undertake to defer the further progress of the Bill until the Report on grammar and endowed schools, to which so much care had been devoted, had been presented?
MR. WALPOLEwas unable to say when the Report would be in the hands of

775
Members, but he would undertake that it should be very shortly laid upon the table. He would fix the Committee for Thursday, the 27th February, and between this and then he would inform the hon. and learned Member whether he would proceed with the Committee before that Report was presented. It was very desirable they should have the Report, if possible, before going into Committee on the Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 27th February.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF MAYO, on rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to renew for a limited period the Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act, said, The Act which passed this House in the month of May last for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland expires on the first day of next month, and anybody who has watched events during the last six months cannot be surprised that the Government should feel it their duty to ask Parliament to continue for a limited period those extraordinary powers which on three different occasions it has felt it necessary to confide to the present Government. I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that a more irksome duty than that which I am called upon to perform to-night can hardly fall to the lot of any Minister; but so deep is my conviction and that of my Colleagues of the necessity of the measure which I am about to propose that we feel we should be guilty of betraying our duty and deserting our post if we did not express to the House our conviction that it is absolutely essential for the peace of the sister country, and for the continuance of the endeavours made by the late and the present Government to frustrate and destroy the efforts of the Fenian conspiracy, that Parliament should grant a renewal of the powers with which we are at present invested. It is for this reason we feel it our duty to ask the House to continue the existing Act. So far as Ireland is concerned the efforts of this Fenian conspiracy, which has existed for four long years, appear to be greatly paralyzed, the leaders of the movement seem to have
  776
  transferred their more active exertions to this side of the water; and the people of this country have within the last few months been astonished to find that in some of the great centres of our population there exists an active conspiracy, whose avowed object is the promotion of rebellion, in Ireland, and the severance of that country from the Crown and Government of Great Britain. There is no doubt that this conspiracy, carried on with great skill and secresy, has existed amongst us for a considerable time; and its course, so far as England is concerned, has been marked by the commission of crimes which are happily unparalleled in the history of this country. I believe that by the occurrences which have taken place on this side of the Channel the true character of the movement has been made manifest. At all events they have shown the recklessness and daring of the leaders and the lengths to which they will go for the purpose of carrying out their designs. Though the movement in Ireland has happily not been characterized by those crimes which have been committed in England, late occurrences in Ireland have shown that a very considerable activity on the part of the conspirators still prevails there. It appears that for some time it has been the plan of those who direct the movements of the brotherhood in Ireland to endeavour by isolated outrages to keep up a state of alarm and excitement in the minds of the population. We are also in possession of information which enables us to say that in America and on the continent of Europe the members of the Fenian conspiracy are busy. The same features still characterize all the movements of the conspirators, and show us that the Fenian society is guided and ruled by men who have altogether thrown off their allegiance to the British Crown, and who boast that they are no longer subjects of the Queen—the greater portion of them being men who were born within the limits of the United Kingdom, but who have really transferred their allegiance to another Power. This is a feature not met with in any other conspiracy that has ever affected the safety of this country. The leaders of the society are beyond the grasp of this country; they are the subjects of a foreign Power, and consequently are out of the reach of British laws. It appears to me to be a very lamentable circumstance that the greater portion of the persons

  777
  who are devoting themselves to the furtherance of the objects of the Fenian Brotherhood did not follow the bright example set them by the great majority of the citizens of their adopted country. I do not believe that a more remarkable spectacle was ever exhibited to the world than that which followed the close of the civil war in America, when the enormous number of men who had been engaged in a great war returned immediately, with the greatest ease, and apparently with the utmost willingness, to the occupations of peace. You will see now in America men employed in the counting-house, in shops, in railway-stations, in schools—in all the peaceful occupations—who, but a very short time ago, were leading battalions to victory in "all the pomp and circumstance of war," surrounded by all that makes war attractive. The class to whom I allude, and among whom are, I am sorry to say, a great many of my countrymen, have not followed that praiseworthy example. It appears that for the persons engaged in this Fenian conspiracy industry has no charm, and peace no attraction; for no sooner was the great civil war over than, instead of turning their attention to the arts of peace, they directed their energies to the promotion of rebellion, and to the raising of the flag of civil war in their own country; and thus we see men who had only recently been engaged in a desperate struggle for the maintenance of the union and integrity of their adopted country entering into an undertaking which had for its object the declaration of civil war and the disruption of the country in which they were born. These are the men to whom must be attributed in a great degree the misfortunes which this Fenian conspiracy have brought upon the country. I said before that they are beyond our reach. They are out of this country; and I think it is the duty of the Government to take every means to keep them where they are. It is clear that those men who are known as American-Irish are the leaders of the movement; and, lest there should be any doubt as to the effect of the measure—of which I am about to propose the renewal—I shall read from a New York paper, which is supposed to represent to a great extent the opinions of the Fenians in America, a short extract, which shows, beyond question, how useful the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act has been. In the New York People I find
  778
  this statement, under the head of "Advice to the Brotherhood in Ireland"—
  "For the men in Ireland to attempt to supply themselves with arms even where they have means to buy them would be hazardous as well as ineffective while the habeas corpus remains suspended. Let there be no more foolish demonstrations then. Let the 'men in the gap' bide their time patiently, but resolutely, nor ever make another attempt to strike at their country's oppressors until they shall find them right under their blows. Besides, the men at home require some rest now, in order to recover from the shock of their late defeats. Let them take it while they may. In England and Scotland, however, there is no need for so much secresy and caution. The habeas corpus is not yet suspended in these countries. The work of Fenian propagandism should be urged on vigorously and incessantly there. Every Irishman capable of bearing arms should, as soon as initiated, be instructed to furnish himself with a rifle or a revolver and with the ammunition requisite for their use, provided he can afford it; but when procured he should lay them secretly by in some safe place, and say nothing about them to any one except his immediate superior officer."
  I think the events of the last six months show that the members of the Fenian Brotherhood have followed that advice almost to the letter. But, in asking the House to renew the Act, I conceive it to be my duty to show what the Government have done in conformity with the provisions of the Act, and in the exercise of the powers reposed in them. The number of persons now in custody under warrants signed by the Lord Lieutenant is 96; of whom 83 are in Mountjoy Prison under uniform treatment. The number of persons arrested from the 1st of January, 1867, to the 31st of January, 1868, was 265. In January, 1867, there were arrested 14; in February, 21; in March, 111; in April, 31; in May, 7; in June, 38; in July, 8. During August, September, and October, there were only two arrests; but I am sorry to say that in the last three months—November, December, and January—we found it necessary to exercise the powers given us by the Act to a greater extent. During these three months there were 33 arrests. The total number arrested since the renewal of the Act, on the 1st of June last, is therefore 81. It is rather interesting, and I think very important, to trace the occupations of the persons against whom it has been found necessary to apply the provisions of the Act suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. In almost every instance—I believe I may say in every instance—it has been shown beyond doubt that those men who

  779
  have been arrested were implicated in the conspiracy. The warrants were limited to those who were known to be leaders, and we have never exercised the power of arrest against those who were merely dupes, who were following the advice of those who ought to know better, and had not the opportunity of judging for themselves. I have before me an analysis of the occupations of the 265 persons who were arrested. There were designated as "officers" 10; professional men and clerks 25; artizans 90; farmers 11; labourers 66; shop-keepers and shop-assistants 28; miscellaneous 35. The class of miscellaneous includes 4 merchants, 6 National school teachers, 5 sailors, and 10 men of no stated employment. That shows how small a number of the class, which is in Ireland the most numerous and the most important, have engaged in these treasonable practices. I regard it as a matter of special congratulation that of the whole number of 265 persons arrested last year eleven only were occupiers of land. It will not be necessary for me, as a full discussion must shortly take place on the state of Ireland—a discussion which we are anxious shall take place—to enter at any length into that part of the question at present, but when it does come on hon. Members, I think, will do well to bear in mind this most significant fact, that while 90 artizans, 66 labourers, 28 shop-keepers and assistants, and 35 persons of various miscellaneous occupations have been arrested for treasonable practices, only 11 persons were imprisoned who were connected with the occupation of land in Ireland. Those numbers also show how entirely confined the participation in these seditious treasonable practices has been to the lower class of the community—almost to the lowest class—and to those who are supposed to have the least education, knowledge, and opportunity of judging for themselves. The Fenians themselves have declared, both in their speeches and writings, that the great difficulty they have had in Ireland has been that they never could get any man who has anything to lose to join them, and that their adherents were composed of men who had no stake in the country, and who were the most reckless and unthinking class of the community. The whole history of the conspiracy shows, and in this I am confirmed by all the inquiries I have made—and from the position I have the honour to fill, I possess more expe-
  780
  rience in the matter than most men—that no Irish resident of character, position, and intelligence has become, or attempted to become, an active leader in this movement. There is another remarkable fact connected with the figures I have given. Of the 265 persons who were arrested not less than ninety-five—and among them are included many of the principal men arrested—;had been recently in America, many of them having passed a great deal of their life in that country. It is impossible to say exactly the precise occupations which they carried on in America. We have usually only their own statements on this point, but the fact is patent that a large proportion of them have come from the other side of the Atlantic. I wish also to impress on the House that, notwithstanding the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, we have availed ourselves of the ordinary tribunals of the country as much as possible. Upwards of fifty of these persons arrested under warrant were afterwards committed for trial by the ordinary tribunals of the country. Throughout the whole of our dealings with this conspiracy we have never deviated from the policy we first laid down—the policy of prevention—we have never allowed any person whom we knew to be actively engaged in promoting this conspiracy to remain at large. Insinuations were, indeed, thrown out on more than one occasion last year—but which never took any other form than that of mere insinuation—that the Government had allowed treasonable practices to go on, in order ultimately to strike a more severe blow at the conspiracy. But although such a course might possibly be justified on the grounds of policy, it could not in our opinion be justified on the grounds of morality. We have held it to be the duty of the Government in a time of dangerous conspiracy, to endeavour to thwart on every occasion at the first moment the designs of the conspirators, and I can conceive nothing more cruel than that the Government should play with such a movement as this for the purpose of making some great effort to crush it by the strong arm of military force. The course which has hitherto been pursued, has been perfectly successful. The objects of the Fenians were avowed—namely, war to the knife and rebellion against the power of this country; but such has been the nature of the precautions we have taken that, with the exception of the

  781
  rising of the 5th of March—an abortive attempt, which was put down in about twenty-four hours—nothing like an armed movement has taken place in the country. We have, in almost every instance, been able to thwart the plans and stop the designs of these men before any serious event occurred. To give particular instances, I would mention that during the last few weeks two notorious conspirators who were engaged in the rising of the 5th of March, and who, from all the information we received, were men of the most desperate character, lately appeared in the country. They had not been many days in Ireland before one of them was arrested by the police in Dublin in the most gallant manner. He has been tried, and I am informed by a telegram to-day that he has been sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude. Another man who appeared in another part of Ireland, and who was known to have taken a prominent part in a number of outrages at Cork, was by the unceasing activity of the police arrested and has been committed for trial at the next assizes. These circumstances show that these men must know that they cannot come to this country with impunity, or carry on their treasonable practices with any hope of success; for even before they arrive in the country the Government are fully informed of their designs, and though a little difficulty has been experienced at times, there has seldom been any failure in bringing them to justice. There is a very remarkable fact that the House ought to be aware of. The number of persons pointed out and described to the Government before the rising of the 5th of March as military leaders, or men of military experience who had come from America to Ireland, was about 43. I have taken pains to ascertain the fate of these men. The statements made to the Government about them proved to be quite true. Out of these 43, the 3 principal leaders never arrived in the country at all; 1 died before he was brought to trial, and of those who did arrive, 20 being arrested were brought to trial and sentenced to various periods of punishment. Out of 18 remaining, there were only 3 who took an active part and who were persons of importance. Those who were amenable to justice and who have not been dealt with according to law, are for the most part in exile, and do not desire to come again to Ireland, and the rest have been subjected to the punishment
  782
  of their offences. That shows these men, if anything can do it, how impossible it is for them to carry on their designs with the smallest success. Everyone must have observed the invariable course of the painful scenes which have occurred. At the trial of all these men there has been the same scene of the prisoner in the dock, the informer in the witness-box, certain conviction and sure punishment. It is also to be remarked that everyone throughout these transactions who has been called upon to act in the performance of his duties, from the humblest policeman to the highest Judge—everyone, witnesses, jurymen, and those engaged in carrying out the law—have discharged this most painful duty with loyalty, faithfulness, and fearlessness. Great personal risk has been undergone by many of those men, and particularly by those connected with, the two police forces of the country. Repeated attempts at assassination have been made upon men who were merely doing their duty, and I am sorry to say that in some three or four cases those attempts were successful. The Dublin Metropolitan Police, who have invariably behaved with a zeal, a courage, and a fidelity which has been equalled only by the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, have perhaps more than any other body been thrown into contact with these desperadoes, and have discharged their duties in a manner which entitles them to the highest praise. The list of the outrages inflicted on them since the commencement of the Fenian conspiracy, though not a long is still a very painful one. I find that Constable Charles O'Neill on the 29th of April, 1866, was shot by a pistol bullet in the stomach by a man named Kearney, and died the same day; Constable Patrick Keenan on the 31st of October, 1867, was shot by a pistol bullet, and died after seven days; Sergeant Stephen Kelly on the 31st of October, 1867, was shot in the stomach, and for three weeks he was at the point of death, but happily he recovered, though he is still an invalid; Constable Matthew Donaghue on the 20th of October, 1867, was fired at by a man who attempted to assassinate a Crown witness, but not injured. Three or four other men have been permanently disabled by wounds received in the discharge of their duty connected with the Fenian conspiracy, and have been obliged to retire from the force with marks of severe personal injury; which I am afraid they will bear to the

  783
  day of their deaths. I refer to these lamentable cases, not to raise undue animosity against the members of this conspiracy, but merely to remind the House how much we are indebted to the courage and fidelity of those men who are daily, at the risk of their lives, engaged in maintaining the public peace and upholding the authority of the law. In asking the House to continue this Act, Her Majesty's Government propose that it should be renewed for a longer period than has hitherto been done. Looking to the aspect of the Fenian conspiracy, it is not, I think possible to anticipate that things will assume so favourable a condition as would justify the House in allowing the Act for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act to expire during the present Session. I am certain it would not be safe, looking to the experience of the past, to permit the Act to expire at a time when for several months Parliament might not be sitting, and when, if there was a revival of activity, it would be impossible to obtain a renewal of these powers. What the Government therefore propose is, that, with the sanction of the House, the Act should be continued for one year longer, or till March, 1869; and provision will be made in the Bill that, in the event of Parliament not being in Session at the time, its operation will extend until three weeks after the next meeting of Parliament—so as to enable this House, in the case of a new Parliament being elected, to express its opinion at the earliest possible opportunity, whether this Act should be further continued or be allowed to expire. No one who has been actively connected with the administration of the powers given to the Government under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act can avoid being thoroughly convinced of all the inconveniences and dangers which attend the conferring of such powers on the Executive. I own that in the suspension of that which we all regard as a great bulwark of our liberties there are disadvantages of the very greatest magnitude, and therefore in asking for the renewal of these powers I do not wish to conceal from the House the gravity of the proceeding. But I believe there is not a man in Ireland really anxious for the peace and wellbeing of the country who does not know that an absolute necessity exists for this measure, and who would not experience something like a feeling of dismay if he thought the House would not continue it for a certain time longer. No
  784
  doubt it is a measure which nothing but the greatest necessity and the gravest national peril could justify; but I think it is clear from the experience of the past that, with all the objections and drawbacks which naturally surround them, these great powers can be exercised and administered without any real danger to the liberties of the people. The Habeas Corpus Act has now been suspended in Ireland for a considerable period; yet nobody can fairly say that in consequence thereof there is not as much freedom of action, freedom of discussion, freedom of thought, freedom of writing and speaking in that country as in any other part of the kingdom. Indeed, the only freedom which has really been interfered with under this measure is the freedom to rebel, and that has been thoroughly and completely restrained. Therefore, it is with the fullest conviction of the absolute necessity of the case—and also with the feeling that if the Government is further intrusted with these powers, we shall be able to exercise them, as we have hitherto done, without interfering with the constitutional privileges of our fellow-subjects, in the most efficacious way for the speedy repression and, I hope, the ultimate extinction of this painful conspiracy—that I now have no hesitation in asking the House for leave to introduce this Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to further continue the Act of the twenty-ninth year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one, intituled "An Act to empower the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland to apprehend and detain for a limited time such Persons as he or they shall suspect of conspiring against Her Majesty's Person and Government."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he should have been surprised if the Government had not brought in this Bill; but he must say he was much surprised at the manner in which they had brought it in. He should have imagined after all the discussions which had been going on in England, after all the speeches made upon every platform in England during the last six months, after the expression of the opinion by statesmen of all parties, and even by leading Members of the Government that the Irish question was one which recommended itself to the Government's grave and serious consideration, that they would not have had a Bill introduced for the continuance of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland preceding any Notice

  785
  given or Motion made for any measure for the amelioration or the pacification of Ireland. His noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given no notice of any measure on the Irish Church, on the land question, or on education—the three great questions which agitated the public mind in Ireland. He (Mr. Bagwell) could not but regret his noble Friend's reticence on these vital subjects, because like every other Irish gentleman, he (Mr. Bagwell) was sincerely anxious to strengthen the hands of the Government in repressing a conspiracy dangerous alike to Ireland and England. It must be the object of every Irish gentleman to strengthen the hands of the Government; but what were they to think if the Government said, "We propose nothing for the amelioration of the country?" He was much afraid it was the old story—the twice-told tale of coercion, coercion, coercion—and nothing but coercion. In the course of the observations made by his noble Friend, he said the great object the Government had in view was prevention. But there was a speech made at the end of the autumnal Session by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, in which he said that the funeral processions with reference to the Manchester men were strictly legal. He thought his noble Friend said the same thing in this House. [The Earl of MAYO: I never said anything of the sort.] Well, but did his noble Friend mean to say that Lord Derby had not said the processions were not illegal and could not be stopped? Did his noble Friend mean to say that his chief had not said that? If Lord Derby had not said so, then the people of the United Kingdom had been grossly misled by the newspaper press. The processions did take place with the consent and approbation, he might say, of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. After the procession in Dublin the Government thought the thing was going rather too fax, and they stopped all further processions; and not only that, but they actually prosecuted people for attending a gathering which the head of the executive power in this country had declared was perfectly legal. Now, if that was prevention he did not know the meaning of the term. He must say that the noble Lord (the Earl of Mayo) had made an exceedingly temperate speech—a speech which, if it had been preceded by a Notice of any measure which the Government thought fit to bring forward for the amelioration or pacification of Ireland, he (Mr. Bagwell) would
  786
  be the last man in that House to find fault with. The noble Lord had made a speech upon a subject with which he was thoroughly conversant—a speech most creditable to him under the circumstances of grave difficulty in which he was placed. Now, the noble Lord said, that all through this Fenian conspiracy only eleven farmers were found to be connected with it in Ireland. He (Mr. Bagwell) had not thought there were so many; but his noble Friend took very good care not to say how much sympathy with the conspiracy was shown by the farmers of Ireland. There were two ways of promoting rebellion—one was by a man openly taking the field at the risk of life and liberty, and defying the power of the Crown; another way was to sympathize with rebels, and do all in one's power to shelter them from the consequences of their acts. Now, if the farmers of Ireland were contented, would they be sympathizers with that state of crime and rebellion which they knew must be more injurious to their interests than to those of any other class in the country? If sympathy were not shown by the farmers, this conspiracy could not be carried on for a week by those wretched people who talked sedition in public houses, aided by a few "rowdies" from America; and what was more, it would not be sympathized with if the Government brought in measures which would satisfy the Irish people. He should like to know whether the Bill now about to be brought in was exactly the same as the last one? [The Earl of MAYO: It is.] He (Mr. Bagwell) was glad to hear it. He concurred in the expediency of continuing the Act for a considerable time, as it was highly undesirable that irritating measures of this description should be constantly brought under renewal. He must bear testimony to the mildness with which the powers given by the last Bill were exercised. The police and the magistrates had acted admirably; and he must also say that if any mistakes had been committed, the blame lay with the Government, who directed the police and the magistrates, and not with either of the latter. Now, he did hope that in the course of discussions which would shortly be raised, the Government would tell the House and the country what they really meant to do. They had been asked that very night, and on the previous night as well, when they meant to bring in the promised Bill for the reform of the representation of the people in Ireland. Well, that had been

  787
  put off yesterday, and on that evening also no satisfactory answer had been given to the question. The question would be asked of the Government next week whether they intended to bring in a measure to satisfy the tenant farmers of Ireland? Would the same answer be given that had been given to the question respecting the Irish Reform Bill? There was a question to be put by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), and it was to be hoped that in the discussion which would ensue upon it the Government would tell the House what they were about to do—because he declared that if the present Government had not made up their minds to take up and deal with the Irish question, they ought not to be allowed to sit longer on the Treasury Benches. He said that without the slightest wish to replace them by Gentlemen sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House, because he thought, from the composition of the present Government, they were more Irish than a Government composed of Gentlemen now in Opposition would be. He had no intention of opposing the introduction, of the Bill, but sincerely hoped the Government would declare what their policy towards Ireland would be.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Earl of MAYO, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 28.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Committee of Public Accounts nominated:—Mr. CHILDERS, Viscount CRANBORNE, Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON, Mr. HANKEY, Mr. HOWES, Mr. HUNT, Mr. LAING, Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, and Mr. SEELY.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock, till Monday next.