Commons Sitting of 17 March 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland) appointed; on Shannon River nominated; on Poor Rates Assessment, &c. Mr. Woodd and Mr. Shaw-Lefevre added; on Lee River Conservancy nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [March 16] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund (£362,398 19 s. 9d.)
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Elementary Education; Reformatory Schools (Ireland)*; Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment.*
First Reading—Elementary Education [64]; Reformatory Schools (Ireland)* [65].
Second Reading—County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) [33].
Committee—Sea Fisheries* [42]; Fairs (Ireland)* [48].
Report—Sea Fisheries* [42]; Fairs (Ireland)* [48].
Considered as amended—Compulsory Church Rates Abolition [59].

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.

  RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th February],
  "That the Committee of Selection may, if they think fit, refer any Private Bills to the Referees, instead of to a Committee of the House, with power to the Referees to inquire into the whole subject-matter of such Bills, and to report them with or without Amendments, to the House."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, the Chairman of Ways and Means proposed to leave to the Committee of Selection the discretion of sending any Private Bill to a Committee of Referees instead of to a Committee of the House. That at once raised the question of the number who should compose the Committee of Referees. He did not wish it to be supposed that he had any complaint to make with respect to the con-
  1798
  duct of the Referees. These gentlemen, he thought, had done their duty very diligently and effectually, and he would leave undisturbed in their hands all questions of locus standi. He had heard many complaints brought against the Committees. For instance, it was alleged that a Chairman must either be very inefficient or very stupid who could not secure the adhesion of one member to his own particular views, and in that case the whole case was entirely in his hands. This arose from, the Chairman having a double or casting vote. A Committee of five would work much better than a Committee of four, and it would get rid of the objectionable double vote of the Chairman. The Committee of Standing Orders had come to the unanimous conclusion that, instead of having a Court of Referees as it had existed for a short time, or as it was proposed to establish it, it would be better that Private Bills should be referred in the ordinary manner to Committees, which should consist of four Members of the House and a Referee, and that every Committee should have the advantage of the presence and assistance of a Referee, who should have a vote, but the Chairman always to be a Member of the House. He could see that, were a Committee composed of two Members of the House and two Referees, difficulties would arise; because in cases where differences of opinion arose it would be inconvenient to discuss the question in the House where the Referees could not attend to uphold their decision. With the concurrence, therefore, of the Committee on Standing Orders, he had resolved to move an Amendment to the Resolution of the hon. Member the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "may" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "refer any opposed Private Bill, or any Group of such Bills, to a Committee consisting of Four Members and a Referee,"—(Lord Hotham,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, as he was supposed to be the father of the Court of Referees, he wished to say a few words. The Standing Order which was now under discussion was debated by the House under very different circumstances to what they were now placed in, and a

  1799
  larger number of Members of the House had recently been elected who had no knowledge of the defects and inconveniences of the old system. The Court of Referees was established in 1865, and had saved much time and expense. At the time when it was instituted there were no less than 600 Private Bills before Parliament, and the Committee of Selection experienced the greatest difficulty in appointing Committees to try them. After considering the matter a small number of Members who took interest in the Private Business of the House unanimously adopted a Resolution that the organization of the Committees was very defective; that it was totally impossible to transact Private Business in a satisfactory manner owing to its great extent, and that it was highly desirable that some improvements should be effected. Although in the present Session there was less Private Business than in any Session for the last ten years, it would be unwise for the House to revert to the old system, under which, in nine cases out of ten, they had a tribunal which was weaker than the Bar practising before it. The consequence was, that talented lawyers induced the Committees to come to almost any vote they liked, and the most contradictory decisions were given. The time of the Committees was, moreover, occupied with the most frivolous examinations regarding matters that had no particular bearing upon the point at issue. It had therefore been arranged that these Bills should be separated into two parts—one relating to the public merits of the Bill, and the other to the construction of any works under it; and it was recommended that all the statistics and the engineering points should be inquired into by a distinct tribunal. That created a double inquiry, which was no doubt attended with some inconvenience; but, on the whole, the Court of Referees had answered the purpose for which it was instituted, having effected a very great saving of time and expense. Previous to the establishment of the Court of Referees, the most extravagant expense was caused to the promoters of Private Bills. One railway company, for instance, spent £52,000, not in carrying a Bill through Parliament, but in defending itself against the attacks of other companies, not one-tenth of which would have been expended had the Court of Referees been in existence. Another company had incurred an expense of upwards of £60,000. He would therefore strongly urge the
  1800
  House not to go back again to the old system. Inclosure Bills and Pier and Harbour Bills were now dealt with entirely out of that House, and yet that class of improvements were as numerous now as they had previously been. He was perfectly convinced that the fears of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that if they referred Bills to a tribunal not composed of Members of that House they would prevent many good works from being executed, were entirely groundless. He did not see, if they got a good tribunal, and if the House was represented by one experienced Member in that tribunal, why the House should feel less confidence in it than in a tribunal entirely composed of its own Members. The old system was discreditable; and he thought that if they acceded to the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means, they would secure to the House every proper control which it ought to possess. He should support that Gentleman's Motion if it were pressed to a division.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he thought it very important for the House to keep the control of private legislation in its own hands, and not delegate it to Referees, as was proposed. Committees of the House, and he believed a Royal Commission, had recommended that the House should not part with its jurisdiction to any judicial tribunal, or to any tribunal not composed to some extent of Members of the House. He did not understand upon what principle a selection was to be made. What were the Bills to be referred to an ordinary Committee of the House? and what were the Bills that were to be referred to the Court of Referees? He understood that the Bills to be referred to the Court of Referees would not be measures of first-rate importance, containing matters involving any new policy. Such Bills were to go to the ordinary Committee; and that the Bills to be referred to the Court of Referees would be rather of a routine nature, of which the Court of Referees could dispose. He did not think that point had been made clear, and he begged of his hon. Friend to explain it. He (Mr. M. Gibson) had been always of opinion that the establishment of a Court of Referees to find facts for another Committee was a bad arrangement, and any experience they had previously showed that it would not work efficiently. He believed that the Court of Referees had employed itself in minute inquiries into facts that might not be considered material by

  1801
  the Committee on the Bill, and therefore unnecessary expense was thrown upon the parties. He would offer an Amendment, to the effect that the Court of Referees should consist of four, and that not less than three of the four should be Members of the House. That would be midway between the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) and of the noble Lord (Lord Hotham).
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that he was glad to find that all the Gentlemen who had Amendments on this subject upon the Paper were opposed to the system of double inquiry. There were three proposals before the House: that by the Chairman of Ways and Means for a Court of two Members and two Referees; that of the noble Lord for one of four Members and one Referee; and that of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for three Members and one Referee. He would consider all three proposals. It was feared that in practice it would be impossible, under such a system as that proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, to prevent parties interested in the questions decided by the Referees from bringing them back to the House for discussion, and it was on that account that he preferred the plan of the noble Lord. Again, he reminded the House that the number of Members serving on Private Bill Committees was reduced from five to four, simply for the purpose of relieving the House; and the operation of the new system had shown the force of the argument made use of when it was first proposed, that the reduction would throw too much power into the hands of the Chairman The objects of appointing Referees were to relieve the House of a certain part of its business, to secure certain engineering knowledge in the examination of plans, and above all, to secure similarity of decisions and this last mentioned purpose would be provided for by the appointment of a Referee upon each Committee according to the noble Lord's proposal. If the House adopted the Amendment, a sufficient number of Referees had already been appointed to enable the experiment to be tried at once, whereas the plan of the Chairman of Ways and Means could not be brought into operation this year.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he understood the proposal of the hon. Gentle man the Chairman of Ways and Means to be a proposal for a continuity of policy in the proceedings of Private Committees;
  1802
  and as a reform in that direction, though a feeble and inadequate reform, he hailed it gladly. He entreated hon. Members to look beyond mere technical details, and ask themselves whether the machinery by which they had hitherto administered the railway business of the House had produced results of which to be proud. Hitherto it had been the most planless and purposeless system, if he could give it the name of system, that ever was known. No kind of rule had been laid down for the guidance of the Committees, amidst the manifold complications of the questions that had arisen. Were the Committees to be looked on as judicial tribunals or as legislative tribunals? If as the former they had this remarkable peculiarity, that the proceedings were carried on at the maximum of expense, and there was no element in the tribunals which secured continuity of policy or consistency of decision. The Committee of this year was not the Committee of next year; there was no legislation from without to control them; they could produce no precedents from within by which they could be guided. The result was that, except in purity of purpose and honesty, they had no single attribute such as one was accustomed to find in judicial tribunals in a civilized country. On the other hand, if they were not judicial tribunals, but fragments of the Legislature—and if the extraordinary theory were adopted that each fragment possessed in itself all the wisdom of the whole Legislature combined—how was it that the Committee of Selection did not form these Committees from the whole House, or from the best Members in it? The fact was that the Committee of Selection made their choice on the principle of getting on Private Bill Committees those who had nothing to do. If the Committee of Selection had swept the Treasury Bench in order to find Members for the Private Committees he was certain that the present system would not have endured five hours; but it was because they had to deal with Members who did not take a leading part in the debates, and could not resist the compulsion put upon them, that the contrary system had lasted so long. He (Viscount Cranborne) had constantly tried to stimulate the Committee of Selection into boldly choosing from the prominent Members of the House, but they had never answered his challenge, being always ready to excuse those who had much public or official business to

  1803
  attend to. This was not a question of theory merely, but one of practice. What had the system effected? It had produced a series of railways at enormous cost, without plan, and with a waste of capital more colossal than ever happened in the history of the world before. Had the public gained by it? Let any hon. Gentleman who entertained a doubt on the point compare the fares charged on the Continent with those charged in this country. On the Continent the Governments exercised a very strong power in selecting what lines should be constructed; in England the lines were allowed to construct themselves very much as they liked, and the result had been that many lines which paid had to charge the public for branch lines which did not pay. As a rule, the lines going through agricultural districts were losing speculations, unless they connected two great centres of population. The companies, in order to recoup themselves, had charged the paying portions of their systems, and had obtained from lines uniting great centres of population very considerable fares, which, when compared with the fares on the Continent, showed a difference of 25 per cent, or 50 per cent, or even of 100 per cent. While the capital expended on the Continent had produced paying lines, there had been in England a vast amount of capital sunk into the sea, and the capital which remained had to pay for the loss. Therefore, he considered the existing mode of conducting the Private Bill business to be unwise and practically unjust. The cause of its failure was that it proceeded on no plan or system; but it was a mere proceeding of haphazard, according to the accident of the selection of the Chairman or Members of Committees, or according to the talent of the counsel appearing before them. The result had been that they showed no adequate return for the capital expended, so that we saw on the one hand ruined shareholders, and on the other hand the public charged fares much above those of Continental traffic. On these grounds he thought the House ought not to cling too closely to the remains of a system which had completely failed; but rather encourage the Chairman of Committees to do what he was now attempting to secure—more continuity of decision and policy. That could only be done by referring the very considerable mass of their business to those who did not change from year to year. That, he believed, was most likely to produce a
  1804
  system that would be wholesome and beneficial to the country; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would proceed with the scheme he had taken in hand.
  MR. LAINGobserved, that the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means embraced two points—the improvement of Committees and the machinery by which they adjudicated on a large class of Private Business, and also a question of policy—namely, whether competition was to be admitted or not. The two had a very material bearing on each other. He would make a very few remarks on the question of the constitution of the Committees with a view to obtain what was most desirable, greater continuity of decisions. It was desirable not merely that the tribunals should be of a uniform description, but much more on the class of matters now referred to them. The great defect in the private legislation of the House was not so much the constitution of the tribunal, but in referring to them a great mass of matters which ought to have been settled on some broad principle of legislation. The question of competing lines and monopoly should not have been referred to those Committees. No question was more important than that referred to by the noble Lord, whether they should have adopted a system of regulated monopoly or free trade in railways. Twenty years ago that question was of the greatest possible importance, when an outlay of £500,000,000 was to be expended, and the whole system of the communications of the country depended on its right decision. It was now practically useless to go back and inquire whether that was right or wrong. It was sufficient to say that this system was proposed by the Report of Lord Dalhousie's Commission, which had been a good deal canvassed. A great deal was said on both sides. He was not going to argue that the decision come to by Parliament was entirely wrong and destitute of foundation, for though the opposite system might have produced great advantages, such as terminal concessions, it was unsuited to the genius of the English nation, and the policy adopted had the effect of giving the country a greater number of miles of railway within a limited period than could otherwise have been secured. That was a great advantage to the country, although, undoubtedly, the shareholders had suffered. But if it were adopted it ought to be carried out to its legitimate consequences. Nothing was more absurd than to say they

  1805
  would not have regulated monopoly, and yet subject railways made under a system of free competition to all the expenses and restrictions which would have been imposed on those going on the opposite principle. He arrived at this practical conclusion, that the proper way to deal with this question would be to take up the broad general principles that should regulate railway legislation and embody them in a general Act, leaving little or nothing for investigation before Committees. A Bill might be brought in consisting of only two clauses. Anyone might make a railway anywhere provided he deposited sufficient security for giving compensation to those whose interests were effected thereby, and existing railways should be at liberty to do anything they liked consistently with the objects for which they were made, and without prejudice to the existing state of things. This mode of proceeding would save a great deal of labour to the House, and extricate them from the difficulties in which they were now involved. The proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means was an improvement; but the much larger question should be dealt with by general legislation.
  MR. HENLEYadmitted the difficulty of this question; but he could not admit that no attempt had been made to lay down the policy of railway legislation. A very great effort had been made in that direction, under Lord Dalhousie, by a very able and powerful Government. He cordially agreed with the noble Lord as to the desirableness of keeping up as far as possible what was called the continuity of decisions, and at the same time preventing questions on Private Bills coming back for decision to the floor of that House; for it must be remembered those questions would come back from where they had been heard on evidence on both sides, with the assistance of counsel, to where they would be decided without hearing evidence on either. He was one of those who thought the railway system of the country, so quickly developed as it had been, had proved of the greatest possible advantage to the community, although, as in the case of canals and roads, the unfortunate shareholders had suffered. No doubt about it, it was the branches that did not pay; but yet rival companies had fought with the greatest vigour to secure them as an advantage to themselves, and, at all events, prevent them falling into the hands of their competitors. On the whole, he
  1806
  thought they should keep their Committees strong, in order to prevent questions coming back for decision to the floor of the House, which, in his estimation, would be a great misfortune.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that having at a former period paid considerable attention to this subject, he wished to say a few words before the House went to a division. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), and altogether differed from the noble Lord who spoke before him (Viscount Cranborne), with regard to the Members who constituted Committees. He remembered when means were taken to obtain a rather more permanent and settled administration in regard to railways by the establishment of a Chairman's Panel, a person of no less consideration than the Foreign Secretary devoted himself to the management of that Committee, and gave a great deal of very useful attention to the subject. So also when the Great Northern Railway was brought forward the President of the Poor Law Board, who was at that time a very useful Member of the House of Commons, acted as Chairman of the Committee. It was not just, therefore, to say that Members of the Private Bill Committees were selected on the ground that they had nothing else to do. The question of railways was a legislative and not a judicial one. Parliament had to take care that due consideration was given to the great railway companies who had expended an enormous capital for the benefit of the public; but they had also to take care that that consideration was not extended beyond proper limits, and the question, therefore, was whether this point was to be determined by Members who were responsible to that House, or by persons out of doors, who would have no responsibility, and whose designs would be in some measure arbitrary. He felt certain that no tribunal would be endured for long which was not responsible to that House for its decisions, The Government of Sir Robert Peel appointed a body under Lord Dalhousie to deal with these questions. Their ability was unquestioned; but their Resolutions were not only treated with indifference, but there was even a feeling, however it was to be accounted for, that their approval was an argument against the plan. Subsequent attempts had been made at legislation, which had not proved satisfactory. It was now proposed to take some step in order to secure greater permanence and regularity in the proceedings of these

  1807
  Railway Committees, and the noble Lord the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee acquiesced in the proposal that there should be some permanent element introduced into them, while at the same time he objected to that permanent element being so large as to be equi-pollent with the Members of the House. In his opinion, the advice of the noble Lord was sound and wise, and the House ought to adopt it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that two or three years ago the Commission appointed to inquire into the operation of the railway system throughout this country had incidentally to inquire into many of the questions that had arisen in the course of this discussion, and they submitted for the consideration of the Government, and of that House, some principles which they laid down for the regulation of future railway legislation, and those principles were in accordance rather with the proposition of the noble Lord than with that of the hon. Member. The Commission in their Report particularly directed attention to the difficulties in which the House was placed in dealing with the capital of railways. The House was almost always imposed upon by the promoters of railway companies upon this subject, and the result was that great injustice was frequently done. The House should decline to deal with the question of capital, and should require all companies which applied for powers for constructing new lines to fulfil all the requirements of the law necessary to enable them to make their appearance before Parliament as joint-stock companies. He objected to any company having a monopoly of any particular district, and wished to see the principles of free trade adopted with regard to them. It was impossible that any general scheme for laying down railways throughout the country could be carried into effect by the permanent element it was proposed to introduce into the Private Bill Committees. If Parliament wished that some such plan should be devised they must themselves lay down the plan that was to be carried out, and not leave the matter to the mere arbitrary decision of some three or four gentlemen. The Commission proposed that while the Committees should retain their present form, they should be assisted by the Board of Trade, which was to call their attention to all questions affecting the public interest. He thought that these recommendations were well worthy the consideration of the House.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was glad to find a general concurrence in the two first propositions he had made—namely, to substitute for the purely Parliamentary Committee a mixed tribunal, and to abolish the divided inquiry. The question now at issue was the minor one, of what number the tribunal should consist. He originally proposed that the tribunal should consist of four persons, and that not less than two of them, including the Chairman, who had the casting vote, should be Members of the House. By this, he thought he had sufficiently secured the preponderance of the legislative element in the tribunal; but the Committee of Standing Orders seemed to think the official element would be still too strong, and proposed that the Committee should be assisted by only one Referee. The noble Lord (Lord Hotham), however, proposed that the Committee should consist of the old number of five members, including the one Referee. Against these two propositions they had the alternative suggestion from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milnor Gibson) that the Parliamentary Committee should continue to consist, as at present, of four members, including the official Referee. He had told the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee of Standing Orders that, although he had a preference for his own scheme, he would willingly acquiesce in the proposal of the Committee, if it were approved by the House, and, of course, he would stand by that promise; but if he were permitted to re-consider the whole matter in the light of the alternative proposal made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, he would prefer to accept that middle course, and he hoped the Standing Orders Committee would do the same.
  MR. GLADSTONEsupported the Chairman of Ways and Means in his amended proposal, which combined the introduction of a permanent element to the Parliamentary tribunal with the minimum of change. There was a great difficulty in finding Members, and four had been found a sufficient number for the constitution of these tribunals.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he hoped the House would continue to adopt the uneven number. Three was the number that had originally been proposed; but the inconvenience that would occur was set forth if one Member should be attacked by illness. He did not altogether approve the introduction of a permanent element to the

  1809
  Committee, because it was questionable whether an official would not have a tendency to run too much in one groove.
  MR. WOODDsaid, he should support the proposition of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He thought, considering the difficulty of obtaining Members, that four would be sufficient.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEthought their thanks were due to the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee of Standing Orders for the Motion he had brought forward. He contended that, if the number four were open to objection on account of the power thereby lodged in the hands of the Chairman, it was not right that Railway Bills, involving large monetary interests, should be intrusted to the decisions of Committees composed of that number, unless they were prepared to reduce the number of Members of Election Committees.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEthought the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. Gibson) might be regarded as a fair compromise. He had already expressed his opinion on this question, and would not now detain the House. He had merely risen, as there seemed to be some little confusion in point of form, for the purpose of suggesting that the Motion of his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means should be withdrawn, and that the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) should be put as a substantive Motion, in which case the right hon. Gentleman might move, as an Amendment, the substitution of the word "three" for "four."
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Committee of Selection may refer any opposed Private Bill, or any Group of such Bills, to a Committee consisting of Four Members and a Referee."—(Lord Hotham.)
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Four," in order to insert the word "Three,"—(Mr. Miner Gibson,)—instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the word 'Four' stand part of the Question."
  MR. WATKINenforced the argument employed by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee), and contended that in a Committee composed of four members the Chairman would be in-
  1810
  trusted with too much power. He thought that the argument used in favour of a Committee of four—that it would save the time of the House—was not very forcible, as there was a great deal of unemployed labour in the House available for Committee work, for more than two-thirds of the Members elected in the last Parliament had never served on Private Committees. They would not have four as a number for an Election Committee, and why should they have it for Committees before which important commercial issues were brought?
  MR. BONHAM - CARTERsaid, that the number four was arrived at by a kind of haphazard course. There were Members present who knew of cases where the casting vote had to be exercised, and how unpleasant it was. He reminded the House that the Committee on Standing Orders had reported in favour of the Committees being composed of an even number of Members. It was hoped that the addition of an official Member as Referee would shorten the labours of the Committees, as it might lead to opposition being offered to a fewer number of Bills.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, the argument used by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) against the number being fixed at four was the very argument which had led to that number being recommended, it being thought that it would be desirable to give a preponderating weight to the Chairman, whose opinion, from his knowledge of public business, was entitled to more consideration than that of other Members. In his view of the case it gave greater strength to the tribunal, and it was for this reason the number four was originally adopted.
  The House divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 159: Majority 3.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection may refer any opposed Private Bill, or any Group of such Bills, to a Committee, consisting of Four Members and a Referee.
  MR. DODSONnext proposed the repeal of Standing Orders 93, 95, 96, and 97, relating to the divided inquiry before the Referees and Committees. Considering the length to which the discussion upon Private Business had extended he should probably be consulting the convenience of the House if, after that Motion had been carried, he abstained on the present occasion from pressing the other alterations contemplated by his Notice of Motion.
  LORD HOTHAMpresumed that what his hon. Friend was now moving had only for its object to carry out the vote at which the House had just arrived.
  MR. DODSONsaid, it was only to get rid of the double inquiry.
  Standing Orders 93, 95, 96, and 97 read, and repealed.
  Standing Order 131 (Competition to be a ground of locus standi) read.
  MR. DODSONproposed that the remaining Motions should be postponed till that day week.
  MR. BOUVERIEinquired whether it was the intention of his hon. Friend to bring the mutter on again at that date?
  MR. DODSON: Certainly, if it met the convenience of the House.
  Further Consideration of said Standing Order deferred till Tuesday next.

TURKEY—SANITARY REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any explanation to give on a late order of the Turkish Government, whereby sailing vessels passing through the Bosphorus from ports affected with cholera are exposed to a great aggravation of the difficulties of navigation between the Black Sea and Mediterranean; and whether (in the absence of the Report of the Cholera Congress, 1866) that of the British Cholera Commissioners will be forthwith distributed?
  LORD STANLEY: I suppose, Sir, the order referred to by the hon. Member's Question is one by which it has become necessary for sailing vessels passing through the Bosphorus to be towed by a steamship, whether they come with a clean or a foul bill of health. I do not think the House would thank me for going into details upon that question. But I may say that the Board of Health at Constantinople has proposed to dispense with this obligation in certain cases. And Her Majesty's Government, together with the Governments of some other Powers, have remonstrated against the indiscriminate enforcement of a rule which appears to us needlessly severe, and in favour of the more mitigated and moderate view taken by the Board of Health. However, the matter is still under discussion at Constantinople, and no result has yet been arrived at. In reply to the
  1812
  second part of the Question, I have to state that there is no collective Report of the Cholera Congress, but the Report of the British Cholera Commissioners will shortly appear with other Papers relating to the same subject.

  THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.—QUESTION.
  SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, dated 31st March, 1867, was not distributed till the second week in September; and, whether the Report for 1868 will be accessible to Members of Parliament and the public at an early period of the present Session?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUreplied, that the Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council must be laid on the table of the House on April 14 of every year; that was to say, fourteen days after it had been presented to the Privy Council. Last year the printing of the Appendix, which was large and contained many maps, was unavoidably delayed. This year, however, he hoped that it would be in the hands of Members immediately after the Easter Recess.

CASE OF THE "SPRINGBOK."

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table all Papers relating to the capture and condemnation of the Springbok by the United States Government, and especially the Letter to Lord Stanley on behalf of the owners of the Springbok's cargo, dated the 5th day of February last, covering the joint opinion of Mr. Mellish, Q.C., and Mr. W. Vernon Harcourt, Q.C., and other Enclosures?
  LORD STANLEY: All the papers, Sir, in the Springbok case are at present before the Law Officers of the Crown, and until I have seen their opinions on the case it is impossible for me to answer my hon. Friend's Question.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUELSONsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he can

  1813
  state when the replies of our Legations to the questions addressed to them on the subject of technical education abroad will be in the hands of Members?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, in reply, that the Reports from the Secretaries of Legation were already in type, and formed a thick octavo volume. Of the documents which were transmitted therewith precis were being made in English. About half of these documents, on upwards of 2,500 printed pages, had been finished by the translators, and reduced to about 200 pages of printed matter. The other half would be finished in about two months. The countries of which the translations were complete were Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Bavaria, Prussia, and the Hanse Towns. France was partly finished. There remained to be done Switzerland, Austria, and the greater part of France.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR DICKSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If it is his intention to extend the Contagious Diseases Act of 1866 to Dover?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to apply the provisions of this Act to Dover, or any other town, until proper hospital accommodation was provided. It might be satisfactory to his hon. and gallant Friend to know that a hospital would be opened at Dover about May next.

ARMY—SHOEBURYNESS EXPERIMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Wan, Whether it be true that on a recent occasion when trials were made at Shoeburyness to ascertain the quality of Iron Plates or Bars supplied under contract by the Millwall Iron Company, certain Plates or Bars under trial were found to be heated, such heating having been effected without the permission and without the knowledge of the Commandant or any other responsible Government officer; if so, whether inquiry has been made into the circumstances. Whether he will lay upon the table any Correspondence which followed the discovery that the Iron had been heated; and, whether it is proposed to take steps with a view to more efficient custody of Iron Plates daring trials?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that he was very sorry to say it was true that at the recent trials at Shoeburyness certain plates or bars under trial were found to be heated, and this had been done without the permission or knowledge of the Commandant or any other Government officer. He would have no objection to lay upon the table copies of a letter from the Colonel Commandant and his (Sir John Pakington's) reply, being the only correspondence that took place on the subject. The occurrence referred to had been discovered by the vigilance of the Colonel Commandant.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask whether the bars at Shoeburyness had been ever heated by the permission of the Colonel Commandant?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he believed that occasionally, under peculiar circumstances, the iron had been heated for trial. But in those cases permission from the Commandant had been given.

IRELAND—TREATMENT OF MESSRS. SULLIVAN AND PIGOTT.—QUESTION.
MR. STOCKsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott, the prisoners in Ireland convicted of seditious libels, are subject to all the restrictions and regulations imposed on ordinary convicts, with the exception of not being compelled to wear the prison dress and to live on prison diet; whether they are subject to twenty-two hours' solitary confinement per diem; and, whether the law authorizes similar treatment of persons convicted in England of seditious writing?
THE EARL OF MAYO: Sir, it is not true that the prisoners, Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott, convicted of seditious libels, have been subjected to all the restrictions and regulations imposed on ordinary convicts, with the exception of not being compelled to wear the prison dress and to live on prison diet. The by-laws which regulate the prisoners in the Richmond Bridewell are prepared by a Board of Superintendence and sanctioned by the Municipal Council of Dublin and approved by the Lord Lieutenant. The rules with regard to cleaning the cells, clothing, diet, the number of visitors, the time for putting out lights, and the presence of the Governor during the visits of their friends, have all been relaxed to a considerable extent in reference to these prisoners, who, I am

1815
informed, have not made any complaint with regard to their treatment except in one particular, which is at present under consideration. The time allowed for exercise is three hours and a half a day. These hours of exercise would be extended if it were thought necessary, and if a desire to that effect were expressed on the part of the prisoners. I understand that one of the prisoners, Mr. Sullivan, has already expressed himself desirous of not being required to exercise for more than one hour during the day, and therefore the rule has been altered in his case. There are no means in the Richmond Bridewell of keeping prisoners in association, and therefore it is necessary that these persons should remain in their cells. I apprehend, however, that they would not desire to be placed in association, even if it were possible. In regard to the general instructions given with respect to these prisoners, the Governor of the gaol has been informed that he is at liberty to relax the rules of the prison as he may think necessary or desirable, provided it can be done consistently with the discipline of the gaol, the safety of the prisoners, and the proper execution of the sentences passed upon these prisoners.

THE MUTINY BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will undertake that the Mutiny Bill shall be printed and circulated to Members for forty-eight hours before the Second Reading is moved?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: In answer, Sir, to the Question of my hon. Friend, I beg to state that it is not my intention to alter the rule followed by my predecessors with respect to the Mutiny Bill. I intend to adhere to the practice of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) of bringing in the intended alterations in the Mutiny Bill on a separate paper.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet intends to introduce the paper before the second reading of the Bill?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: No; but before the Committee on the Bill.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he must complain that such an arrangement would be very inconvenient to those Members who desired to introduce modifications into the Bill.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he wished to
1816
know when the right hon. Baronet intended to go on with the Army Estimates?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: If my noble Friend (the Earl of Mayo) gets leave to introduce the Irish Reform Bill early on Thursday, and if the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) will postpone the Motion which he has placed on the Paper for that evening, I shall bring on the Army Estimates on Thursday.
MR. SANDFORDsaid, he wished to give notice that, in consequence of the reply which had been given respecting the Mutiny Bill, which certainly was not an answer to the Question, he would bring the subject before the House, as it was quite impossible that hon. Members could give notice of Amendments if the Bill were not printed earlier than it had been hitherto.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have virtually answered the observations of the hon. Member, and it is not my intention to depart from the practice of my predecessors.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. BRUCE, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for Elementary Education in England and Wales, said, he believed no opposition would be offered to the Motion. It would be convenient to the House and to many persons outside it that he should state shortly the provisions of the Bill, and point out more especially its variations from the Bill of last year. The Bill he proposed last year might be briefly described as one for permissive rating. Its object was to give every community throughout the country the power of raising funds to provide a sufficient education for the inhabitants of the district. If such a Bill would not have accomplished all that was to be desired it would, at least, have afforded a means of reducing evils the existence of which all deplored. He had no doubt such a Bill would have been adopted in many most important centres of population. The most cheering results had followed a similar experiment in Canada, where, under a permissive Bill, the country had been covered with schools, supported out of the rates with a liberality which even exceeded that of the State of New York, where education was compulsory. He was bound to say that many thought the Bill of last year did not go far enough, and throughout the country,

  1817
  wherever he had consulted those who took a deep interest in the matter, he found the feeling was almost universal that a permissive Bill alone would be insufficient. It was argued that, although, undoubtedly, the primary duty of providing education for children rested with the parents, it was obligatory upon the State to see that they performed their duty, and that obligation could not be fulfilled under any merely permissive Bill. It was said that if it rested with a municipality to take an initiative which it was indisposed to take in the way of supplying a deficiency of school accommodation, there would still be thousands of children uneducated. Such a conclusion pointed inevitably to the necessity for some compulsory measure. He yielded to the arguments that were so advanced, and he undertook that in the Bill it was his intention to introduce this year means should be provided to meet the case of an indifferent local authority. Therefore, the present Bill contained all the main principles and provisions of the Bill of 1867, with the addition of machinery for its compulsory enforcement where the existence of educational destitution had, after formal inquiry, been proved. It did not propose to interfere or to give any power of interference with districts adequately supplied under the existing voluntary system. It provided in the first place for the voluntary adoption of the Act, first, by all municipal boroughs and places under the jurisdiction of a local Board, or of Commissioners or trustees intrusted by any local Act with powers of improvement, &c.; secondly, by all unions which are not coextensive with or included in the places before mentioned; thirdly, by special districts formed under an Order in Council; and fourthly, by the union of districts, or of parts of parishes and districts. It was obvious that, as all districts adequately supplied with schools were withdrawn from the operation of the Act, and as all boroughs and places having a Board of Health or local Commissioners would form separate districts, there must remain fragmentary portions of the country, greatly varying in extent, in population, and in the character and description of their inhabitants. These were the special districts for the formation of which very elastic powers were necessary, and this necessarily involved complicated financial arrangements. Sometimes a part of a populous and extensive parish might be formed into a school district, sometimes a combination of parishes or
  1818
  of parts of parishes might be necessary, the boundaries of which could only be fixed after careful inquiry conducted on the spot. The Committee of Council was authorized to allow the withdrawal of a parish from a union, but not from a borough or other district. The reasons for this distinction were obvious. Boroughs and Board of Health districts had common interests and a common civic life, which was not the case with the parishes forming parts of extensive unions, united together only for the administration of the Poor Law. An order for the compulsory application of the Act either to an ordinary or a special district might be made by the Committee of Council after due inquiry. This inquiry might either be demanded by one-tenth in number or rateable value of the persons who were or would be electors of the district, or it might be directed by the Committee of Council on their own authority. It would be conducted on the spot, after due notice, by a Commissioner, who would report fully to the Committee of Council, stating the reasons for the adoption of the Act and the objections, and concluding with his recommendations. The Committee of Council would thereupon make such order as they might think expedient, either enforcing or not the adoption of the Act. He now came to the constitution of the school committee. In municipal boroughs it might be elected by the Council either wholly or partly out of their own body, so that persons might be placed upon it who, not being members of the Council, were known to be specially qualified for the work. In all other districts the committee would be elected by ratepayers from among the owners and occupiers of any land, &c., in the district of an annual value of not less than £10. The numbers of the committee were to be six, nine, or twelve. They would appoint a clerk, treasurer, and inspector. The managers of every school in the district, whatever its denomination, fulfilling certain conditions, and not exacting a weekly payment of more than 9d., might apply to be received into union. If the school committee refused to admit a school into union an appeal would lie to the Committee of Council. The conditions on which they would be received into union were as follows:—1. That they shall be open to inspection both by Her Majesty's and by local Inspectors. 2. That the discipline and instructions shall be in all respects conformable to the Minutes of the Committee of Council. Provided always

  1819
  that no scholar shall be required, when attending the school, to learn any Catechism or religious formulary to which the parent in writing objects, nor to be present at any lesson, instruction, or observance to which such objection has been made. 3. That no scholar, tendering the weekly fee, shall be refused admission for any reason but mental or physical incapacity, conviction for crime, or expulsion from some other school. The managers will have power to expel for misconduct. 4. The qualifications of teachers shall, where schools are in receipt of the Parliamentary grant, be the same as those required by the Government Code. In other cases they shall be such as shall be prescribed by the school committee. 5. That the school rooms be healthy, well-ventilated, &c. 6. That they be open for forty weeks in every year on five days in each week, exclusive of Sundays, and for not less than four hours each day. The breach of these conditions would subject a school to exclusion from the union, with an appeal to the Committee of Council. There were also some general regulations as to the number of teachers, the proportion of the size of the school to the number of scholars, the payment of school fees, and the keeping of registers, for the breach of which regulations the school would be liable to lose a portion of the local grant. It would be the duty of the school committee to see that these conditions and regulations were observed, but not otherwise to interfere with the constitution, management, arrangements, discipline, or instruction of any united school. The managers might, after three months' notice, withdraw from union, or might, under certain conditions, transfer the school to the committee. It would be the duty of the committee to inquire into the school accommodation of the district. When found to be insufficient they would give notice to the district in manner specified, and any person might, within sixty days after the last notice, serve on the school committee an undertaking to provide sufficient schools within twelve months. If he failed within six months to commence work, or within eighteen months to have the school in operation, the school committee might provide it themselves. These schools might be either free or aided schools, and must be conducted in accordance with the general conditions and regulations prescribed by the Act. The committee may either manage them themselves or delegate the management to others. The school committee
  1820
  would have the same powers of contributing to industrial schools which were given to the prison authorities by the Industrial Schools Act. Provision was also made for the case of the local committee neglecting its duty in providing new schools. Power was given to the Committee of Council to inquire into the alleged neglect, to make an order limiting the time for the performance of their duty by the local committee; and to appoint a person to perform the same in the event of the order being set at nought. It would be the duty of the inspectors appointed by the school committee to inspect the united schools once every six months, and to examine those which were not in the receipt of Parliamentary grants. The schools might be admitted into union either as free or aided schools. The grants might be calculated on a scale arranged between the managers and the school committee, but not be less than the following weekly payments:—If for a free school—for a boy above six years, 6d.; for a girl above six years, 5d.; for a boy or girl under six, 4d. If the school were an aided school, the scale should be not less than one-half of the above-mentioned sums. Where the school was not in receipt of an annual grant from the Committee of Council a further grant of 2s. 4d. for every pass in reading, writing, and arithmetic would be made. Where, however, the local committee could prove to the Committee of Council that the weekly contributions were unnecessarily large, they could be reduced to the amount required for the due support of the school. No fees should be taken in free schools. In aided schools they should be on a scale arranged between the managers and the committee. The school committee might, on the application of the managers, permit them to receive, in an aided school, particular scholars or classes of scholars without any payment, or with a smaller payment than that arranged. In such cases the grant to the managers would be on the scale of scholars at free schools. The expenses of the school committee would be paid out of a fund called the school fund, raised in the following manner:—In the City of London, out of a consolidated rate; in the parishes and districts formed by the union of parishes under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, out of the general rate leviable under that Act; in boroughs, out of the borough fund or rate; in places under the jurisdiction of a local Board, out of the general district rate; in

  1821
  places under the Improvement Commissioners, &c., out of the rate leviable by them; in unions, out of the union rate. The money provided for building a new school would be charged on the parish in which the school was situate. This expense might be spread over any number of years not exceeding thirty, and the school committee might borrow money on the security of the school fund. Where the expense in providing and fitting up such school exceeded £200, half the cost would be chargeable on the owners of the rateable property. Provision was made for the audit of the accounts of every school committee. The Government code would be construed as if the contributions from the local fund arose from voluntary subscriptions. And, lastly, provision was made for night schools. He would now touch on a few points of difference between this scheme and that suggested during the Recess by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe), and which appeared to be received with considerable success by the public. His right hon. Friend proposed that the Committee of Council should immediately issue a Commission to inquire into the state and condition of the country with respect to education, and wherever it was found that the voluntary system had failed to supply a district with proper means of education, there the Act should be at once enforced. The Bill which he was now submitting to the House proceeded less sharply and summarily. First, it enabled any place which chose to adopt the Act, to do so voluntarily. Surely, the Act was more likely to work satisfactorily if towns like Manchester and Birmingham, which were alive to the wants of education, had the opportunity of adopting the Act voluntarily instead of having it forced upon them. In the next place, there would be a great disadvantage in attempting at once summarily to impose upon the country one uniform system. A national system of education could only be of gradual growth. Parliament could not, by merely wishing it, create such a system. Their fiat would be powerless for such an object. For instance, it would be impossible at once to supply all the schools of the country with proper instructors. His right hon. Friend had shown conclusively that the success of a school depended upon the efficiency of the master. But you could not at once create a supply of efficient masters. If you had a railway to make, you could insure a sufficient number of labourers; but the mere issue of an ad-
  1822
  vertisement would not give you skilled teachers. Then, again, although the voluntary system had to some extent failed, it had done a great deal, and we might fairly expect that it would do more under the gentle compulsion which would be exercised by this Bill. He believed that if it was clear to the inhabitants of a given district that, unless sufficient provision were made for education within a certain time by voluntary effort, compulsion would be used, the necessary effort would generally be made. The House would remember that, however perfect the details might appear upon paper, any scheme must depend, after all, upon the cheerful support and vigorous co-operation of the people themselves. It was so in America and in Prussia, and must of necessity be so in this country. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) was of opinion that although the Government grant might be continued as at present to schools of all denominations, that local rates should only be applied to those which were conducted upon the secular system. Now, he (Mr. Bruce) objected to this proposal. He was not one of those who spoke of secular teaching with the contempt which it sometimes met with from Gentlemen who treated this subject. On the contrary, it seemed to him that good secular instruction was absolutely necessary for the worthy reception of religious truth. It was impossible that there could be a proper understanding of the relations between man and his Creator by persons who had not received a good secular instruction. On the other hand, he admitted that the truths of religion were best taught through the medium of school instruction. Whilst, therefore, it was the duty of the State to see that good secular instruction should be offered, it was equally its duty to see that religious instruction was imparted according to the tenets of the parents of the children. Up to this time the State had expended many millions in fostering a system of religious teaching, and, in his opinion, it would be a monstrous thing now to turn round upon persons who had hitherto acted on the faith of the denominational system supported by Parliament, and to say that under the new compulsory system denominational schools should receive no advantage. The adoption of a sufficient Conscience Clause would meet all reasonable objections, and on this point an alteration had been made in the Bill which he hoped would render it more acceptable than that of last yean He was anxious to anti-

  1823
  cipate another objection that might be taken to the Bill—namely, that it did not completely provide for such compulsory action as might be necessary in districts where sufficient education was not afforded. He proposed that one-tenth in number, or in value, of the ratepayers might apply to the Committee of Council for an inquiry into the educational state of their district, and that, thereupon, an order might be made; and the Bill also provided that, in default of such application, the Committee of Council might itself take action. But it might be asked, "Suppose that the Committee of Council neglect their duty, what remedy do you provide in that case?" Well, he believed that the remedy was to be found in the responsibility of the Committee of Council to Parliament. But, if it were found necessary hereafter to make that responsibility more direct and complete, he had no doubt Parliament would take the proper measures for securing that result. It seemed to him inevitable that before long, considering the extent to which it was proposed that the State should deal with the schools not only of the lower but of the middle classes, a Minister of Education must be appointed; and Parliament would take care that such a Minister was responsible to it for the proper performance of his duties. He (Mr. Bruce) had had much more frequent recourse to that Deus ex machinâ, the Committee of Council, than he could have wished, but that was simply from the want of proper local machinery. The great difficulty of anything like a national system of education in this country was the want of a proper local organization; and that difficulty was immensely increased by the fact that, under the voluntary system, a large portion of the kingdom was sufficiently supplied, because the districts left unsupplied might not be conterminous with the union or any other division known to the law. It was necessary, therefore, to deal with all those districts; and with respect to the question whether a district was sufficiently supplied or not, and many other matters, he would infinitely prefer leaving them to a local Committee. He looked forward to the creation of such a body before long. The Report of the School Commission just published made the appointment of such a Committee absolutely essential to the carrying out of their scheme, and it would be easy to transfer such functions to it. Another point was whether the Bill ought to provide, under any circumstances, for the
  1824
  support of a free school. He admitted that it was one of great difficulty; but it was well known that the Bill, in its original form, though it had since undergone many changes, emanated from the Manchester and Salford Education Committee, whose free schools were certainly conducted with remarkable success. To those schools were admitted the children of those parents only who were known to be incapable of paying; the education given in them was excellent, and the average attendance—the real test of the efficiency of schools—was greater than in the ordinary denominational schools. Whereas, during the time he was connected with the Privy Council, the average attendance was about 75 per cent of the number on the books, and was at this moment considerably less, the average attendance at the Manchester and Salford free schools was as high as 92 per cent, or nearly equal to that of Prussia. In certain districts it might be convenient to erect free schools for the children of extremely poor persons. The Bill gave a power to do so, which, however, would be exercised cautiously, and only in extreme cases, as it would enable the local committee to arrange with the manager for making payments in that special class of cases for poor children whose parents were known to be unable to pay. In most instances that would be sufficient to meet local peculiarities; but he saw no reason why places like Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham should not have free schools if they chose, and he did not fear that they would be largely brought into competition with the other schools so as to ruin their resources. It might be asked why, considering that the Government had given notice of their intention to deal with that subject, he had not exercised a little patience and kept back his Bill until they had brought in theirs. Now, he and his Friends would truly rejoice if the Bill of the Government was one which they could support and which would enable them to dispense with the further prosecution of their own Bill. He asked leave to introduce that measure only in order that the principles on which he thought education should be conducted might be before the country, and that in case the Bill of the Government should not contain arrangements for covering the country in process of time with sufficient schools, he might have the power of proceeding with his measure. There seemed but two methods of providing schools where they were re-

  1825
  quired—namely, either by local funds locally administered, or by Imperial funds administered under the control of the State. It was next to impossible that any Government would have the boldness to propose the provision of funds for the education of the country out of Imperial funds to be administered by local irresponsible authorities. Last year he mentioned that in London there were no fewer than seventeen districts without any schools at all, and no fewer than 107 districts, with an average population of 5,000 each, which were most imperfectly supplied with schools. How, he asked, was it possible for the State to undertake to provide funds for the support of schools in those neglected districts, when all around them voluntary efforts and great local exertions were made? Were those places to be rewarded for their negligence with funds drawn from the Imperial Exchequer? Again, local authorities might administer economically funds raised by themselves; but there would be no limit to their liberality and generosity when they dealt with funds supplied by the State. Again, the Revised Code had greatly reduced the payment formerly made for each child educated at the schools assisted by the State. That payment had been about 11 s. 6d. per head on the average attendance, but it was reduced to 8s.—afterwards to 9s.—under the Revised Code. Some of the schools had suffered in efficiency in consequence, while others, even under the reduced rate, received more than they actually required, and might support themselves with a much smaller amount of State aid, and even in some cases with none at all. How were these things to be remedied? It was impossible to intrust a central Department with the power of giving every school a sum, varying in their opinion, with its peculiar wants. It seemed, therefore, absolutely essential that some local body should have an elastic power of supplying by a rate the funds requisite in such cases. In districts like London the contribution to be raised by a rate in addition to the Government Grant would be extremely small; in the country districts it would necessarily be greater. That question was a very large one. He fully accepted the statement of the President of the Council that the number of parishes which had frequently appeared in print as not receiving State aid—namely, 11,000—was exaggerated. He did not then wish to enter into the question of the educational destitution existing in many of the large towns. Beyond all
  1826
  question, they had in London, at any rate, immense districts, numbering their tens of thousands of population, without any school at all. How they should be provided with schools was a matter of the utmost importance, and it was because he was anxious that it should be properly considered, and considered once for all, that he proposed that Bill, which seemed to him to provide fully for the ultimate needs of the case, which respected and enabled them to avail themselves to the utmost of all that had been already done, which respected the religious convictions of all classes of the people, and which, over and above the aid given by the State, would supply the local funds and local administration for the wants of all their population. He believed that the advantage of calling forth that local effort would be far greater than any disadvantage which might arise from the presumed unfitness of local authority in many cases to discharge such functions; and they knew by experience what the effects of such a Bill as that had been in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Government would offer no opposition to the introduction of the Bill, and, though they were desirous to have a full discussion on the details of the measure, they did not think the present moment an advantageous opportunity for the purpose.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for Elementary Education in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY AUSTIN BRUCE, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSIER, and Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 64.]

SUPPLY.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHcalled attention to the Answer he had received at an earlier period of the evening, with reference to the introduction of the Mutiny Bill, and complained that that measure was always introduced more or less under the influence of the Horse Guards, rather than in the constitutional manner in which other measures were introduced by the Government. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would understand that he meant nothing personal in his remarks, for he acknowledged the courtesy with which his right hon. Friend treated every Member of that House; but, in a constitutional point of view, what he had to urge was very vital. It was only

1827
by the special permission of Parliament, renewed every year, that a standing army was allowed to exist; and, in reference to the legislation for the army for the ensuing year, it was important to have everything fair and above-board. It was one of the most fundamental rules of the House that every Bill should be printed and in the hands of Members before the second reading, and it was therefore not right that the House should be asked to agree to a Bill before knowing what it was. If the Mutiny Bill were not introduced in a form in which hon. Gentlemen could take exception to any of its provisions on the second reading, it would be opposed at every stage.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONbriefly explained that the hon. Gentleman was under an entire delusion in supposing that the Horse Guards had anything whatever to do with the Parliamentary arrangements respecting the Mutiny Bill. The custom had only been recently introduced of printing the Amendments to the Bill; but he had undertaken that all the alterations intended to be introduced should be in the hands of hon. Members before the second reading of the measure, and he thought that this was all that the hon. Member could reasonably expect of him.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
1. £48,479 8s. 8d., Excesses of Army Expenditure.
2. £90,619 13 s. 9d., Excess of Naval Expenditure.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March 1867, and the 31st day of March 1868, the sum of £362,398 19 s. 9d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

COUNTY COURTS (ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION) BILL.
(Mr. Norwood, Mr. Headlam, Mr. Candlish.)

[BILL 33.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Norwood.)
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that if it were the opinion of the Government that this measure ought to be read a second time he was far from objecting; but he thought it would require very great alteration in Committee, if, indeed, the House would not eventually have to consider whether it ought at all to become law. He had already presented a Petition from the Incorporated Law Society against the Bill, and he knew that two, at least, of the solicitors of Liverpool most largely conversant with this class of business were also adverse. The Bill proposed to give a general Admiralty jurisdiction up to £500 to the County Courts. At present, Admiralty business proper was confined to the Court of Admiralty, and it would be a very considerable anomaly if Parliament gave all the County Courts a jurisdiction up to £500, when it had not yet been thought convenient to give any general jurisdiction in this class of cases to the Superior Courts of Law or Equity. He wished to ask the Attorney General, whether the Government were of opinion that the Bill ought to be read a secondtime?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in explaining the action of the Government upon the subject of the Bill, stated that the provisions of the measure were similar to those contained in a Bill which was introduced last year, but not passed. There was no doubt great truth in the objection of the hon. and learned Member, and it seemed, in the first instance, advisable that no change should be made until the Report of the Commission. During the present year however deputations from most of the principal seaports had waited upon the Government, and had expressed a very strong opinion upon the inadequacy of the present local Courts and the expense of taking small shipping cases before the Court of Admiralty. Such an expression of opinion could not fail to command the attention of the Government, and therefore, when the hon. Member for Hull brought forward his Bill, the Government determined to consent to its second reading. The proceedings in rem were no doubt peculiar to the

1829
Court of Admiralty, but salvors could now seize ships through the receivers of wreck, and, as a matter of fact, the decisions of the present local Courts were so unsatisfactory, and the delay and expense of the Admiralty Court so great that shipowners submitted to any extortion as the least evil. These malpractices had prevailed to such an extent as to become a scandal, not only in this country, but on the Continent. Any objection to the measure which might come from so high an authority as the hon. and learned Member for Richmond would, of course, receive full weight. In assenting to the second reading of the Bill, the Government merely wished to show that they fully recognized the want of proper tribunals to determine small shipping cases, and the necessity for giving, he would not go so far as saying to County Courts, but to some reliable local Courts, an Admiralty jurisdiction in such cases. The hon. Member for Hull had consented to postpone the Committee upon the Bill until the Friday after Easter, which would afford ample time for consideration of its details.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER, without opposing the second reading of the Bill, pressed upon the House the advisability of abolishing the present Court of Admiralty, and of transferring its jurisdiction to the Common Law and Equity Courts.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Baronet who had last addressed the House would be glad to hear that a Commission was now sitting which had power to determine the advisability of giving a general Admiralty jurisdiction to the Courts of Common Law and Equity. The want of proper tribunals for determining minor shipping causes was, however, so pressing that it was deemed advisable for the Government to assent to the second reading of this Bill, by which power would be given to the County Courts to determine them. Of course, the power of arrest which it was proposed to bestow upon the County Courts required to be watched with a great deal of care and jealousy, and he should do his best before the Bill went into Committee to make such Amendments in it as would make it work, at all events, for the present, in the hope that hereafter some steps would be taken to confer a general Admiralty jurisdiction upon the Superior Courts.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday, 24th April.

COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
(Mr. Gladstone, Sir George Grey, Sir Roundell Palmer.)

[BILL 13.] CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY moved to omit the words "to vote upon any question as to making any such voluntary rate," in Clause 7, line 21, on the ground that such disqualification would only put people's backs up. He thought it would be unwise to exclude permanently persons who did not subscribe during one year; for by such a proceeding many subscriptions might be lost, and his Amendment was intended to prevent such a result.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "to vote upon any question as to making any such voluntary rate, or."—(Mr. Henley.)
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERobjected to the Amendment. In his opinion, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire would cause a material disturbance of the general arrangements as proposed by the Bill. The clause was about as mild and moderate a clause of its kind as could possibly have been devised: and if it was right in principle, this was, probably, the most unobjectionable portion of it.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of The Earl of MAYO, Bill to amend the Law relating to Reformatory Schools in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Earl of MAYO and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 65.]

GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (IRELAND).
Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the several Laws under which monies are now raised by Grand Jury Presentments in Ireland, and into the nature and incidence of all charges levied under such Presentments, with the view of ascertaining what alterations might beneficially be made in these Laws."—(The O'Conor Don.)
And, on March 20, Committee nominated as follows:—The O'CONOR DON, The Earl of MAYO, Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Mr. DAWSON, Sir CHARLES LANYON, Mr. MAGUIRE, Colonel FORDE, Mr. LEADER, Mr. BLAKE, Mr. GREGORY, Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, General DUNNE, Colonel COOPER, Lord JOHN BROWNE, Mr. KENDALL, Mr.

1831
KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, and Mr. HERBERT:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

LEE RIVER CONSERVANCY BILL.
Select Committee on the Lee River Conservancy Bill nominated:—Lord JOHN HAY, Mr. AYRTON, Mr. BENYON, Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE, and Mr. HENRY SURTEES:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
Ordered, That all Petitions relating to the Lee River Conservancy Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against the said Petitions:
Ordered, That the Second Report of the Rivers Pollution Commissioners (River Lee), presented upon the 30th day of April 1867, and the Evidence thereon, the Report by Captain Tyler on the East London Waterworks Company, presented upon the 81st day of May 1867, and the Report and Proceedings of the Committee on the East London Water Bills, &c., laid upon the Table upon the 27th day of June 1867, be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.—(Mr. Stephen Cave.)
House adjourned at Eight o'clock.