[BILL 67.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 June 1869)

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that as it was the intention of the hon. Member to alter the Bill by introducing certain definitions, and as hon. Members had not been made acquainted with the nature of the alterations, the most convenient course to pursue would be to commit the Bill pro formâ now for the purpose of introducing the Amendments.

§ MR. REED
said, the alterations he intended to make were exceedingly slight, and were prepared in order to meet the views of the President of the Poor Law Board. He hoped he would be allowed to proceed with the Bill in Committee.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought the course now proposed to be taken most objectionable. A Bill had been introduced to exempt certain things from taxation. [Laughter.] He called them things because they did not yet know exactly what they were, but the people were to be called on to contribute the amount which certain institutions should pay. It was reasonable before going into Committee that the House should know what the institutions were. They were called Ragged Schools and Sunday Schools; and as definitions of those terms had been asked for the hon. Member stated that he had prepared them, but unreasonably asked the House to go into Committee without explaining what they were. It was proposed to make, in favour of denominational Sunday Schools, an exemption which was equivalent to a grant. Under compulsory church rates the minority was compelled to contribute towards the support of the religion of the majority, which was bad enough; but in this case it was proposed to make the majority pay for the schools of the minority. Everybody who set up a Sunday School was to have a grant towards the expense of it. The House had a right to see the terms defining the schools that were to be exempted, and he therefore trusted that the Committee would be postponed for three days, in order that the Bill as amended might be re-printed.

§ MR. BAINES
said, the Bill was one of the utmost simplicity. There was only one clause likely to provoke discussion. 465 He wished the Government to give an undertaking that progress should be made with the measure at the end of the three days, if the suggested postponement were acceded to.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that there was an Amendment on the Paper to establish certain definitions. Was it reasonable they should impose taxation without knowing its limits? It was all very well to talk about exemptions, but exemption to one man was increased taxation to another.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he hoped the Bill would be proceeded with. The Bill was good as far as it went, and, if necessary, an interpretation clause could be introduced. The House had affirmed the Bill by a large majority on the second reading.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that if the hon. Member wished to proceed with his Bill he had better accede to the suggestion of the Government. A great principle was involved in the Bill that required consideration.

MR. BRUCE
appealed to the hon. Member not to insist on proceeding with the Bill. Although the Government might be opposed to the principle of the Bill, they offered no opposition to its introduction. It was necessary to pause until they had the fullest information on the subject. The Bill proposed only to deal with one part of a great subject. There was extreme danger of extending Ragged Schools at the expense of other schools. However necessary Ragged Schools might be, their number should be limited to the strict wants of the locality, as they were not fit receptacles for the children of respectable persons. Partiality to these schools would tend unduly to multiply them at the cost of better schools. There were grave doubts whether the House ought to proceed further with the Bill.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, that if the Members of the Government entertained objections to the principle of the Bill they ought to have been in their places on Wednesday, and to have supported the President of the Poor Law Board. This was a question of rating rather than of taxation, and the reasonable and logical course would be to permit the parishes to exempt these schools if they thought fit. For Parliament to do it was to impose fresh contributions on the owners of other property. He 466 should endeavour to oppose the further progress of the Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the Government had exposed themselves to an unfair reproach by abstaining from discussion on the second reading of the Bill, which they did out of consideration for the hon. Member in charge of it, and in order not to obstruct him; but the Government was largely represented in the division. To press the Bill on was not the best mode of making progress with it.

§ MR. CANDLISH
said, he thought the object of the hon. Member would be best promoted by acceding to the suggestion of the Government.

MR. HENLEY
considered the proposal a very fair one. The House ought not to be called on at one o'clock to discuss Amendments which they had never seen.

§ MR. REED
had never said he desired to press the Bill against the feeling of the House; but he wished to retain his position in regard to a measure the principle of which had been affirmed by the vote of a large majority of the House. He confessed himself astonished at finding the Home Secretary that night attacking the principle of the Bill. He simply asked the Government to give him a day on which he could bring his definitions, prepared at the request of the Government, before the House. He supposed there would be no objection to the Bill now being committed pro formâ.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.