Commons Sitting of 2 August 1869

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE —Report— Despatch of Business in Parliament [No. 386].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Canada (Rupert's Land) Loan (Guarantee)*.
Ordered—First Reading— Canada (Rupert's Land) Loan (Guarantee)* [253]; Broughty Ferry Provisional Order Confirmation * [254]; Contagious Diseases* [255]; Presentation of Benefices belonging to Roman Catholics, &c. * [256],
Second Reading— Bishops Resignation [241]; Harbour of Galle Loan * [250]; Sanitary Act (1866) Amendment * [244]; East India Loan * [251]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; Prevention of Gaming (Scotland)* [248].
Committee— Parochial Schools (Scotland) (re-comm.) [215]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Dividends on Public Stocks* [247].
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans) [238]; Hackney and Stage Carriages Law Amendment* [227].
Third Reading— Expiring Laws Continuance * [245]; Inclosure Awards (County Palatine of Durham) * [210], and passed.
Withdrawn—Heritable Rights (re-comm.) * [234].

HERTS CONSTABULARY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. C. REEDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Inspector Young, of the Herts Constabulary, was recently removed from his office upon a well-founded charge of exceeding his duty under circumstances of peculiar aggravation; whether, notwithstanding his dismissal, he has been permitted to discharge his accustomed duties; and, whether, it is true that he has been re-instated in the office of Inspector in the town of Hitchin, where the offence was committed?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he believed the facts, as stated by his hon. Friend were substantially correct. This inspector had performed an act exceeding his authority under the circumstances mentioned. He was suspended by the

  1087
  local bench of magistrates and re-instated by those of the county, he (Mr. Bruce) presumed on a consideration of the facts as known to them. He must remind his hon. Friend that, as Home Secretary, he had no power whatever over appointments or removals of members of the county constabulary.

ARMY—SOLDIERS' EMPLOYMENT.

  QUESTION".
  DR. BREWERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If the Government have satisfactory accounts of the results of the industrial employment of Soldiers in their leisure time at the various Military Depots where the system has been allowed; and if so, whether he will extend the advantage of this system to the Soldiers in Camp at Colchester?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that very satisfactory accounts had been received of the system of soldiers' employment to which the hon. Member referred. He was very anxious to extend the system as far as possible. He knew no reason why it should not be applied to Colchester, and he hoped it would soon be applied.

EGYPT—SUEZ CANAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any official information as to the probable navigable depth of water expected in and through the Suez Canal; and when it is to be opened for general commercial purposes?
  MR. OTWAY, in reply, said, he would give his hon. Friend all the information on the matter of which he was possessed, only premising that it was not official. Mr. Fowler, the engineer, who was in Egypt at the beginning of the present year, in an account of the canal, published in The Times on the 1st of February, describes its depth as 26 ft. He says—
  "With minute exceptions the whole of the canal is now being excavated, and completed according to one or other of the following sections: —The first section is 22 miles in length (the difficult part of the work), 190 ft. in width at the surface of the water, and 26 ft. deep for 72 ft. at bottom. The second section is 77 miles in length, 327 ft; in width at surface, and a similar depth of 26ft., for a similar width of 72 ft. at the bottom."
  1088
  They had heard from other sources, however, that the depth did not exceed 18 ft. It had also been stated that the opening of the canal had been fixed by the company for the 17th of November next, though there was reason to doubt whether the works would be sufficiently advanced by that date to warrant the canal being then opened for general navigation.

  IRELAND—GLEBES AND GLEBE HOUSES.—QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill early next Session to give facilities for the purchase of Glebes and the erection of Glebe Houses for the Ministers of all Religious Denominations in Ireland, and to enable Loans to be advanced for that purpose by the Board of Works or other public body in Ireland?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Yes, Sir, the Government do hope to bring in such a Bill next Session.

  RAILWAY GUARDS AND PASSENGERS COMMUNICATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, How soon the various Railway Companies will comply with the provisions of the Act 31 & 32 Vict. c. 119, s. 22, requiring them to provide means of communication between the passengers and the servants of the company; and whether he could inform the House what the nature of such communication will be?
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I believe I am able to state that from yesterday, that is, from the 1st of this month, on all lines to which the Act applies there will be some mode of communication between the passengers and the drivers and the guards. There are three forms of communication by way of rope, and one, I think, which is managed upon the electric principle, which have been sanctioned. Of course, the Board of Trade is not able to say positively whether these plans will be perfect and absolutely satisfactory; but they meet so entirely the view of those most competent to judge in regard to these matters, that the Board of Trade has sanctioned them,

  1089
  and hope they will do all that the Act of Parliament had in view.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: IS the communication really in existence?
  MR. BRIGHT: The day fixed was the 1st of August. I travelled by a train about a week ago, and there was no mode of communication. But I believe the communication is found to-day on all the lines to which the Act refers.

  ARMY —SPITHEAD FORTS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN BEAUMONTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War that, inasmuch as a considerable section of the House is opposed to the outlay contingent on the Spithead Forts being constructed to mount two tiers of guns in place of one, Whether he will be willing to re-consider the propriety of reducing the scale on which the Forts on the Horse Sand and No Man's Land Sand are proposed to be constructed, and so effect a saving of —225,000?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said he hoped the House would remember that in preparing the Bill which had received its approval the whole amount had been reduced below the amount included in the Act of 1867. It was reduced by —491,000 below the estimate of Sir Frederick Grey, and if —75,000 allowed by the Act for unforeseen contingencies were included, the total reduction of the amount was —566,000; and the sum now voted was below the Schedule of 1867 by —85,000. This reduction had been accomplished by giving up works not yet commenced, and postponing other works which might be considered at a future time. The smaller forts had been reduced to one tier, and with regard to the larger forts, it had been considered more truly economical to construct them of two tiers as originally designed. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would be satisfied with his assurance that the works would be conducted with a strict regard to economy.

  PATENT LAWS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, among the measures contemplated next Session is one for the Reform of the Patent Laws; and, if so, whether it is to be preceded by an Inquiry by a Committee or a Royal Commission?
  MR. BRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I believe every Member of the Government agrees with my hon. Friend that some considerable change at any rate is necessary to be made in the Patent Laws. I am not sure how many, or whether any, are of opinion that there ought not to be any Patent Laws at all. But notwithstanding their agreement as to the desirableness of some alteration, it would be very imprudent, I think, for me to pledge the Government to bring in a measure of this nature when there is so great a difference of opinion upon it, and when it seems impossible for any two men to agree as to the change that should be made. At the same time, if we come to a question of a Committee or of a Royal Commission, we are in the same difficulty, as we are at a loss to know whether the inquiry should be made as to what amendment should take place in the law, or whether there should be any patent system at all. I can only conclude by saying that, admitting with the hon. Member for Leith that the question is one which requires to be attended to whenever there is time to attend to it, I am quite unable to say that the Government will bring in a Bill next Session. If my hon. Friend were to propose a Committee of this House it would be a very reasonable proposition, to which the Members of the Government and this House would probably agree.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he would give notice that, if the Government did not bring in a Bill, he would bring the subject before the House early next Session, with the view to the appointment of a Committee or a Royal Commission.

INDIA—PRINCE AZEEM JAH.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State for India had not determined to set aside the sum of —150,000 so far back as April, 1867, and, subsequently, a further sum of —120,000, for the purpose of liquidating certain claims on his Highness Prince Azeem Jah Bahadoor, Nawaub of the Carnatic, and whether all or any part of such liabilities have been so liquidated; and, if not, when such liquidation is likely to be made?
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, in reply, that the Secretary of State in Council had granted a sum of —150,000 for the payment of Azeem Jah's debts; and at a subsequent period he lent Azeem Jah the sum of —120,000 for the same purpose, to be recovered from him by instalments. The last telegram which, the Government had received on the subject, dated July 13th last, informed them that the liquidation was progressing satisfactorily, and approaching its close.

INDIA—CALCUTTA PORT DUES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ARMITSTEADsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a Bill has been brought into the Bengal Council, proposing to raise the Port Dues at Calcutta, already so excessive, from four annas per ton to eight annas; and, whether this serious advance of charge has been approved by the Home Government?
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, in reply, that a Bill had been brought into the Bengal Legislative Council for raising the port dues of Calcutta, but the Government had received no official information about it. In consequence, however, of the receipt of certain memorials, they had already communicated with the Government of India on the subject.

  INDIA—RAILWAYS.—QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask his hon. Friend opposite a Question, of which he had privately given him notice, Whether there will be any objection to lay on the Table any Official Correspondence with reference to the system of construction of Railways in India, not included in the Papers presented last week; and, whether any dissents have been recorded by Members of the Council to the Despatch of the Duke of Argyll of the 15th of July?
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, in reply, that there would be no objection to lay the correspondence upon the table. As at present advised, he believed that no such dissents had been recorded. He proposed, however, to answer the Question to-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Having reference to the present state of Public Business, I beg to move that Government Orders of the Day have precedence on Tuesday and Wednesday, August 3 and 4.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he apprehended that the Motion just made by his right hon. Friend would be a sore blow and heavy discouragement to the Bill which the learned Common Serjeant had been pushing with so much pertinacity during the Session—he meant the Bill for the abolition of sisters-in-law. He, therefore, begged to ask the hon. and learned Member whether, under present circumstances, he still desired to prosecute the Bill; or whether he would not give a holiday to those who were bound to come down, whether to support or to oppose the measure, by moving that the Order be discharged?
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he was unable to join in the vivacious tone adopted by the hon. Member. On the contrary, he should be inclined to adopt a very different tone, remembering the enormous number of persons whose dearest interests were involved in the question which he had the honour of raising. He quite agreed that the Government, in the actual state of Public Business, could not have taken any other course than that which had just been adopted by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and he also agreed that it was impossible to prosecute the Bill with any hope of success during the brief remainder of the Session. In the name, however, of the thousands interested in the provisions of the Bill, he begged to thank those hon. Members who had supported it in the face of opposition carried beyond its usual limits, in the use made of the forms of the House. The history of the present Session afforded every encouragement to the belief that in another year the Bill would be passed successfully. There were, first, the large majorities by which the Bill had been supported; then, the most able speech in its favour of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and, still more, the support given to it by the Prime Minister himself; finally, there was the progress of public sentiment in its favour which had shown itself, and nowhere more remarkably than in Scotland. Regretting

  1093
  that, through the action of particular Members, the Bill had been defeated this Session, he should take the earliest possible opportunity of re-introducing the measure next Session.
  Motion agreed to.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments considered.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to express his great satisfaction with the manner in which the Bill had been dealt with by the other House of Parliament. They had not interfered with its leading principles or main provisions. The Amendments which had been made were chiefly verbal, and he was free to admit that the greater part of those Amendments were improvements. There were some to which that expression did not, in his opinion, altogether apply; but remembering that they had been introduced by noble Lords of great ability, eminence, and experience, he did not feel inclined to set up his own view in opposition to their Lordships; and hon. Members, as a rule, would, doubtless, share that feeling. There were three Amendments, however, which he thought it would be advisable to invite their Lordships to re-consider. The first was on the 5th clause, and related to the definition of a partnership, association, or company. As the clause left this House, the definition was "a partnership, association, or company corporate, or registered under the Companies' Act of 1862." Their Lordships had substituted the words "or liable to be wound up;" which made a very serious difference. A partnership of seven members was liable to be wound up; and if they adopted this Amendment, men, by simply taking several clerks into partnership with them, so as to make up the required number, would be able to carry on business as fraudulently as they pleased, and still not be subjected to the bankruptcy law. He could not help thinking that this point had not been sufficiently considered, and he should therefore ask the House to disagree on this matter to the Lords' Amendment. The next was in sub-section 3 of Clause 6, line 20. The clause originally stood thus—
  1094
  "That the debtor has, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, done any of the following things—namely, departed out of England, or being out of England, remained out of England, or departed from his dwelling-house or otherwise absented himself; or begun to keep his house; or suffered himself to be outlawed."
  The Lords had inserted the words '' being a trader;" from which it would follow that such acts might be done by persons who were non-traders. That was a change in the law, as established in 1861, when it was expressly declared to be an act of bankruptcy for non-traders to depart the realm with intent to defeat or delay their creditors, and it seemed to him that the change was not for the better. He should, therefore, move to disagree to these words in line 20. He was prepared, however, to meet their Lordships half-way by inserting those (words after the word "or," in line 23, the effect of which would be that the mere leaving the house by a non-trader would not constitute an act of bankruptcy. That was a fair compromise. He trusted that their Lordships would see the force of the arguments that had occurred to him, and that they would not insist upon the Amendments to which he objected. He proposed to add words to Clause 8 to limit the power of the County Courts trying causes under the Act to the extent of their present jurisdiction. There were one or two other technical matters with which he did not propose to trouble the House, in making that statement, and he now proposed to proceed with the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 20, after the word "debtor" to omit the words "being a trader," and insert those words in line 23 after the word "or." —(The Attorney General.)
  MR. MORLEYsaid, it would be better to restore the words of the clause as it stood when the Bill left that House. He could see no reason for the distinction between the trader and the non-trader.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALexplained that by agreeing to the compromise he had suggested they would maintain the existing law; and the words of the clause had acquired a technical signification in the case of traders. He should have preferred to have seen the clause pass as it wont to the Upper

  1095
  House; but what he proposed would make very little practical difference, and it would facilitate the passing of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Meeting of creditors for appointment of persons to administer bankrupt's property).
  MR. MORLEYsaid, the point of the arrangement made in the Bill was, that having appointed a trustee the creditors should appoint a committee, consisting of fit persons, not exceeding five in number. The Lords had struck out the word "shall" in reference to the appointment of the committee, and inserted the word "may" in its place. It was important that the appointment of a committee should be imperative, and he thought the Lords' Amendment should be disagreed to, and the original word re-inserted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would accept the suggestion; and the word "shall" was re-inserted in place of "may."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, he submitted to the Amendment, providing for rent due to the landlord, under protest, as he did not see why a landlord should have a preference over other creditors, to which he had before objected.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. AYRTON, Mr. JESSEL, Mr. MORLEY, and Mr. RATHBONE:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) (re-committed) BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 215.]

  COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 27th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he wished to state to the Committee the course which the Government intended to pursue with regard to the division which took place last week with reference to the interpretation of the word "heritors" in Clause 1. The House was aware that,
  1096
  under the Bill, no change was proposed to be made in the constitution of the Governing Bodies of the parochial schools, until the conversion of those schools into national schools. That provision was inserted according to the recommendation of the Commissioners, and it was understood that, upon the whole, the recommendation met with the approval of the Scotch Members on both sides. Acting upon that belief, the Government had left that provision untouched. But when the Bill was last in Committee, although on a division the clause as it stood was carried by a majority, he understood that in the minority was a considerable majority of the Scotch Members, and it was said by the Lord Advocate that abstractedly he fully concurred with those who opposed the interpretation clause as it stood in the Bill, but that he waived his objection, as the provision in question was the result of a compromise. On consideration of this matter, the Government being most anxious that this measure should become law this Session—they were of opinion that they would best consult the feelings of the large majority of the Scotch Members, as well as of Scotch people generally, if they adopted the proposal which was in substance made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that restored the heritors to the position which they occupied before the Act of 1803—in fact, to vest in all heritors who contributed to the support of the schools a share in the management. The effect of this would be that the parochial schools would be no longer included in the operation of the Bill, and no provision would be made for their conversion into national schools. If the Committee would adopt this suggestion a large number of Amendments would disappear, and the progress of the Bill would be greatly facilitated. The clauses necessary to give effect to this arrangement would have to be adopted on the Report. He hoped that this concession on the part of the Government would be received by the Committee as an earnest of their desire to give effect to the Bill during the present Session. There would remain only one question of great difficulty and importance, and that is the question raised by the 66th clause, as to terms under which denominational schools may, under certain circumstances, be permitted. With respect

  1097
  to this question, also, the Government had taken into their consideration the express desire of this House that some limit should be placed, if possible, on the action of the Commissioners, and when that clause was before the Committee, the Government would state what these limits would be. Under these circumstances, he hoped they would have the assistance of the Committee in pressing forward this measure with speed. Of course, it was not desired that questions involving so much of importance should be disposed of lightly, or without discussion; but he trusted that the discussion which might take place would be conducted with the full conviction that the measure could only be carried during the present Session of Parliament by the exercise on the part of hon. Members of much self-command in the duration of their speeches, and that they would so conduct the business that the Bill might pass through Committee that evening, leaving for the succeeding night the discussion of the very important questions which, might arise on the Report.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he should endeavour to exercise the self-command enjoined by the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought it desirable that Scotch Members should express their opinions upon the course the Government had pursued. It was impossible not to acknowledge that the concessions made by the Government on the points referred, to were of the utmost importance. They had conceded that the point of the old parochial schools of Scotland should be managed on this broad principle, which he believed this House would, adopt, and which he believed no other House would controvert —namely, that those should manage the schools who paid for them. That was a very reasonable demand; and although it was refused last Tuesday, he congratulated the Government upon having conceded what they unwisely refused last Tuesday. They had, by the means adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman, got the whole of the large sum paid by the heritors, amounting to —48,000 a year, for the purpose of education, and it was satisfactory to think that this large sum would be, for all future time, set apart for the education of the people of Scotland. He did not pretend to say that there were not many
  1098
  points on which serious discussion might not arise; but he would say that the concessions made by the Government were of such a nature that he thought it would be very unwise on their part to refuse to pass the Bill.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that anyone who had read the Preamble of the Bill would see how different was the measure they had now to discuss from that which was originally introduced. They were now told that the parochial schools were to be exempted from the operation of the Act — that they were now to have the power of converting them into national schools; but that schools which now afforded one-half of the education given in Scotland were to be kept from the operation of the Government Bill. Could this be called a national system? The lion. Baronet (Sir Robert Anstruther) had said that his great reason for withdrawing his opposition to the Bill was that the burden formerly imposed on the heritors for the maintenance of the old parochial schools—a burden to which they had been too long solely subject—was to be continued. Now, he thought the retention of this burden would be most unfair; and unless the Lord Advocate gave a pledge that he would deduct a sum of money, equivalent to the sum now assessed on the heritors, for the maintenance of the old parochial schools from the new assessment that might be necessary for the building of the new schools, and unless the Lord Advocate also undertook that the old parochial schools which belonged to the Free Church of Scotland were not to be taken over and become national schools, he thought the measure ought to be. withdrawn.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, the Home Secretary had expressed a desire that the Bill should proceed, and had spoken as if such had all along been the earnest desire of the Government. If this were so, he (Mr. Aytoun) should like to be informed why the feeling of the Government on the subject was so very different in the early part of the Session? The Bill was brought down from the Lords on the 14th of June. At that time the Irish Church Bill had left the Commons, and it might have been supposed that the Government would have found time to consider what, with the exception of the Irish Church Bill, he regarded as the most important mea-

  1099
  sure of the Session. But what had been the conduct of the Government? Instead of considering this Bill with the utmost expedition, they did nothing. They allowed the Bill to remain as it was. They did not read it a second time until the 12th of July; and when it was read a second time, it was at so late an hour that it was impossible to discuss its principles. They were then told that they were to have the discussion upon going into Committee; but when the Bill came to that stage, they were requested by the Home Secretary not to discuss it, inasmuch as if they did discuss it, it would be fatal to the passing of the Bill. Was it not an extraordinary circumstance that the Government, being so anxious to pass the Bill, should have allowed it to remain so long in the House before it was read a second time? The impression on the minds of most persons in Scotland was that the Bill was not to be carried through this Session. ["No, no!"] Certainly; everyone he had spoken to was of that opinion Now, however, when it had arrived at a period at which it was nearly impossible to pass the Bill, the Government had suddenly become alive to the importance of its being passed. He should like to have some explanation with regard to the reasons which induced the Government to take their present course. They were told that this was an undenominational Bill, and that therefore those who were in favour of such a measure ought to accept the Bill, lest in the next Session they had put upon them a Bill which would in that respect be worse. The Bill was not, on the face of it, a denominational Bill; but there were clauses in it which made it, in a sense, worse than if it were openly and honestly denominational. One clause empowered the Government to name a Board of gentlemen who were to have adequate salaries, and who were to sit at Edinburgh; and another gave to this Board the power to recommend to the Privy Council that denominational grants should be given to particular schools. Reading these two clauses together, how could it be said that this was an undenominational Bill? Why was this change made? Because they were told there was a Roman Catholic population in Scotland which must be excepted from the general provisions of the Bill. It ought to be known that the reason the
  1100
  Bill had to be passed through the House at this late period of the Session was that the Government had thought fit and proper to make it a denominational Bill, for the sake of conciliating and obtaining the support not of the people of Scotland, but of a certain section of the people of Ireland. He would not discuss whether the latter should exercise so much influence over the internal affairs of Scotland; but it ought to be known that this was so, and that the Bill, which had been deferred to the end of the Session, was to be pushed forward in order that it might be passed through the House in this ostensibly undenominational but really denominational form. If the Government were determined to pass the Bill, it would be futile for Scotch Members to oppose it; but it ought to be known that the responsibility of passing the Bill in this form lay upon the Government, and, personally, he would not participate in that responsibility. It was a mistake to suppose that a Board, nominated by the Government, and dependent upon the Government, even though it were composed of Scotchmen and sat in Edinburgh, would represent Scotch feeling, which demanded a system of management different from that which prevailed in England. Such a Board, nominated by and dependent on the Government, afforded no safeguard against the establishment in Scotland of a system which would be unsatisfactory to the Scotch people. He considered it his duty to protest against the denominational nature of this Bill and to guard against the imputation that by silence he had acquiesced in the passing of it.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was one of those who recently stated that if the question was simply a vote for the Bill as it stood, or for no Bill at all, he should have decided for no Bill at all. But since that time the Government had considered the expressed opinion of the majority of the Scotch Members—not of the Scotch supporters of the Government, but of Scotch Members of all parties—and had consented to the important improvements which had been announced by the Home Secretary. Those changes went so far in the right direction, that he should cordially vote for the Bill in its present form. The question, of opening up the management of the parish schools was not founded

  1101
  upon any new principle of democratic rights, but upon the principle of being guided by the wisdom of our ancestors. It was proposed to return to the principle enacted in 1696, that every heritor paying for the support of the schools should have a vote in the appointment of the schoolmaster. This principle was one to which no one could, in his opinion, deny the quality of soundness. The concession made was one which strict justice required, and strict justice would have been violated by any other arrangement being made. The next question related to the leaving out the parish schools from the operation of the Bill. Nobody could forget the praises showered on the parish schools from the other side of the House, as if they were all perfection, and the only means by which education in Scotland had been rendered what it was. The course followed by the Government ensured the maintenance of this system, and if the schools were perfect in the past, they would remain perfect — the Bill providing additional schools for large masses of the people. With regard to the extra schools, the cost would fall much more largely upon the towns, where additional schools were most wanted, than on the rural districts, and would not affect the landowners more than the occupiers, as the proposed rate was to be equally divided between both classes.
  SIR JOHN OGILVYhad not heard the statement of the Home Secretary; but from what he had been told of its purport he had no hesitation in saying that, unsatisfactory as the Bill was before, it was now more unsatisfactory still. Many Scotch Members had been left in ignorance of the compromise which had been come to, while there had been no opportunity for Scotch Members to communicate with their constituents. The Bill was called the Parochial Schools Bill, but he was told the parochial schools were to be expunged from it. With the view of postponing legislation to another Session, he moved that the Chairman leave the Chair, and, if (supported by a sufficient number of Scotch Members, he would press the Motion to a division.
  LORD ELCHOwould not detain the Committee, but he could not refrain from remarking on the position in which the Scotch Members found themselves. This was a most important question
  1102
  affecting Scotland; it had a place in the Queen's Speech, and yet what was the position in which it stood? There were two prints of the Bill in the other House, there had been two in this; and in Committee in this House, after a division on a most important point, which was carried against a majority of the Scotch supporters of the Government—who were ready, to quote their own words, to support the Government through thick and thin—a Cabinet Council was convened, and a certain decision come to. That decision was to alter one of the main features and characteristics of the Bill. He did not say whether the change was right or wrong; but what was the position in which Scotch Members found themselves within a few days of the close of the Session? They were summoned to meet the Home Secretary at half-past two o'clock that day —a most unusual proceeding, and, after discussion, a Vote was taken—another unusual proceeding—on the question whether the Bill should be proceeded with, about twenty-three voting one way and seven or eight the other. The majority would support the Government through thick and thin against those who wished the matter to be properly and fairly considered, and who wished that no step should be taken without the utmost caution and deliberation, and with the full knowledge of everybody concerned. On such a question Members ought to have time to consult their constituents, and they had not been afforded an opportunity of doing so; but upon the fifth re-print of the Bill, at ten minutes to four o'clock that day, they were told to say, "Yes" or "No," whether the Bill should proceed. With great respect to the Government, he must say this was not a satisfactory way of legislating on a great question affecting any country, and it was unfair to Scotch Members to put them in such a position. He entered his deliberate protest against this mode of conducting Scotch business.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he trusted that an English Member might be permitted to say a few words upon a matter which might be supposed to be of interest only to Scotch Members. With every respect for the Scotch Parliament which sat upstairs, he would suggest that English Members were entitled to have some further acquaintance with this Bill. When he looked at the

  1103
  history of the Bill he was really astonished at the course which had now been taken, because it was calculated to lead that as well as the other House into difficulties to which they ought never to be subjected. The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in order that it might receive the most ample discussion. Great alterations were made in it in the other House; but when it came down to that House a Motion was made by the Lord Advocate to go into Committee pro formâ upon it, in order that it might be re-printed. When this was done, the Bill of the Lords was found to be practically done away with; but the Bill which remained was at least supposed to contain the matured opinion of the Government, and to be the measure which it was their wish to submit to the House. Last Tuesday the Government called upon the House to support them upon a particular clause of the Bill; but now this point was given up, and the Bill was so altered that while the hon. Member who had just spoken said that if the Bill were put to the vote as it was originally printed he must give his negative to it, yet now it was altered he said he could support it. What was he, as an English Member, to think of such a Bill? It was all very well for Scotch Members to meet upstairs and say that they were satisfied; but the House had nothing before it except the Bill, and he could not conceive any greater difference between two measures than between the Bill of the Lords and the measure as it was now proposed to be finally amended. The onus of amending the Bill, which ought to have been thrown upon the Government, was now thrown upon the Members of that House. Even the Amendments of the noble Duke the Secretary for India and of the Members of the Government in the other House had been altered—and yet the House of Commons was called upon at the last moment to take a new Bill upon the mere statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, without a single line of it being before them. It was proposed to alter the Preamble, to take out the parish schools of Scotland, and to put upon a new class of heritors burdens to which they had never before been subjected. ["No!"] At all events, it was proposed to give a new management to the schools. [Mr. BRUCE: It only reverts to the old management.]
  1104
  Well, but it took away, at any rate, the management on which the House went to a division last Tuesday, and it made all these alterations at a moment's notice. If the hon. Member for Dundee (Sir John Ogilvy) went to a division, looking to the great inconvenience, both to that and the other House of Parliament, of the course pursued by the Government, he should certainly vote with him.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) was considerably reduced in dimensions when the facts were stated. The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in the month of February. It was founded upon the recommendations of the Education Commissioners, which were a compromise between the opposing views of the two parties who were anxious for national education. The Government were not altogether responsible for the delay which had occurred, because the other House did not send the Bill down until the 14th of June, having postponed the second reading until after the county meetings in April and the meeting of the General Assembly of the Church. The House of Lords exercised its privilege to alter the Bill to a very large extent. It was essential that the Government should offer the Bill to the House of Commons in the shape in which they wished it to pass, and for that purpose the House went into Committee on the Bill, with a view to its being re-printed pro formâ. He was prepared to maintain that this was an altogether regular and constitutional proceeding. The Commissioners in the meantime proposed that the management should remain as it was; and that was the compromise which had been spoken of. But did the Lords respect that compromise? By no means. They not only dealt with the question of constitution, but they altered the incidence of taxation. As he had originally explained, it then became a matter of considerable doubt what course the Government were justified in adopting; but, wishing to occasion as little difference of opinion as possible, they decided to revert to the compromise agreed to by the Commissioners. They had treated the question fairly, for the Amendments had been upon the Paper for some considerable time. A division took place, when it appeared that not merely a ma-

  1105
  jority of the Liberal Members, but a majority of the Members from Scotland, were opposed to the proposition of the Government, and, whatever they might have been formerly, were no longer prepared to accept the compromise proposed by the Commissioners. The Government accordingly, in the hope of passing the Bill, had yielded to that view; in doing so he maintained they were perfectly right, and after the concession he trusted that progress would be made with the Bill. True, it was late in the Session; but they knew that difficulties of a much more serious character than those surrounding the present measure had been got rid of in a very short time this Session. There was nothing novel, unreasonable, or unjust in the proposals of the Government, and hon. Members were just as well able to discuss them now as they would be with a month's preparation.
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought the remarks of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate went strongly in support of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Sir John Ogilvy), while the history of the Bill given by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) was admitted to be substantially correct. English Members undoubtedly had serious difficulties to contend with in approaching legislation purely applicable to Scotland; but they need not apologize, he thought, for interfering upon a measure relating to education, which had been so largely dealt with upon the hustings, and in which, moreover, principles might be introduced to be quoted hereafter as precedents elsewhere than in Scotland. His right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Hardy) had confined his review to proceedings in the House of Commons; but he (Mr. Lowther) had extended his researches further, and found that, since this measure had been first introduced this Session in "another place," there had been no less than five distinct Bills, which he now held in his hand, and which were miscalled '' The Parochial Schools (Scotland) Bill." In February last the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, having been alluded to in the Queen's Speech—a fact in itself suggesting that the 2nd of August was by no means a suitable date for a practical discussion of the question. After it came into the House of Commons a
  1106
  course was taken by the right hon. and learned Lord which was certainly unusual, and if a precedent could be found for it he hoped it would not be again appealed to. All that had been done in "another place" by way of Amendment, after careful and deliberate consideration, was expunged by the right hon. and learned Lord, without any opportunity being afforded to the House of ascertaining the grounds on which the views of the Government differed from those of the majority in the House of Lords. Practically, the House was invited on the 2nd of August to initiate legislation on this subject. It might be said that the Bill having already passed the other House, there were still a sufficient number of days in which the measure might be passed. But what was the fact? As the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said of another Bill, at the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour it would go up to the House of Lords not merely as a new Bill—that would be bad enough—but as a Bill re-constructed in a shape which practically had been considered and rejected already. What likelihood was there that a measure sent up in such a form and at such a time would be accepted?
  MR. GRAHAMsaid, it struck him as strange that the Committee had spent much time in discussing whether the Government or the House of Lords was to blame, and whether the heritors had been well used, while very little had been said about the 80,000 children in Scotland who wore crying out for education. The whole question was in such a state that the House could well consider it, and, looking back upon the abortive efforts of the last twenty years, he hoped the few precious hours that remained would not be wasted. He denied that this was a new Bill; there was nothing in it which in some shape or another had not been upon the Paper. Admitting that the desire of the Scotch people generally was in favour of an undenominational system of education, if that were possible, he asked whether they were by legislation to erect a barrier against the admission of the largest and most indigent class of children? He did not pretend to advocate or defend the course taken by the Roman Catholic clergy; but, as the House knew, with the influence which the Roman Catholic clergy

  1107
  possessed, they would not allow the children of their flocks to receive education in any schools which they distrusted; and the choice therefore lay between relaxing in some respects the notion of an undenominational system and leaving the children of Roman Catholics wholly outside the scope of this measure. If the people of Scotland were prepared to accept a wholly secular education, they would be entitled to impose on every peasant the duty of sending his child to school; but the moment religious considerations intervened, compulsory education became out of the question; for, though in social and secular matters the opinions of the majority might fairly govern, the moment religion entered into the question, the majority, however large and influential, had no right to control the conscience of the minority, however small. It was true that the people of Scotland desired an undenominational system of education, and that under the present system the Roman Catholic children were perfectly safe in Protestant schools. But would the Roman Catholics be equally satisfied; and should this principle be embodied in a Bill? He thought the very attempt to enforce such a system under this Bill would be the very way to make the Roman Catholic clergy hostile to it. The advantages offered by the Bill were that it localized the management of parish schools; that it provided for an extension of those schools; that it gave a rate in aid of education—which they had never yet had—and double grants in poor districts; and that it gave local management for the national schools. Under these circumstances he maintained that Scotch Members should cast aside all their private opinions upon secondary points, and should accept with thanks the Bill supported by the Government.
  MR. ELLICEmerely rose to ask whether the definition of "heritors" under the alteration proposed by the Government would embrace the heritors under the old valuation only, or would also include the heritors under the new valuation? In the latter case he thought the Committee might be well content.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEreplied that the Bill proposed to repeal the provisions of the Act of 1833, which limited the management of schools to heritors of —100, and to restore the law to what it was before that date, under which every
  1108
  heritor who was bound to pay the school rate had a voice in the management of the school.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYthought it would be as well if the Bill were to leave the parish schools out of the Bill altogether, and provide merely for education in the Scotch burghs.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGthought that, as the Government had given way upon a very material point, the hon. Member for Dundee (Sir John Ogilvy) should withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, looking at the question from an educational point of view, he could not help thinking they had very nearly lost sight of what was after all the great object of the Bill. Scotland, advanced though it was in education beyond England and most civilized countries, and possessing a system of many centuries old to which she owed that state of advancement, was yet in danger of falling behind, because the custom of the country had outgrown the system of education. His hon. Friend (Mr. Graham) had under-stated the fact in saying that there were 80,000 children without an education. The Report of the Commissioners said that out of 510,000 children there were 92,000—or 18 per cent—not on the roll of any public school paid out of, or aided by, public grants, and that of the remaining 82 per cent a large proportion were receiving a very inferior education. With such facts as these before them, they might sink minor differences, and vie with each other in anxiety to devise some measure which would remove this great evil. This measure did propose to grapple with this evil, and he had never heard it disputed by anyone that by this Bill a machinery was set in motion which would meet the necessity, and cause that need to disappear. There had been discussion as to what kind of a Board should be established, what should be its powers, whether it should be appointed by the Government, and whether it should sit in Edinburgh or not; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had never heard it disputed that this Board would do its duty; on the contrary, it was admitted by the Scotch Members and the Scotch population that within three or four years such a Board would remove the glaring inconsistency between the present and the past history of Scotland. By that machinery Scotland would be

  1109
  supplied with sufficient schools. Then it should, in estimating the educational condition of Scotland, be remembered that all the existing schools were not good schools. The folly of postponement was not merely that there was this urgent necessity which ought to be supplied, but that the present educational agencies that were in Scotland were unable to perform their duty because of the suspense created by the knowledge that some great educational measure was in contemplation. A Commission had been appointed in 1864, and the Bill which was before the Committee was substantially the same measure as the Bill which was proposed by that Commission. It was asked—Why not confine the Bill to the burghs? But it was not merely the burghs which were suffering from want of education, though they, like the towns in some parts of England, were in a condition to excite the fears of all for the Empire. But the state in some country districts was still more deplorable, and it was shown by the Report of the Assistant Commissioners that unless some radical improvement took place in some country districts, in the course of a generation reading and writing would be unknown. It would, therefore, be a mockery if the Government were willing to consent to deal only with the burghs. The great benefit of the system was that it dealt with schools generally, and made it impossible that three or four years hence the condition of education in Scotland should be in its present state. He took a great interest in the matter, because of the Department with which he was connected, and because he felt that it had some connection with the great measure which was expected by the country with regard to education in England. Not that he expected hints from this Scotch measure, for he was perfectly aware of the different circumstances; but it would be an advantage to have one national system. The circumstances of England, Ireland, and Scotland respectively were different in respect of education, and a system of education which would be suitable for one of the three kingdoms, would not be, in all probability, suitable to either of the two others; but the fact that Scotland had adopted a system of national education, such as that which this Bill would provide, would no doubt greatly assist the Government in framing and
  1110
  passing educational measures for England and Ireland. Under all the circumstances he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Sir John Ogilvy) would not persevere with his Motion.
  SIR JOHN OGILVY, yielding to the suggestions of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham), and his right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Council, said he would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he must complain that the hon. Member for Dundee should consent to withdraw his Motion. The Scotch Members had been gagged by the action of the Government in respect of this Bill. They had been refused an opportunity of discussing the measure; there had been no discussion on the second reading; and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary objected to his attempt to raise one on the Motion for going into Committee. He denounced the measure as a denominational rather than a national system of education. This was not a national Bill, but a denominational Bill. Much as he was opposed to a denominational system, he would rather have an honest denominational Bill than one which professed to be a national, but which was used as an ignis fatuus to lure hon. Members, and which contained some of the most fatal elements of denominational-ism. He had already said that there were two main features of the Bill which. were of vital importance, and that unless these two were satisfactorily settled, he must oppose the Bill. These were the constitution of the Board, and the 63rd and 64th clauses, in which the denominational element most fatally resided; and if these two were satisfactorily settled, then the Scotch Members would be content to waive the question of opening up the parish schools, because they believed that a large proportion of them would be converted into national schools. He was not going to repeat the complaints that had been made as to the management of the Public Business this Session; but he asked the English Members if they would tolerate an Education Bill being taken for discussion on the 2nd of August, on the same evening that the Appropriation Bill was set down for second reading. He ventured to say that they would resent it as an outrage.
  MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he agreed

  1111
  with the hon. Member that a mistake had been made in not debating principles more fully in the previous stages, for he believed that if such a discussion had taken place, it would have given the Bill momentum sufficient to carry it over the miserable obstacles about which they had been wasting so much time. He denied the accuracy of the assertion that the scheme proposed was not a national scheme — on the contrary, he contended that this was pre-eminently a Bill for establishing a national system of education. In the first place, it was national because in it, for the first time, the nation undertook the direct responsibility for providing schools. In the second place, he held it to be national because it would be no longer partial—all over the country, in burghs as well as in rural districts, in the Highlands and the Islands, as well as the mainland, henceforth there would be proper education for the children, for it would be the duty of the Board to ascertain what was wanted in every part of Scotland, and to provide according to the need. And lastly, it was a national as opposed to a denominational system. He did not say that the Bill retained no trace whatever of denominationalism. They could not expect that if the education of the country had been carried on for a generation under one system, in a single year they could sweep away every vestige of it; and he doubted even whether they would be prepared for the financial results of such a proposal. But the Bill did away with denominational inspection, and provided that parochial schools, which had not hitherto been examined by the Government at all, should be subject to national inspection. It was also undenominational in the sense that, although it permitted the existing denominational schools to continue, no new denominational schools could be set up, except under the narrowest possible limits. The chief thing that they ought to set before their minds was the picture of the miserable and uneducated children whose case this Bill was intended to meet. He believed that the numbers had been understated, and if the worse educated were to be brought to the level of the better educated parts of Scotland, it would be found that there were at least 100,000 children for whom provision must be made.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he was one of the eight independent Members referred to by his hon. Friend; and when the Lord Advocate to-day, at a meeting of Scotch Members, announced the important concessions made by the Government, he to give practical effect to their wish, proposed that hon. Members having Amendments on the Paper, should withdraw them; but he was met by a pretty general "No." He despaired, therefore, of getting the Bill through this Session. What was the urgency of the case? Was Scotland enveloped in such Cimmerian darkness as to require that a Bill should pass through the House at a railway pace in order to give her education? Certainly not. In London there were more uneducated children than in all Scotland. After the liberal proposals of the Government he should not oppose the Motion of the Lord Advocate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair." —(Sir John Ogilvy.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 113: Majority 77.
  Clause 4 (Meeting of the board. Three members to be a quorum)— CLAUSE A. (Board meetings.)
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, they had had a long discussion on the constitution of the Board, and the Government had agreed to re-consider the question, and Inform them at some future time what they intended to do. Before dealing with the powers and action of the Board they ought to know how it was to be constituted.
  Motion made "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. Craufurd.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, they might as well postpone the whole Bill as the clauses relating to the Board. When the proper time came he should give the required explanation as to the constitution of the Board.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYinquired of the Lord Advocate, whether all the meetings of the Board were to be open to the public?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEreplied that he intended to agree to an Amendment, which was to be proposed by the hon. Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther), extending the open meetings to ordinary as well as to half-yearly meetings.
  MR. ELLICEwished to know whether he had understood the Lord Advocate right when he thought he heard him say that the meetings of the Board were to be open to the public. How would the Board get on with their business if the public was to be admitted to all their proceedings?
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it was certainly understood at the meeting upstairs that all the meetings were to be in public.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEasked if it was seriously proposed that an excited public should be admitted to attend the proceedings of a Board consisting of only two or three members? The thing would defeat itself, for the Board would hold private meetings for the transaction of their business, and the public meetings would become a mere farce.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the reason why that concession was made by the Government was this—He agreed with his hon. Friend that it was absurd to talk of public meetings to be held of a Board consisting of only three gentlemen mot to transact ordinary business; but it was impossible rightly to define the occasions when the public ought to be admitted. Take the case where the conduct of a schoolmaster was under discussion—or where denominational schools sought to be admitted. These were matters where the public ought to have security that the questions were fully considered, and, therefore, he thought they ought to be present.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, there was another reason which had not been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The Board would have powers of taxation, and, therefore, they ought to satisfy the public that these powers were reasonably exercised.
  LORD ELCHOasked whether there was any precedent, either in England or Scotland for such a proposal as this— that an important Board like this should conduct its business publicly. It seemed to him to be a proposal to get in the thin end of the American wedge, where thousands took part in, and cheered the proceedings of an assembly. It would be contrary to the spirit of independence to have such a thing, because the Board might be under the terrorism or other demonstrations on the part of the public.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, it seemed to be forgotten that the Board would, on many
  1114
  occasions, sit as a court, and that representatives from local committees would be heard before them for and against the planting of a new school at a particular spot, or perhaps objecting to the adoption of a denominational school. The speaking would be not so much of the members of the Board as of those who came to plead their cause before them. It might as well be said that because the Judges of a court of law consisted of only three or four members, therefore the public should not be admitted.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, his first impression certainly was that it would be inconvenient that the Board should hold its meetings in public; but when he remembered that the Board would have great powers in determining where new schools were to be placed, in the adoption of denominational schools, and in the indirect power of taxation which they would confer, he changed his mind. He thought the inconvenience would be met by giving the Board power to sit in committee.
  Motion negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Power to appoint committees) was agreed to, after a short discussion.
  Clause 6 (Power to make rules and regulations which shall be laid before Parliament).
  MR. ORR EWINGmoved in page 4, line 24, after "occasion," to insert '' to frame a code for Scotland in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule A to this Act, and." It had been admitted that the manner in which education was carried on in Scotland differed very materially from the system adopted in England, and that the schools in Scotland not only gave the best elementary education, but also a higher education to youths intending to proceed to the Universities. They did not object in Scotland to payment by results; but they desired that the results should be taken from a higher standard, so that the schools included in this Bill might be improved rather than deteriorated by this operation. His object, therefore, was to intrust the initiative in framing this code to gentlemen of thoroughly Scotch feeling, who could appreciate the Scotch system of educa-

  1115
  tion and its superior advantages, leaving, however, the ultimate decision in the hands of the Committee of Council for Education, whose authority he had no wish to over-ride.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 24, after the word "occasion," to insert the words "to frame a code for Scotland in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule (A) to this Act, and."—(Mr. Orr Swing.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government should feel it their duty to oppose the Amendment. The Government were quite aware of the different conditions of education in Scotland and England, and they had acknowledged that fact by appending to the Bill a Schedule which mentioned certain conditions which must be fulfilled in any Revised Code for Scotland. It would be for the hon. Member, when they got to the schedule, if he was not satisfied with the conditions, to move an Amendment; but it would be impossible for the Privy Council to continue to be responsible to the country for the distribution of the public money, and not to be the Department which had to submit to Parliament the condition on which that aid was granted.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRexpressed a hope that the Amendment would not be pressed. It was perfectly conclusive that if the money was to be administered by the Privy Council, the code must be framed by them; but he had an Amendment in Schedule A, to the effect that before the Privy Council proceeded to make a code they should receive a Report from the Board as to peculiar requirements of Scotch education.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government would have no objection to accede to that Amendment.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEwas inclined to place faith in the administration of those grants by the Privy Council. He thought it most important that everything with reference to the public contributions should be under the strictest regulations possible.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, it did not matter whether the taxation was national or local; what was wanted was that the Board should be in reality a Scotch Board, and that that Board should draw up any code of Scotch education that might be deemed necessary. They required that there should be a joint
  1116
  action between the Scotch Board and the Privy Council, and that the former should have the power to compel the Privy Council to take a Scotch view—or at any rate a reasonable Scotch view— of Scotch education.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Craufurd) said that it made no difference whether the taxation was local or otherwise. The difference was this, did the hon. Member propose to entrust the Scotch Board with the key of the Imperial Treasury, with power to use what money they thought proper?
  MR. ORR EWINGdenied that his Amendment was intended to throw the cost on the State. It was intended rather to draw up a principle upon which the fund should be administered, and to insure for the education of Scotland at least as high a position as it had hitherto held. He did not wish that the Board should draw up a rule and act upon it; but that what they did should be submitted to the Privy Council before anything was done in regard to it. His Amendment had the approval of a majority of the Scotch Members, and he hoped the Government would accede to it.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, this was not the proper place for such an Amendment as that before the House. The proper time was on the consideration of the Schedule, and when that time came the Government would be prepared to accept an Amendment, the effect of which would be "that the rules are to be drawn up after receiving a report from the Board as to the modifications of the Revised Code that may be suitable for Scotland." He thought this ought to satisfy the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment. There were things in the Revised Code which would not suit the case of Scotland, and those could be amended at the proper time. Although, perhaps, they could not pride themselves upon the state of elementary education in Scotland, it was in the main satisfactory; while the Privy Council was prepared to give a bonus to higher education by making an allowance for four years longer in respect of the age during which the attendance of children at school was followed by an allowance.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, his intention was not to take the key out of the hands of the Privy Council; but that there

  1117
  should be two keys, of which the Council should hold one and the Board the other, and he did not wish the purse to be opened unless with, the consent of the holders of both keys.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the Amendment just referred to by the Lord Advocate would meet the case.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 17; Noes 81: Majority 64.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Parochial and parliamentary schools shall be old national schools, and shall continue to be managed as at present)—CLAUSE B. (Vote of heritors in election of schoolmasters).
  MR. LOCHmoved to omit the words "every parochial school and," his object being to exclude parochial schools from the operation of the Bill, so far as the powers of converting the parochial schools into national schools. He wished to preserve the system which had produced in Scotland such splendid results, and had brought about an amount of general information and intelligence which was not eclipsed by any other part of the United Kingdom. While they were quite right in endeavouring to establish a system to remedy any deficiencies that had arisen, why should they not preserve that which they knew to be good and efficient? The feeling of the people of Scotland generally was in favour of the maintenance of the parish schools; but the people also desired that the management should embrace a larger number of heritors, and that the schools should cease to be connected exclusively with the Established Church. It was obvious that those who contributed towards the maintenance of the schools should share in the management, and now that so large a proportion of the people had ceased to belong to the Established Church, it was but reasonable to require that the management should extend beyond the ministers of that Church. Another important aspect of the question was the amount levied throughout Scotland; £40,000 or £50,000 a-year could not be enough for the purposes of education, and it was, therefore, important to retain the large endowment which now existed. He was
  1118
  glad to know that his Amendment was not to be opposed by the Government.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, this Amendment was a necessary consequence of one which was discussed and settled at an early period of the evening; but he thought the best course would be to strike out the words of the clause from line 14 to the end—
  "Every private school and every parochial school is hereby declared to be a national school, and shall, from and after the passing of this Act, be vested," &c.
  There were many other useful and important provisions applying to parochial schools.
  MR. LOCHexpressed his willingness to adopt the suggestions made.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYhoped the Lord Advocate did not intend to change the name "national schools."
  MR. LOCHthen withdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Union of parochial schools).
  MR. MILLERsaid, he had three Amendments to propose in relation to this subject. First, of all, he wished to strike out the words in the clause, "and minister," in lines 20 and 25, his object being to take away the denominational character of the schools. As he understood the Government, they desired to liberalize the heritors as far as possible, and the object of his Amendments was similar. So long as the minister was a member of the Governing Body of the schools in question, they would be to all intents and purposes denominational. In parishes where the population was small —in the Highlands, for example—the parochial ministers had the whole say, so far as the schools were concerned, the heritors being mostly absent, and the schools were entirely under his management. He hoped the Government would adopt the Amendment.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsupported the Amendment. The present state of things was most anomalous, and the Lord Advocate should, in conformity with his own principles, be prepared to place all denominations on an equality. It was well known that the Established Church did not comprehend above one-third of the people.
  MR. CRAUFURDbelieved that the proposals of the Government could not

  1119
  be completely carried out unless this Amendment were carried.
  MR. ELLICEalso urged upon the Government the propriety of getting rid of the clerical element in the management of the schools.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, although a member of the Established Church, he was opposed to the invidious distinction which it was now sought to remove. He had said over and over again in Scotland that he thought that if one minister were put upon the board all the ministers in the locality ought to be put upon it; but that expression of opinion was invariably received with marks of disapproval. People in Scotland said—it was not his own opinion— that if three or four ministers were placed on the managing committee of a school it would be quite impossible to transact business of any kind. As they had to choose between putting no ministers on the managing body and putting all, it seemed to him highly desirable to adopt the Amendment.
  MR. M'LAGANthought that they should pause before they struck out the word "minister." In many parishes there would be no one to manage the schools if the minister were shut out. He rather approved of the levelling-up system, and thought all the ministers should be members of the board.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, this question was not without embarrassment. In a country split up as Scotland was into at least three large denominations, it would not be desirable that one minister alone should manage the schools; but, on the other hand, it was not desirable, in his opinion, that no minister should be capable of sitting on the board.. There could be no doubt that the clergy had rendered great service in the management of parochial schools. Although he wished to destroy the denominational character of the schools, he did not wish to destroy their religious character; and he had no doubt that under a freer system of management ministers of different denominations would act harmoniously. The Amendment only applied to the case of a combination of parishes for school purposes, and he thought it would be best to have the question raised under its general aspect, and to determine distinctly whether ministers should or should not take part in the management of pa-
  1120
  rochial schools. That they had done so since 1696 there could be no doubt.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRwas of opinion that, under the circumstances of the case, and as the heritors were to a certain extent to be doubly taxed, the Committee ought to give them the parochial schools under the same management as at present, which would not be done if the minister were taken away.
  MR. MILLERsaid, he understood that the interpretation of the word "heritors," as used in the Bill, was all heritors on the valuation-roll; and therefore the management was already altered. The Government thought the constitution of the Board could not be kept as it was, and he (Mr. Miller) proposed further to liberalize it by striking out the word "minister." The minister did not contribute sixpence on account of his manse or glebe, and yet he had power, by his casting vote, to levy money from others.
  MR. BRUCEthought the object of his hon. Friend would not be gained by the adoption of his Amendment. It was not the intention of the Government to revoke the old legal arrangement of 1696, and he did not think it was desirable to open up such a large question then.
  MR. M'LARENhad objected from the first to the contemplated union of schools, which would compel many children to daily travel three or four miles to obtain education. He thought the clause very objectionable, and that it would be better to strike it out altogether.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYconcurred in this opinion.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 10 negatived.
  Clause 11 (Board, with the sanction of the Lords of the Treasury, may appoint special commissioners).
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEwished to move as an Amendment in the clause, line 10, after the word "Act," to insert—
  "Due regard being had to the number of private and endowed schools already existing in the parish or burgh, and the quality of the education furnished therein."
  There was no doubt that both in England and Scotland private schools were popular among the working classes, and

  1121
  evidence had been given before the Duke of Newcastle's Commission of that fact. He thought, therefore, they ought not to discourage private schools.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsuggested that the Amendment should run thus—
  "Due regard being had to the schools already existing in the parish or burgh, and the quality of the education furnished therein."
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was afraid that these words would not be held to be legally applicable to private schools, and thought it would be a great evil if they were not so. The Lord Advocate knew that in the city with which he was connected there were large private schools most successfully conducted. There was one Lancastrian school with 500 scholars, and why should the Commissioners set to work and erect another school next door to it?
  After short conversation,
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that on the whole he would accept the Amendment as originally proposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Board with the sanction of a majority of the trustees, managers, or proprietors of any school, may adopt any school).
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthen moved the insertion of the following words after the word "board" on line 29:—
  "And it shall be the duty of such special commissioner or commissioners to inquire into the nature and amount of the funds devoted to the maintenance or education of young persons, and they shall also inquire into the administration or management of schools wholly or in part supported by endowments, and to the system and course of study pursued therein, and to report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any and what changes in the administration and use of such endowments are expedient, by which their usefulness and efficiency may be increased."
  MR. M'LARENthought it would be inexpedient to introduce these words. He entirely approved of the object desired, but he should like to see a Commission to inquire into educational endowments in Scotland. These were estimated by the Member for the University of Edinburgh at £150,000 a year, while the whole payments by the heritors of Scotland were only £48,000. He believed that the parties charged with the administration of these endowments would not open their doors so freely to a
  1122
  subordinate of a subordinate—as a Commissioner from the Board would be—as to a Commission appointed by the Crown.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEwould not object to the Amendment if the word "board" were substituted for "special commissioners."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 struck out.
  Clause 14 (School committee to take proceedings to erect school).
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the object of this clause was to compel the erection of schools, whether the rate-payers wanted it or not, and he thought that, before agreeing to it, they ought to know who the Board was. The powers given to the Board were of a very despotic character, and there was no power of appeal.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEobserved that, under the 31st section of the clause, every order of the Board was subject to appeal to the Home Secretary.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the appeal was from a Board of which the Lord Advocate was a member, and the only information which the Home Secretary could receive about it was from the Lord Advocate. What was that but an appeal from Philip to Philip?
  MR. CRUM-EWINGstated that there was considerable alarm about the clause in Scotland. There would be no use of the Bill, unless the power to put down schools was given to some one; but some alarm was felt at being put at the mercy of the Edinburgh lawyers.
  MR. M'LARENsaid that this clause ought to be watched with great jealousy. There could be no doubt that the opinion of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General would be taken by the Board before pushing any matter to extremity, and the appeal, therefore, would practically be from the same Judge to the same Judge. He had the strongest possible objection to the Law Officers of the Crown being on the Board.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 128; Noes 11: Majority 117.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 (New schools to be "new national schools," and to be managed by school committee).
  Clause 16 (School committee may elect teacher, &c.).
  Agreed to, after short discussion.
  Clause 17 (Combined national school).
  MR. ORR EWINGproposed to substitute £50 instead of £35 as the minimum for schoolmasters' salaries. He wished to remind the House of what was expected from these schoolmasters. They were expected to have a University education, and to be able to teach Latin, and Greek, and French, and geography. He believed that the welfare of Scotland depended more upon the education of the schoolmasters than upon anything else, and he hoped the Scotch members would support him in this small measure of justice to these industrious, hardworking men.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRobserved that there were several other Amendments nearly to the same effect. He would raise the minimum to £50; but after the word "pounds" he would insert "nor more than one hundred," which should be the maximum salary.
  MR. M'LARENthought the minimum should remain as stated in the clause. That, it should be recollected, would not be the whole income of the teacher. Besides the Privy Council grant, the schoolmaster would have a free house, garden, and the school fees.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, nobody would expect a good master for a low salary; but it was admitted on all hands that there were parts of the country on which it would press very hard indeed to give the schoolmaster £50. He should therefore vote for keeping the sum at £35.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEpointed out that £35 was not the salary to be paid generally; but the lowest sum that would be given. When the subject was considered in 1861, the minimum was fixed at £29. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh for fixing the maximum salary at £100.
  MR. FORDYCEhoped the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire would press his Amendment to a division. One great ground for supporting the Bill was the hope that it might raise the status of the schoolmasters.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, hoping, after the expression of opinion which had been given, that no parish would take advantage of the limit of £35 to pay a schoolmaster so low a sum.
  Clause amended by the insertion of the words "nor more than one hundred;" Clause further amended and agreed to.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Conversion of old national schools into new national schools).
  MAJOR WALKER moved the insertion in line 38, after the word "the," of the words "heritors and minister, or." He said it was only fair that the power proposed to be given to the school committees under the new arrangements, to combine and employ pupil teachers on special subjects, should be extended to the old parochial schools. This was the object of his Amendment.
  MR. MILLER moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, the omission of the words "and minister."
  MR. GRAHAMsaid, some hon. Members appeared to regard ministers as firebrands. He suggested that the difficulty might be got over by some words in the interpretation clause.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, this question of the minister had been ingeniously evaded the last time, but it had now come up again, and he hoped the difficulty would be fairly met by a distinct statement from the Government. What the Scotch Members wanted to know was, whether they were to have a thorough and honest liberalizing of the parochial schools in the sense contemplated by the division on Tuesday last against the proposals then made by the Government.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthought there were no grounds whatever for the remarks just made by the hon. Member. Since 1696 there could be no doubt that ministers had a share in the control of these schools.
  MR. M'LARENobjected to the words proposed to be inserted altogether.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was a good deal in the objection of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and he thought that the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire had better prepare a clause which should be entirely devoted to the parish schools.
  LORD GARLIESasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman ac-

  1125
  cepted the words of the Amendment, because they had already been twice put aside with his assent?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEwas perfectly prepared to accept the clause he had indicated.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 struck out.
  Clauses 21, 22, and 23 agreed to, with Amendments.
  After short discussion, House resumed; Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  BANKRUPTCY BILL.

    LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments reported.
    MR. S. MORLEYsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of stating his belief that the Government had fairly and honestly redeemed their pledge with regard to this measure, which was the best that had been secured during the lifetime of any trader in this country. The thanks of the trading community were due to the Government, and especially to the Attorney General for the manner in which he had listened to the representations of the Chambers of Commerce on this question.
    Reasons agreed to: To be communicated to the Lords.

    BISHOPS RESIGNATION BILL— [BILL 241.]
    [Lords.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to move the second reading of this Bill, and, if it were convenient to the House, to postpone any statement of the objects of the Bill until it could be taken at a more convenient hour, which he would secure by placing it as the first Order on Thursday. The hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) had given notice of a Motion, from which he gathered that the hon. Member desired that the Bill should not be proceeded with. But he wished the hon. Member to observe the effect of an Amendment which he proposed to move in the Bill. An Amendment had been introduced into the Bill in the Lords which very materially altered its character, and introduced subjects of
    1126
    difficulty and complexity not originally included in the measure. He referred to the 3rd clause, which made the Bill applicable to physical incapacity for the purpose of appointing coadjutor Bishops. That was not at all in harmony with the general structure of the Bill, and he wished the House to consider the Amendments he would place on the table tonight, and how the Bill would stand in the event of those Amendments being adopted. He moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    MR. COLLINSsaid, he did not object to that part of the Bill which applied to resignation; but he hoped that, if the Bill were to proceed this Session, all the clauses with reference to the appointment of coadjutor Bishops would be dropped by the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill might have been sent down from the other House three months ago, seeing that they had nothing to do there but idle away their time in the early part of the Session; and he hoped, taking into account that it was a measure of so much importance, it would not be proceeded with at a period when it could not be adequately discussed.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, the first clause of the Bill appeared to him, to say the least of it, to be rather oddly worded. It stated that an Archbishop or Bishop was canonically to resign his benefice, and then went on to state that that was to be done only if he were incapacitated by mental or physical infirmity. The same words "mental infirmity" were used in the second provision of the Bill, in which the process was rendered compulsory. The difficulty lay in supposing that a different meaning was to be attached to those words in the same document. If mental infirmity existed to a degree which produced complete mental incapacity, he did not sec how a Bishop could canonically resign, or an Archbishop report to the Crown that he was infirm. He also saw another difficulty in the Bill as it stood. It was set forth that an Archbishop or Bishop was as a preliminary matter canonically to resign, and afterwards that the Crown was to be satisfied by proof that he was either mentally or bodily incapable. But should the proof fail, in what position,

    1127
    he should like to know, would things then be placed? If a see had been canonically resigned it could not be taken up again, and if the proof failed it was not easy to perceive what was to be done. He quite concurred in thinking that it would be inconvenient to discuss a Bill of so much importance at so late an hour, and under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the wisest course to adopt would be to pass it only for one year.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed, for Thursday.

    METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (LOANS) BILL.
    (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goschen.)
    [BILL 238.] CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. AYRTONmoved the addition of a proviso at the end of Clause 22, defining further the relative rights and liabilities of landlord and tenant with respect to the payment of rates.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the clause which was introduced into the Bill on Saturday on the Motion of Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens—
    "That it shall not be lawful for the Metropolitan Board of Works to sell or let, whether on lease or otherwise, any portion of the lands now vested in said Board for the purpose of a park or other place of recreation."
    The clause as it stood was extremely ambiguous, and it was difficult to know what interpretation ought to be put upon it. The Act authorizing the Metropolitan Board of Works to purchase land expressly declared that they should be empowered to purchase such land as they might think fit for the construction of a park, and that they should be at liberty to sell any surplus land not required for that purpose. Such were the provisions contained in two Local Acts already passed—one for the construction of a park at Finsbury, and the other for the construction of a park at Southwark. Now, it was quite obvious that the Board, on the faith of those Acts, had been encouraged to make larger purchases than were necessary for the mere construction of a park, in each case feeling that they might reimburse themselves by the sale of the surplus lands. Of the authority to sell them, however,
    1128
    the present clause was evidently intended to deprive the Board, and the Government ought not, he thought, to acquiesce in such an arrangement, especially when it was borne in mind that some hon. Members had, as he had been informed, voted for the clause with the idea that it was necessary for the preservation of the parks themselves intact. If that were its only object he should offer no opposition to it, although even then he should look upon it as entirely irrelevant and as by no means required. But it affected the rights of the rate-payers of the metropolis, by declaring in effect that a special grant should be made for the benefit of two or three parishes. If the parishes in question wished to make any application to Parliament, with the view of having the surplus lands in question appropriated to particular purposes, it was open to them to do so next Session. He had the authority of the Metropolitan Board of Works to say that no step would be taken between this and the next Session of Parliament for dealing with that surplus land, in order that the parishes might have the opportunity of prosecuting their views in the only way in which they ought to do so—namely, by Private Bill. Therefore there was no ground for that hasty and unjust legislation, and with that assurance he hoped the Committee would have no difficulty in striking out that clause. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving to leave out the clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause (Park lands vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works.)—(Mr. Ayrton.)
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that before putting on the Paper notice of his intention to propose the insertion of that clause, he had consulted the Chairman of Committees as to its strict regularity, as, without the sanction of that authority, he should have hesitated to take a step so important as to move the clause to which he had the good fortune to obtain the assent of the House. He must at once join issue, as he did on Saturday, with, the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton), and deny that that was an attempt by a clause in a Public Bill to deal with that which was first enacted in a Local and Private Bill. When he introduced to the first Commissioner of Works, in April last, a deputation from

    1129
    the neighbourhood affected by that question, he took care to go to the officers of that House, who were its officers when the Bill of 1857 was originally passed, and inquire what was the nature of that Act. He learnt that it was a hybrid Act, and that, consequently, its Amendment might be sought by a Bill like the present one. He denied that the Act of 1857 could be fairly described as a Local Act. It was introduced during the Ministry of Lord Palmerston; and Lord Palmerston, no inexperienced authority as to the rules of that House, volunteered, on behalf of his Government, to move a large grant of money in aid of the objects then contemplated. The Bill was promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and was carried by their influence, with the assistance of the Government. It was not a Private, but a Public Act, and it belonged to the class of measures familiarly called "hybrid Bills." The Reports of the Board of Works, on which it was supported, were to the effect that they sought powers from Parliament to complete the drainage of the metropolis, with the promise and upon the undertaking that they would create public parks, where they were expedient and necessary, in the metropolis. After that Bill passed, the Board of Works, in the following Session, came to Parliament for new powers, including the power to mortgage 3d. in the pound of the metropolitan rates to raise £3,000,000; and the inducement held out to the House to pass that Bill was composed in part of the promise made officially that the Metropolitan Board of Works intended to devote £216,000 to the formation of a park in Finsbury, and a further sum for a park in Bermondsey. His case was that that Board had broken faith with Parliament and with the people of London, because, instead of so expending those sums, on the faith of expending which they obtained the power of mortgaging 3d. in the pound of the metropolitan rates and raising £3,000,000 sterling, they had expended the money neither in the one case nor in the other; and he asked the House not to rescind its vote of Saturday, because, to do that, would be to encourage breaches of contract by municipal bodies. On the 18th of April, 1859, after they had got that Act on those pretences and promises, the Chairman of the Board of Works wrote a
    1130
    letter to the Home Secretary for the time being, in which he recurred to the conditions on which the Act had been passed, and stated that among the most important objects of the measure was the establishment of those two parks. The people of London, therefore, did not come now to that House to sue in formâ pauperis, but they asked that they might not be robbed of their own money. And he hoped the House, after the vote it had given within the last forty-eight hours on that matter, would not now undo that act of justice. It was not true that the Board of Works had a discretionary power to sell portions of that land as they thought fit. The words of the statute, which were very careful and precise, enabled the Board only to dispose of such lands as were not required for the purposes of the park. But was anybody prepared to stand up and tell the House that 115 acres were too much for the purposes of the health and recreation of a part of the metropolis whose inhabitants were to be counted by hundreds of thousands, and that twenty acres might be taken away? The metropolis was divided into nine Parliamentary cities and boroughs. The poorer population of the East-end, comprising the Tower Hamlets, the City, Hackney, Finsbury, and Southwark, was considerably over 1,500,000. Yet for parks they had, on the whole, only 460 acres; whereas, the genteel end of the town, with a smaller amount of population, and including Westminster, Lambeth, Chelsea, and Marylebone, had 1,460 acres in the shape of parks; or 1,000 acres more than the unfortunate people of the East-end of London, who were entitled to no less care and attention from that House than the inhabitants of the West-end. It was unworthy of a great and powerful Government to bring its gigantic power to bear on particular localities in this way; and he was sure they would not have long to wait before they would find discontent cropping up if they were to do acts of this kind.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would ask the House to decide simply on the merits of the question. It appeared that in all cases in which the Metropolitan Board had taken land for the purpose of parks, it had always got power to sell a small portion, and why? Not to diminish the area of the park, but that the valuable

    1131
    frontage which would be created by the formation of the park should be reserved for the benefit of the rate-payers of the whole metropolis. Then there was this other point. It struck him that there was considerable force in the argument that where land for a park was taken in a populous district, the Board should have power to make what he should call "a fringe" to the park itself—that was, should have power to build a decent class of houses around the park, instead of allowing the miserable tenements that might be in the neighbourhood to stand around it, or contractors to come in and run up a wretched description of houses. It was a most expensive proceeding to construct parks in the midst of populous districts, and the least that could be done was to reserve a small portion of the land for the purpose of recouping some of the expenses incurred. He was informed that the land in question in the neighbourhood of Finsbury and Southwark Parks was worth £76,800, and that was a sum worth consideration. His hon. Friend complained that twenty acres were taken out of 115 and said it was too much. [Mr. M'CULLAGH TORRENS: Out of 250.] His hon. Friend would not allow that any one corner of the parks should be built upon now or at any future time. He agreed with his hon. Friend in much that he had said; but he thought he might ask the House not to vote for the retention of so stringent a clause. The difference between them was simply this—whether the hon. Member for Finsbury would not tie the hands of the Board too much, and thus really defeat the object he had in view. His hon. Friend would find that some of the metropolitan Members who supported him on a previous occasion would not now do so, because since the last division they had found out that the views of their constituents did not coincide with those of the hon. Member. MR. HENLEY said, he was sorry the Government had tried to reverse what the House had done the other day. There was a very great, rapid, and unprecedented increase of population in the neighbourhood where these parks were, and whatever might have been considered suitable a few years back, everyone must admit that the spaces now open were not too much. There was a good deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman had said about
    1132
    the profit that might be made by "a fringe "around the frontage. They all knew that the frontage near a park was very valuable; but "a fringe" was a very wide term, and when they came to talk of a fringe all round they might reduce the area very considerably. When they considered how densely the people were packed, what the effect upon their health of that dense packing was, how every day and every hour the population was increasing, and how the country and fresh air were being put further away from them, it was very unfortunate now that open spaces had been obtained, that every morsel of those spaces should not be kept open for the health of the people.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had no desire whatever but that simple justice should be done, and he put it to the candour of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) that his statement as to the acreage of the parks available for the East-end and West-end of the metropolis respectively did not fairly represent the merits of the case. The Green Park, St. James's Park, and Hyde Park had not been purchased by the public money; they were Crown estates made over to the metropolis. And here he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the whole of his speech appeared to be founded on a principle diametrically the reverse of what Parliament had deliberately adopted. The right hon. Gentleman had made an appeal to compassion, and said—"Assuredly you don't think these acres too much." But was Parliament to make parks for London, or was it not? If Parliament was to make parks for London, the cost must come upon the Consolidated Fund. But Parliament eight or ten years ago deliberately and advisedly set up a system of local government charged with the execution of public works, and, among others, with the formation of these parks. Surely that was a most important consideration. It was a most serious thing for Parliament to take this course, and then to say that the local authority so constituted should not deal with the matter in accordance with the rules already laid down, but that Parliament itself should step in and say upon what terms parks should be made. If this were done the rate-payers would

    1133
    not let the point rest there. Parliament had distinctly declared that the funds of the country at large should not go to make parks for London, that London must attend to its own wants in this respect, and had provided machinery for the purpose; if Parliament, however, interfered, a responsibility would be entailed which it must not shrink from discharging.
    MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the Prime Minister had over-stated the case in dealing with it as if the country did nothing for London. The country at large had done much for Battersea Park and the Royal Parks, and having thus contributed a rate-in-aid, the people of the country had a right to be heard when they expressed an opinion on the subject of parks to be made at the East- end. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. M. Torrens) would so modify his proposal as to allow a smaller portion of the park than twenty acres, say ten acres, to be placed within the power of the Board of Works for appropriation.
    DR. BREWERsaid, he should sup- port the original proposition, giving the Board power to sell, because he desired other parts of London besides Finsbury to have parks; he could point out places in London which would be thankful for a fourth of the space Finsbury would gain by the Bill as it originally stood.
    SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, the only argument in favour of the sale of the twenty acres of land was the fear that the rates on the metropolis at large would be increased. As he thought the richer portion of the metropolis—the West-end —could afford to bear a heavier burden in order to give the poorer portion—the East-end—a better park, he would vote with the hon. Member for Finsbury.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question was not one of policy, as to how much the House would feel disposed to give or withhold, but was one of simple justice. A piece of land had been divided into two portions; one had been given to the people of Finsbury for a park, the other to the Metropolitan Board, as representing the rate-payers, and when the Board of Works came to Parliament asking for facilities to borrow money, the hon. Member for Finsbury asked the House to rob the rate-payers of their portion of the land in order to give it to the people
    1134
    of Finsbury; he, in fact, asked the House to impose a heavy burden on the rate-payers, in opposition to a bargain solemnly agreed to by Parliament.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he had heard no reason whatever to justify him in voting in a contrary direction to that in which he voted on Saturday; though he thought the clause might be modified. It was never intended to divide the ground into park and building land, and he objected to describing the twenty acres as surplus land, because "surplus land," as applied to schemes ordinarily before Parliament, referred to land beyond what was necessary for the object in view, and this twenty acres was not more than sufficient for the park. The Finsbury Park Act gave power to the Metropolitan Board of Works to take 250 acres and to sell the surplus; but that Board only required 115 acres, and they now asked to apply to building purposes the proportion of twenty acres to 115, though the proportion originally named was that of twenty acres to 250 acres.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 79: Majority 23.
    Another Amendment made.
    Bill to be read the third time To- morrow, at Two of the clock.

    CANADA (RUPERT'S LAND) LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
    Resolution reported;
    "That it is expedient to authorize the Treasury to guarantee the interest of a Loan not exceeding £300,000, to be raised by the Governor in Council of Canada, under the terms of an arrangement concluded with the Hudson's Bay Company for the surrender of Rupert's Land to Her Majesty; and to make provision for the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of such sums as may be required to fulfil the said guarantee."
    Resolution agreed to: — Bill ordered to be I brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. STANSFELD, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 253.]

    BROUGHTY FERRY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862," relating to the burgh of Broughty Ferry, ordered to he brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 254.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.