Commons Sitting of 19 July 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Revising Barristers* [262]; Factories (Steam Whistles)* [263].
First Reading—Treaty of Washington* [260]; Local Courts of Record* [259].
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision* [283]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* [254].
Committee—Military Manœuvres* [251]—R.P.; Parish Constables Abolition (re-comm.)* [255]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Epping Forest (re-comm.)* [71]; Judges' Salaries* [242]; Public Health (re-comm.) [215–261].
Considered as amended—Bastardy Laws Amendment [109]; Adulteration of Food, Drugs, &c. * [37].
Third Reading—Grand Juries (Middlesex)* [235], and passed.
Withdrawn—Public Worship Facilities (re-comm.)* [119]; Public Prosecutors (re-comm.)* [203]; Betting* [186].
The House met at Two of the clock.

SHETLAND TRUCK COMMISSION REPORT.—QUESTION.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the Shetland Truck Commission; and, whether he will undertake to insert next Session in the proposed Truck Bill such additional Clauses as will render that Bill applicable to the case of Shetland?
MR. BRUCEreplied that he had received the Report of the Commissioners on Truck in Shetland, which disclosed a state of things which he was bound to say was not met by the Bill which the Government had introduced. Whether the evils therein exposed, and which were very considerable, could be remedied by legislative interference he did not know; but the subject would receive the attentive consideration of the Government during the Recess.

METROPOLIS—PARLIAMENT STREET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that when the houses in Parliament Street, opposite the Public Offices now being erected, are pulled
  1414
  down, the width of the space acquired for the public will be eighty-seven feet at one end and sixty feet at the other; and, what use he contemplates making of the narrow space if he does not add it to the width of Parliament Street?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that as long as the houses in question were standing it would be entirely unnecessary for him to consider what was to be done with the land on which they stood. When they were pulled down it would be the duty of the First Commissioner, in communication with the Treasury, to decide what should be done with the vacant ground, which would belong to the Crown.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: When will the Houses be pulled down?
  MR. AYRTON: When the new Home and Colonial Offices are completed; but in the present state of the building trade it would be impossible to fix a date for their completion.

POOR LAW (METROPOLIS)—PAUPER CHILDREN.—QUESTION.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, If he will state to the House the extent to which the Boards of Guardians of the Metropolitan District have availed themselves of the authority given by the General Order of the 25th of November, 1870, for boarding out pauper children, and the general tenor of the Reports of the Inspectors who have visited the children?
MR. HIBBERTreplied that there were 41 boarding-out committees formed; that of those 10 were in Lancashire, seven in Surrey, and six in Westmoreland, the remaining 18 being in 15 other counties. Of the 134 populous Unions to which the Order was addressed, only 10 had availed themselves of its privileges and had boarded-out 132 children. Four of the 10 were metropolitan Unions—namely, Poplar, St. George's, Kensington, and Bethnal Green, and they had sent out 57 children. The Reports of the Inspectors were, so far, of a very satisfactory and encouraging nature with respect to the working of the system. Mr. Hedley reported on the children in Westmoreland—
"I have personally visited all the children, 12 in number, and am able to report most satisfactorily on the condition of the whole of them as to health, cleanliness, and general appearance. The homes are all of a superior character. To orphans

1415
or deserted children, coming up as they do all from either London or Liverpool, there can be no doubt that to them individually the boarding-out system is an immense boon."

CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, there was a report that there had been a case of cattle plague at Deptford, and he wished to know from the Vice President of the Council whether the report was correct? He should also like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, Whether any steps were being taken to prevent the introduction of the disease from Foreign ports?
MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that that morning one animal out of a cargo of 25 head of cattle which had arrived at Deptford from Cronstadt had, he believed, died of cattle plague, forming the first case that had occurred since the great epidemic. Having arrived there, they would be slaughtered, as would have been the case under any circumstances; but additional precautions would be taken in this case, for, if possible, no communication would be allowed with other parts of the country. The representative of the Veterinary Department had gone down to Deptford to see that that part of the market in which the animal died should be kept isolated not only from animals, but from persons; and the only fear he had was the danger of the infection being taken by any human being who might have happened to go near the animal. As to the animals themselves, every precaution should be taken to prevent the spread of the disease by destroying them, and disinfecting everything on board the vessel in which they came.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwished to know whether steps would be taken to prevent any further introduction of cattle from Russia?
MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that the importation from Russia was very small, and the Order would that day be issued preventing it.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked how the right hon. Gentleman meant to deal with the ship which brought over the infected animal, for if it went to any other port it might spread the disease there?
MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that his power was limited by the Act of Parliament. The power he possessed
1416
was to take care that the ship was thoroughly disinfected, but he was not aware that the Department had power definitely to stop ships.

THE BALLOT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. COLLINSwished to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of which he had given him private Notice. An election was now proceeding at Gloucester for the election of a Town Council in that city, and it was being carried on by a system of open voting, contrary to a Statute which provided that the voting should be in secret. That being so, he should like to learn from the right hon. Gentleman, Whether the Government will take into their serious consideration the propriety of prosecuting the real leaders implicated in so open a violation of a Law which has so recently received the Royal Assent?
MR. BRUCEsaid, he was sure the House must have observed with great admiration the zeal of the hon. Gentleman in enforcing a law in passing which through Parliament, its supporters had received no great assistance from him. He hoped, however, to be able to relieve the hon. Gentleman from all anxiety on the subject. He had received no special information on the subject to which the Question related, but the election would date from the day of the nomination; and if the election were proceeding to-day and the nomination had been made previously, there would be no violation of the law in voting openly. In any case, the matter was not for the decision of the Secretary for the Home Department, but rather for a prosecution by the proper person under the Act.

THE COUNTESS OF MAYO.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
  Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
  VICTORIA R.
  Her Majesty, taking into consideration the distinguished Services performed by the late Richard Southwell, Earl of Mayo, Her Majesty's Vice Roy and Governor General of India, and the loss of his life in Her service and in the discharge of public duty, and being desirous, in

  1417
  recognition of such Services, and in view of the circumstances of his death, to confer some signal mark of Her Favour upon his Widow Blanche Julia, Countess of Mayo, recommends it to Her Faithful Commons that She should be enabled to make provision for securing to the Countess of Mayo a pension of One Thousand Pounds per annum for the term of her natural life.
  V.R.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved that the Message be taken into consideration on Monday next.
  Motion agreed to; Committee thereupon on Monday next.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE, in moving—
  "That upon Tuesday next, and every succeeding Tuesday, during the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions, Government Orders of the Day having priority,"
  said, that on having looked back with some care to the dates at which this Motion had commonly been made, he had found that it was usually made about three weeks before the close of the Session. In 1868 it was made on the 6th of July, and the Prorogation took place on the 31st of July; in 1870, the Motion was made on the 25th of July, and the Prorogation took place on the 10th of August, and in 1871 the Motion was made on the 31st of July, and on the 21st of August Parliament was prorogued. He hoped it might be possible to bring the Business of the present Session to a close in less than three weeks, and the House would perhaps think it not unreasonable that this Motion should now be made.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not intend to object to the Motion, but must be allowed to make one remark upon the alterations which had taken place in the proceedings of the House in an early part of the Session. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was, in point of fact, a sentence of death on many measures which had been introduced by private Members. It might be necessary at this time of the Session to carry out this system of execution; but it would have been more courteous towards non-official Members if an earlier Notice had been given of the intention of the Go-
  1418
  vernment. The proceedings of that House had been so altered that they had now Morning Sittings before Easter; and, as the House on those occasions met at 2 o'clock, adjourned at 7, and again met at 9 o'clock, the effect was that the time available for Motions and Orders introduced by non-official Members was now practically one-half of what it had been before. Two Sessions ago there had been a Select Committee to consider the subject of the Business of the House, but of all the Resolutions come to by that Committee, only that which conferred additional facilities on the Government to the detriment of non-official Members had been passed by the House, and non-official Members were now incapacitated from passing into law any measures which they proposed. The result of the present arrangement, therefore, was that after Whitsuntide non-official Members were incapacitated from proceeding with their measures, not by the decision of the House, but by the want of an opportunity of obtaining that decision. Under the new arrangement, the Business of the House was more and more falling into the hands of the Government, and, as they were supported by the Leaders of the Opposition, private Members had lost that security which they formerly possessed for the performance of their duties to their constituents. He feared that in next Session the invasion on the representative character of the House would be still greater, but he trusted that non-official Members would not fail, if not in the present Session, at least in the next, to assert their ancient privileges.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to the Rule relating to Public Business agreed to by the Select Committee, to the effect that no Opposed Business should be taken after half-past 12 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman induced the House to alter that Resolution, so as to provide that no Business with regard to which Notice of Opposition had been previously given should be taken after half-past 12 o'clock. He asked whether the Government had derived any benefit from that alteration? A better instance of the consequence of that alteration could not be given than what occurred last night. He was ready

  1419
  to render every assistance to the Government to carry on the Business they proposed, but at a certain hour the House was unwilling to proceed with it. He, therefore, left the House at half-past 1 o'clock that morning. He devoted as much attention to the Business of the House as could be reasonably expected of him at his time of life; but at the hour when he left discussions arose upon different Motions of Adjournment. He was aware that the Government felt that they must press forward their Business; but was it not worth their while to carry out the Resolution of the Select Committee? There were always several unopposed Orders of the Day on the Paper, and if the Government chose to proceed with them after half-past 12 o'clock, the House would never be unwilling to dispose of them. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would abide by the Resolution of the Select Committee that no Opposed Business should be taken after half-past 12 o'clock, for he believed it was almost the unanimous feeling of the House that no good had resulted from the departure from that Rule, because, whenever Opposed Business came on after that hour, repeated Motions for Adjournment were made. In fact, he believed that last night there were three or four Motions of Adjournment. By the present system of late Sittings the health of Members was seriously affected. He, therefore, hoped the Government would next Session adopt some definite and fixed Rule for the transaction of the Public Business, adhering to the limit of half-past 12 for bringing on Opposed measures. If the Government distinctly acceded to that, he should be disposed to make considerable concessions to them with regard to the conduct of Business on other than Government nights.
  MR. BOUVERIEthought that was hardly the proper opportunity for discussing the conduct of Business; but he thought there could be no doubt that the Rule which had been laid down that Session of taking no Opposed new matter after 12.30 A.M. was universally approved. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government must bear in mind that by the operation of the new Rule with reference to Committee of Supply, the rights of independent Members had been very much curtailed; and if the Motion he now made was agreed to, practically
  1420
  the Government would be in possession of the whole time of the House up to the end of the Session. There did not appear on the Notice Paper any important Notice for Tuesday, except one which had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock). That Motion had reference to one of the Departments of the Government which ought to be discussed, and if this Motion were agreed to his hon. Friend would be entirely shut out from bringing it before the House. He hoped, therefore, his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government would make an exception of that Motion, or give the hon. Member for Maidstone another legitimate opportunity of bringing it forward at a reasonable hour.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded private Members that the Rule prohibiting the commencement of Opposed Business after half-past 12 o'clock had done as much as anything to prevent them from bringing forward their Motions. He suggested that the Government should propose next Session the appointment of a Committee to consider the Rules of the House, for unless some alteration was made in the mode of carrying on Business, private Members might give up all idea of carrying their measures through.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSobserved that besides several matters which affected large classes of the community, and which would be considered out-of-doors to have been got rid of by a side-wind, if the House had not the opportunity of considering them, there was another subject for discussion on Tuesday evening, which had not been referred to by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock—he meant an important Bill which had on the back of it the name of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, in which he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) took much interest, and on which they had vainly endeavoured to elicit the views of the Government. For himself, he refused to recognize the gangway as the division of competency in that House. There never had been in his experience a more docile Session of Parliament than the present; there was nothing whatever that the Government could complain of as an interruption of Public Business; and he trusted independent Members were not to be still further deprived of their opportu-

  1421
  nities of debate and legislation. In fact, if the present system was to be continued the Members of the Government might just as well meet in Downing Street, and transact the whole of their business in that locality. It was entirely the fault of the Government that they were then unable to proceed with the Public Business on the eve of the Dog-days. Why did they not bring forward a proper plan for the conduct of Public Business? They first took one night from private Members, and then another, and now it was proposed to take Tuesday away from them. He ventured to tell the right hon. Gentleman he would not shorten the Session by carrying the present Motion. It would only tend to waste time on other nights. The truth of the matter was, although the House might disguise it for some little time longer, they were every year, every month and day, falling more and more into the course of personal government which they had seen exemplified in other places. He trusted that hon. Members would not give up their right of discussing matters in which their constituents felt an interest.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEconfessed he was one of those who had conduced to keep Mr. Speaker in the Chair till he was happily released by a count-out at half-past 3 o'clock that morning. A Bill which some people considered of importance was advanced a stage; and he thought they did good work, though personally they suffered for it. He must say upon the whole that the Rule not to take new Opposed matter after 12.30 A.M. had worked well. Everyone who looked back to last Session and the Session before must reflect with shame and confusion on their condition ordinarily between the hours of 12 and 3 in the months of June, July, and August. Perfect confusion and uncertainty prevailed sometimes; hon. Members taking for granted that something would not come on which did come on, and then on looking at the journals next morning, they found the measure in which they were interested had passed. Then there were constant Motions to adjourn the House, and hon. Members were sick, sulky, and at war with themselves and the world till 3 o'clock. The right hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) might, for all he knew, have a triumphant answer to make to the charge, but if he had,
  1422
  his worst friends were those who sat beside him on the Treasury bench, if they did not allow that answer to be given by giving an opportunity for debating the matter in that House. The question was one upon which the mind of England was, whether rightly or wrongly, excited. [Laughter.] Yes, the question was taken up by the public journals, and was much discussed in private and scientific circles. [Laughter, and "Question!"] When independent Members heard cries of Question from the Treasury Bench it only seemed as an incitement to them to persevere in their remarks. He hoped that if the Tuesdays were given up to the Government at the present comparatively early date in the Session, it would be on the clear and specific understanding that the Government would not refuse to give to a Member of their body an opportunity of vindicating his conduct in relation to the management of Kew Gardens.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he quite concurred with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) in thinking that the Government had no cause to complain of the treatment which they had received from the House during the present Session. They had, on the contrary, received from the House the most generous assistance. In asking for additional facilities at the present period it was their desire to give private Members no cause of complaint, and they were acting under the belief that in the course they were taking they were complying with the general wish of the House. The Government, at the demand of the House and of the country, had introduced a variety of measures which they had pressed forward as far as they could; but they had not yet been able to give effect to them, and they were now in this position—that they could only pass these measures through Parliament by trenching somewhat on the rights of private Members, and therefore it was that they made this appeal to the House, His hon. Friend had referred to the Building Societies Bill; but he would remind him that the Government had issued a Commission to inquire into the subject of Friendly Societies, and that, although that Commission had made its Report the whole of the evidence had not yet appeared. The Session had been one of a peculiarly heavy nature, especially so far as the Home Department was concerned, and it was

  1423
  absolutely impossible therefore that he could have given to the question that consideration which it deserved. He might add that the Royal Commission had signified that they were opposed to some of the clauses of the Bill, and as it concerned his (Mr. Bruce's) Department, had reported to him that they thought it was one which ought not to pass in its present shape. There was also a considerable number of Amendments on the Paper, and the Bill itself would give rise to considerable discussion, and therefore he thought it would be impossible to pass the Bill that Session. He would not enter into other matters for the purpose of vindicating the conduct of the Government in demanding from the House an extension of the time already possessed by them.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if the independent Members had behaved handsomely towards the Government, they had behaved very unhandsomely towards the independent Members. The fact was, the greatest confusion had prevailed in the conduct of the Public Business under the auspices of the present Ministry, because ever since they had come into office they had preferred political and partizan legislation to that non-political and useful practical legislation in which the great mass of Her Majesty's subjects were interested. The consequence was, that the House found itself now in the Dog-days discussing one of the most important measures of the Session, and the scene which had occurred early that morning was, in his opinion, very little creditable to the Government, and very little conducive to the public interests. Until the present Government came into power the management of the Public Business was confided to the non-political Secretary of the Treasury, acting, of course, under the Prime Minister. That important duty was now, however, discharged by the political Secretary to the Treasury. [Mr. GLADSTONE: That is totally wrong.] If he was wrong, he was extremely glad to be corrected; but, whatever the cause, it was perfectly clear that the conduct of the Business of the House was not what it ought to be, and that a return to the former system would be of advantage. He hoped, he might add, that a full opportunity would be given for the discussion which had been referred to by the right hon. Mem-
  1424
  ber for Kilmarnock and his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge on the Motion of the hon. Member for Maidstone. In those cases in which the conduct of a Minister was impugned it was obviously the duty of the Government to afford every facility for the discussion of the subject, and he hoped some Member of the Government would explain clearly what it was they proposed to do in the matter. There was another subject to which he wished briefly to advert. An arrangement had a few days ago been entered into between the Government and his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) on the subject of the Thames Embankment Bill, which he understood was to come on at half-past 10 on Monday next. Since then, however, there was a statement to the effect that negotiations were going on for the purchase of Northumberland House, and it was, he thought, desirable that the question of the Thames Embankment should not be discussed until the result of those negotiations between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Duke of Northumberland was known. There was no chance, however, he understood, that the negotiations would come to a close before Monday next, and he would therefore suggest, with a view to facilitating Public Business, that the discussion to which he was referring should be postponed until next Session. As to the conduct of the Business of the House as it affected the privileges of private Members, he quite concurred in what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten), and he should next Session take an early opportunity of bringing forward a Motion to the effect that the House should always meet at 2 o'clock on Tuesdays, and that the time from that hour until 7 should be at the disposal of private Members, the Government Business, whenever it was necessary to have a second Sitting, to be taken on the re-assembling of the House at 9 o'clock. By that means private Members would have secured to them a certain number of hours on Tuesday.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must do the noble Lord the justice to say that on no occasion when a possible opportunity offered did he neglect it for the purpose of raising questions of political contention. Even on the most trivial matters

  1425
  of business the noble Lord, if he could not make the debate sharp in any other way, always contrived to drop a small portion of vinegar into it, in order to add savour and piquancy to the discussion—no matter whether it was upon the Business of the House or the construction of the universe. The noble Lord had introduced into his remarks a variety of topics, beginning with want of confidence in the Government, and ending with Northumberland House, and it was quite true, as he had stated, that the Government had entered into an arrangement with the hon. Member for Westminster with respect to the discussion on the Thames Embankment Bill. If anything should occur to render an alteration in that arrangement desirable, he should take care that the House should have Notice on the subject that evening. He was not aware, however, at that moment that there was anything which would be likely to interfere with it. He must say, with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten), who was always desirous of facilitating the Business of the House, that it was very doubtful whether he had progressed matters much by introducing the general question of the arrangement of the Business of the House, which they found it wholly impossible to discuss. He could not agree with the sweeping condemnation which had been made against the working of the half-past 12 system. He was, however, not going into that matter then, because, before discussing it, it would require some further consideration—indeed, he would say that it demanded it. In the course of this discussion one practical question had been raised with regard to the Motion of which his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had given Notice in relation to the case of Kew Gardens. A mistake had been made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) and other hon. Gentlemen, who had proceeded on the supposition that the hon. Member for Maidstone had got possession of a day for the purpose of bringing his Motion forward, and that the Government were about to displace him from that day—in fact, there was not the faintest possibility of the hon. Member being able to bring it forward on that day, or rather the odds against him, if carefully calculated, would be a thousand to one. This Motion
  1426
  stood seventh on the list for the 30th of July, and the six Motions preceding it embraced four subjects of the greatest political interest and importance, and each one, according to the usage of this House, could hardly be disposed of at one Sitting, even if it stood alone. He wished to make these remarks in order to disconnect the subject from the Motion now before the House, although he did not at all disagree with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend and others, as to the desirability of enabling any hon. Member who wished to question the conduct of the Government to bring his Motion forward in some way or other according to the convenience of the House. He must repeat that he did not think the hon. Member for Maidstone had the smallest chance of bringing forward his Motion on the evening referred to; but the Government were desirous to give the hon. Baronet every assistance. If the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) was willing to admit that the Government should have until the 21st of August for the prosecution of Government measures, he (Mr. Gladstone) would admit that he had no case for the Motion. But that not being the case, he thought the Motion which he had brought forward was reasonable, and he trusted it would be agreed to.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKcongratulated his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), and his other Friends below the gangway on being at last awakened to a sense of their perilous situation. For the last three Sessions they had been deaf to his voice; but he hoped they would now enter into a solemn league and covenant with him and his Colleagues with a view to resist in future the oppression and the aggressions of the Government on both sides. He hoped they would take care next Session not to sanction a renewal of the unconstitutional practice of Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair without it being in the power of any hon. Member to bring forward matters of grievance. Likewise, he sincerely trusted there would be an abrogation of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, which had so pleased his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), because it had enabled him to defeat a most righteous measure—the marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The present difficulty was

  1427
  owing to two causes. First, the Government brought in too many Bills; and, secondly, they made too many mistakes. Of course, it was not in the power of the Government to avoid mistakes; but it certainly was in their power to avoid bringing in too many Bills. Let the Government in future avoid sensational legislation, and try to confer some real benefit on the country at large.
  Mr. RYLANDSremarked that a large amount of expenditure still remained to be voted. The Votes in Supply still remaining to be disposed of amounted to about £7,750,000 for the Army, upwards of £3,000,000 for the Navy, and something like £5,000,000 for the Civil Service. Therefore, on the 19th of July, the House had still to vote no less than £15,000,000. He wished to remind his hon. Friends below the gangway that they could not exercise a proper influence over the right hon. Gentlemen above the gangway if they stayed away while the Estimates were being considered. If the Motion were carried—and he, for one, should vote for it—he hoped it would be on the understanding that the Government would not put Supply into a corner. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) were both in states of mind of a very peculiar character. The noble Lord was in a state of chaos, while the hon. Gentleman was in a state of alarm. Both of them made an appeal to the House from their different points of view. The noble Lord assumed that the Government had nothing to show for the time they had occupied this Session. Now he, on the other hand, ventured to assert that they had a great deal to show, and that the country at large would consider the Session a satisfactory one if it were distinguished only by the passing of the Ballot Bill. The noble Lord had alleged that the Government had occupied all the time of Parliament with political measures. This Session had, however, been in a remarkable manner devoid of political questions. Even the Ballot Bill could hardly be considered as a party political measure, inasmuch as many hon. Gentlemen opposite were advocates of it. Perhaps that was beside the point, but, at all events, the Government had brought in the Scotch Education Bill, the Mines
  1428
  Regulation Bill, the Public Health Bill, and the Licensing Bill, none of which were party measures. In regard to the last named Bill, might he venture very earnestly to submit to the Government that if they had the Tuesdays at their disposal they ought to give it the first place. He trusted the Government would not occupy the short remainder of the Session by pressing forward the Military Forces Localization Bill, for he thought it was a measure which could very well wait until next Session.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEthought the Government had better rest and be thankful, believing that over-legislation was the fault of the present day. He also believed the conduct of Public Business would be greatly facilitated if a new rule were made about the "counting-out" of the House. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh, oh!" but he had seen the hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) prowling about the House watching his opportunity to get a count.
  MR. COLLINSappealed to Mr. Speaker as to whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in making these remarks, seeing there was a Notice on the Paper in reference to the practice of counting-out?
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he was perfectly in Order, for he had alluded to the subject then for fear the House should be counted out at 9 o'clock. In his opinion, no hon. Member ought to be allowed to count out the House more than once in each Session. A great deal of time was lost in consequence of the House being counted out the moment after Mr. Speaker took the Chair.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that as in the course of the discussion frequent allusion had been made to the Motion which stood in his name, he would take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for the promise that he should be afforded an opportunity for bringing forward his Motion with reference to the management of Kew Gardens.
  MR. W. H. SMITHbelieved it would be for the public advantage that the Thames Embankment Bill should not be proceeded with this year. If it were proceeded with, he should persist in the Amendments of which he had given Notice, and from the amount of support accorded to them he thought they would

  1429
  be carried. The Government would, he hoped, withdraw the Bill, in order to give time for negotiations which would enable the Metropolitan Board and the Government to deal in a satisfactory manner with the land on the Embankment. With regard to the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, he was of opinion that it had tended to protract debates and delay Public Business, for discussions were sometimes prolonged in order that this hour might be reached and other Business postponed.
  MR. GLADSTONE, answering the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster, said he could not postpone the Thames Embankment Bill.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he took exception to the statement that the discussion on Government Orders had been protracted beyond the proper limit, and would not follow the example set by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), who had indulged in a retrospect of the Session, which, if a little more reliable, might be deserving of attention in the preparation of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) had said the provision restricting Opposed Business to half-past 12 o'clock was due to the zeal of the hon. and learned Member for Boston, and intended to defeat the measure relating to marriage with a deceased wife's sister. He was as strenuous a supporter of the measure as the hon. Member for Whitehaven, but he must protest against the assumption that those who supported a Rule which tended to prevent mischievous legislation being forced upon a jaded House during the small hours were actuated by feelings in reference to any particular measure. As to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, he would accept it with a modification. Private Members must, no doubt, abandon any idea of forcing their Bills through Parliament at this period of the Session; but while the Government Orders had precedence over other Orders of the Day on Tuesdays, he suggested that Notices of Motion should have precedence over Orders of the Day.
  MR. GOURLEYentered his protest against this proposal of the Government, having charge of a Bill which was down for discussion next Tuesday. The Royal Commissioners had issued their Report
  1430
  on the subject of the Bill, which was framed in accordance with their recommendations.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order, for he is not only discussing a Bill which is not before the House, but is entering into the details of the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreminded the House that an hour and 20 minutes had already been spent in discussing this question, and asked whether it was not now time to enter upon Business.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that while private Members might be willing to sacrifice their claims for the purpose of carrying measures of great public importance—such as the Public Health Bill, the Licensing Bill, or the Military Re-organization Bill—he could not understand why they should be asked to make sacrifices for the sake of advancing the Thames Embankment Bill, which was nothing more than a small Treasury squabble, and was a subject unworthy of any sacrifices by private Members.
  MR. BOUVERIEwished to state that he had withdrawn his Motion respecting Irish Army agents, the Government having acceded to the suggestion made from the War Office for compensating those persons.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That upon Tuesday next, and every succeeding Tuesday, during the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions, Government Orders of the Day having priority.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

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

EDUCATION—ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. B. SAMUELSON, in rising to call attention to the defective condition of apprenticeship and training of persons intending to follow the profession of Elementary School Teachers; and to move—"That it is desirable to reconsider the Grants for Public Elementary Education, so as to encourage the establishment of Undenominational Normal Schools," said, the first object was to secure the attendance of children at school,

1431
and the next was to provide that they should be well taught. He must express his regret that it was not in the power of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council to place in the hands of hon. Members the Report of the Committee for the past year sooner; but having considered the Report for 1870, and to a great extent that for 1871, he must repeat his conviction that the Government did not give the subject to which he was referring the attention which it deserved at their hands. As regarded the supply of teachers, the Report of 1870, speaking of the supply of elementary teachers in England and Wales, stated that the supply at the time was 12,500, and that it would be necessary to raise the number to 25,000, in consequence of the increased number of schools which would be established. In the Report which had been just issued, the number for England, Scotland, and Wales was estimated at 30,000. Now, in Prussia, in 1864, the number of elementary teachers for a population of 19,000,000 was 37,000, so that, according to the due proportion Great Britain alone, for a population of 26,000,000, would require 52,000 elementary teachers; and making every possible allowance for the services of pupil teachers, he did not see how the number could be reduced as low as 30,000 when elementary education became universal. But even supposing that 30,000 would be sufficient, which he did not admit, the right hon. Gentleman only allowed 5 per cent for waste, and he contended that that was quite inadequate, especially with reference to female teachers, a large number of whom upon marriage were obliged to abandon their profession of teaching. As to the quality of education, it appeared on all hands that the pupil teachers on the completion of their term of service were not properly prepared to enter the training colleges. In fact, nearly the whole of the first year's course was devoted to teaching the pupil teachers those subjects with which they ought to have been well acquainted before. When tests had been abolished in the Universities, he did not believe it could be contended that while four-fifths of the cost of the education of students in training colleges—amounting this year to £104,000—were paid by the Government, the admission to those colleges should, with
1432
the exception of certain qualifications being required, remain absolutely within the control of the managers of the colleges, who in most instances insisted upon adherence to their own particular tenets. He did not say that it had been in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to suddenly change this state of things, but he thought it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to contemplate the necessity for making an alteration at an early date; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would lay before the House some plan by which they would be assured that an adequate supply of well-trained teachers could be obtained, and a fair share of the public money given to those who believed that the training of these teachers should not be denominational. He believed that the time at which the senior A A examination was passed was before the age of 17. He also believed that many of the students of Scotch Universities were under 19 when they left to take the charge of schools. But elementary teachers were kept till the age of 18, without precaution being taken that they should be taught what was most serviceable. He was told that in the latter years of the course they were apt to become—if not rebellious—careless. The career of these young people ought not to be sacrificed for the exigencies of the school. The results of the present system were not satisfactory, and he thought that it was a mistake to require that no students should enter the training schools until they were 19 years of age; and to burden those colleges with any fresh subjects under any condition whatever. He would give those qualified to enter the training colleges at an earlier age than 19 years every inducement to do so, and would hold out encouragements for them to remain there for three years instead of two. He believed that plan might be carried out without additional expense, for the country was not bound to pay for the whole of the maintenance of the students. He must again say that he regretted that the Report had not been placed in the hands of hon. Members until the day before yesterday, so that short time had been given for its being studied, for the matter was one which required very close scrutiny, both by the Education Department, and by all who were interested in the progress of education. There had been a great demand of late for the in-

1433
troduction of scientific subjects into the training colleges; but he deprecated that being done until they were satisfied that the present subjects were taught satisfactorily. In Berlin and nearly all the great towns of Prussia the boarding system had ceased to exist, and the young people lived with their parents instead of with teachers, an example which he thought might be followed with advantage. What he asked now was that the school boards should be aided in establishing normal schools, and that the pupils should be received earlier and kept longer; and he believed that would secure a much better class of teachers. The subject was one which demanded, and which, he hoped, would receive, earnest attention on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He would conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House it is desirable to reconsider the Grants for Public Elementary Education, so as to encourage the establishment of Undenominational Normal Schools,"—(Mr. Samuelson,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, the House could scarcely have expected, looking to the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Banbury, that he would have found so much fault with the system of pupil teachers and with the training colleges, which were two of the most valuable parts of the educational system set up by the Minutes of 1846, and developed by subsequent Minutes of the Council of Education. He feared there was some foundation for the statement that of late the pupil teachers had entered the training colleges inadequately prepared, but the defects in their training had been very greatly exaggerated. The establishment of the system of pupil teachers and of training colleges was the result of careful inquiries in France, Switzerland, Germany, and Holland, and of subsequent experiments made in England at Battersea and Norwood; but since its adoption in 1846 it had experienced many vicissitudes. In 1861, it received a severe blow
1434
from the Revised Code, which withdrew the direct remuneration of the principal teacher for the successful instruction of pupil teachers, reduced the period of instruction, and lowered the standard of examination of pupil teachers; while the changes made in the training colleges had also an injurious effect, as the syllabus of studies was curtailed, and the entrance and annual examinations were made less searching. As a consequence of the Revised Code, the number of students in the colleges declined from 3,107 in 1863 to 1,922 in 1867, and the number of pupil teachers in 1866 was less by 5,306 than in 1861. This diminution in numbers accompanied the deterioration in quality. He was happy, however, to think that the system was recovering from this shock. The number of pupil teachers had increased from 11,519 in 1867 to 20,454 in 1871. The hon. Member for Banbury had not quoted any authority in support of his strictures on the pupil-teacher system. He (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) might, on the other hand, refer to the account given of it by the Royal Commission, which reported in 1861, cold and critical though that account was. The Commissioners stated that almost all the evidence went to prove that the effect of the presence of pupil teachers upon the condition of the schools was very beneficial, especially when compared with the influence exercised over the schools by monitors. Would the hon. Member go back to the old monitorial system?
MR. B. SAMUELSONdenied that he wished anything of the kind; what he advocated was the training of a better class of teachers by means of colleges.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHunderstood the hon. Member to propose that pupil teachers should serve in schools for only three years, instead of five years as at present. This would be a step back towards the monitorial system. He ventured to say that if the hon. Member inquired into the matter, he would become assured that the services rendered by pupil teachers during the last two years of their apprenticeship were considered of more value to the school than those of the other three years. In those two years they were of great use as teachers, and acquired the knowledge fitting them to enter the training college. The hon. Member asked that a fair share of the public money

1435
should be given for training colleges different to those already existing. But there was nothing in the regulations of the Committee of the Privy Council which would prevent that Department giving annual grants to any training colleges which might be raised. The hon. Member could scarcely ask more than was done for existing colleges, and if he could inspire any persons with enthusiasm sufficient to cause them to found a different kind of college, he would have no difficulty in obtaining grants from the Department. A plan had recently been suggested to the London School Board that the Government should provide a college which would afford neither board nor lodging; but the Committee appointed to consider it had not approved of it. The hon. Member had referred to the case of Germany, and had stated that the old colleges which boarded and lodged students had been abandoned, and that day-colleges had been substituted for them. Now, he had seen no report to that effect. The latest information which we possessed on the subject was published in 1859, by Dr. Pattison, now the Rector of Lincoln.
MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he had visited Prussia for the express purpose of informing himself on the subject in the autumn of last year.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that might be, for the system in Germany had undergone frequent changes; but the Report to which he was referring stated that the teachers in the elementary schools in Germany underwent a long and careful training in colleges set apart for the purpose, and that in all the colleges the pupils were required to live on the premises. It was clear, therefore, that if the hon. Member based his argument on the results attained in Germany, those had not been obtained by means of day-colleges, but by colleges similar to our own. He was glad that the hon. Member had drawn attention to the great want of an additional supply of teachers; but he must demur to the large estimate which he had given of the number that would be required in future years. He thought it would be nearer the mark to say that the number of teachers that would eventually be required would be about 30,000. According to a statement published by the London School Board there existed now a deficiency of about 8,399 teachers be-
1436
low the number requisite for 3,250,000 of children; or, there would be wanted in two or three years, with the increase of population, 10,000 additional teachers; but, on the other hand, the Board estimated that the training colleges could, by the end of 1873, supply 3,402, and they expected an addition of 1,246 ex-pupil teachers and acting teachers, and in 1873 a further sum of 830, making a gross addition to our teachers of 5,478. Against that increase must be set two years' waste on the present staff. Deducting, therefore, 2,625, the School Board calculated that we had not at present the means of adding more than 2,853 teachers to the existing staff before the close of 1873, whereas we should need about 10,000. The hon. Member had alluded to the Reports of the Inspector last year on the training colleges; but on turning to Mr. Cowie's Report for this year, he (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) found that gentleman reporting that he was convinced that, taking the training colleges all together, they were doing good and honest service, and were endeavouring to make the most out of the material on which they were expending their energies. In conclusion, there could, he thought, be no greater mistake, when we were endeavouring to supply a great want of teachers, than to depreciate the means for obtaining and training them which we already possessed, or to attribute the defects of the existing system to the wrong causes.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, no words which he could use could condemn the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite more strongly than it condemned itself. The hon. Member for Banbury proposed practically to reduce the training of pupil teachers from five years to three, and yet the scheme was described as one for improving the education of pupil teachers. Such a proposal, if adopted, would soon bring us back to the old monitorial system, under which untrained children in the school were faute de mieux employed to teach children only still more ignorant than themselves. During the last 40 years the efforts of educational reformers had been mainly directed to raising the standard of the training of teachers for our elementary schools. As to the other proposal of the hon. Member to increase the number of teachers by allowing students in the colleges to reside in lodgings in the neigh-

1437
bouring towns, it would be utterly destructive of all discipline while it would fail to attain the object in view. The out-students would damage the training of those in college, and by no means supplement their deficiency. Again, the hon. Member had not succeeded in proving that establishing secular training colleges would tend to increase the supply of teachers. It would certainly result in the loss of voluntary aid given to training colleges by the zeal of the various religious bodies. A secular college would certainly have no private support or interest taken in it. In his opinion, it would be better to rely for an increase in the colleges on the increased demand for pupil teachers, which demand, more and more supporting itself, they would be able fully to supply with the assistance now given to them by the State.
MR. DIXONsaid, the Report published by the Education Department for last year had only been sent to hon. Members that morning, and as they had not adjourned till 3 30 A.M., of course, they had been unable to give sufficient attention to the document. Consequently, they did not know what the Education Department had done in the last 12 months, or what they intended to do during the coming year. It appeared from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson's) experience in Germany last year, that the Germans were departing from the system which formerly obtained, and which was described in the Rector of Lincoln's Report. The effect of that change was that instead of pupil teachers being at present all boarders, as was the case 12 or 13 years ago, when the Rector of Lincoln's Report was written, the system had been altered in the direction intimated by his hon. Friend (Mr. B. Samuelson), and they had no boarders now at all—at least, very few. [Mr. B. SAMUELSON: They have none.] Then the next question came to be—Was the system of pupil teachers really the best system that could be adopted? He did not believe it was the best, and, in his opinion, Prussia showed that there was a better still. The result of the present system in England was, that the greater part of the scholars in our large schools were taught by apprentices from the age of 13 to the age of 18, whereas in Prussia the scholars were taught by trained
1438
teachers who had passed through the training colleges and received certificates of merit. The great merit of the pupil-teacher system was said to consist in this—that these young people were trained early for the business of their future lives. But how were they trained? It was by the most exhausting labour, and teaching those who were almost as old as themselves; and after they had undergone this exhausting labour, it was expected that they should devote themselves to preparing for the training colleges. Under these circumstances, could it be wondered at if they failed? The real question was, whether we could not do something to improve this system? The Reports showed that though religious instruction was well attended to, yet the results in reference to secular teaching were not equally satisfactory, and especially so in reference to such subjects as grammar and mathematics. He would say that not only was the system of pupil teachers an unsatisfactory one, but that from the very nature of things it could not last. They depended to a very large extent upon pupil teachers for the supply of teachers; but in the large schools, where the very best system should be carried out, it was found that the numbers of pupil teachers was very much in excess of the number of other teachers, so that most of the children were educated by apprentices, and there was being brought up a larger number of pupil teachers than could possibly find situations in the schools hereafter. He knew that the present demand was far beyond the supply; but as soon as they had got their supply, they could not continue the system of pupil teachers, because it would either give a larger number of teachers than would be required, or else pupil teachers must go through their course with the intention upon its completion of turning to some other profession. He should like the Government to take this matter fully into consideration, and to intimate to the country what their views were upon the whole question. He hoped that they would not forget the experience of Prussia; and he thought that it would be of advantage if they could diminish the amount of work done by the pupil teachers prior to their going to the colleges, and increase the number of years of stay in those colleges; and it would be specially

1439
important if they could be taught the art of teaching as such persons were taught in Prussia. After they came from the training colleges their course should be completed as young men in our schools. That being so, it would be absolutely necessary that we should alter the system of our denominational colleges, and consider whether day-colleges could not in some way be permitted. That would render the cost of education much less to the State, which now paid three-fourths of the cost of maintenance as well as of the cost of teaching. Day-colleges would also to a great extent get over the religious difficulty, for the present colleges were not only denominational, but for the most part they belonged to one denomination only. By having adult teachers in our schools, he believed that they would much improve the existing educational system, and in doing so, would make it cheaper.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he entirely agreed in the regret that they had not more time for the discussion of this question, but it was not his fault that he had not been able sooner to bring the Estimates before them. The subject was, no doubt, a most important one. With regard to the Report, he was sorry that it had not yet been got out; he had done his best to hasten it; but it had been exceedingly difficult to get it out early on account of the Returns which were to be considered in it; but he trusted that in future years some means would be found by which it could be laid before the country earlier. But the present year was one of the most exceptional work in the office, in consequence of their having to bring the Act into operation, and he hoped that in the coming year his own time would be more entirely devoted to the educational work of the Department; but he must strenuously deny that even as it was, this important subject had been neglected. As to the particular Motion he had nothing to complain of in the tone of the hon. Member (Mr. B. Samuelson), who was, indeed, very forbearing towards him (Mr. W. E. Forster); but he had a right to complain when it was said that they had not been able to attend to the question. Sir Francis Sandford by substituting exact for general marks had discovered the weakness of the training colleges in 1869 and 1870, but now there
1440
was a very great improvement in these establishments. Now, as to the want of scientific teaching. Their work in the elementary schools with the present children must be very much confined to elementary teaching, because they were sweeping in children from the streets who had hitherto had no education at all. They must be prepared to give as good education as the children could receive; but he must repeat that in this also they had not neglected the matter. He would now refer to the actual Motion and recommendation of the hon. Member (Mr. B. Samuelson). The hon. Member (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had really stated the case very fairly in favour of the pupil-teacher system. His (Mr. W. E. Forster's) own impression was, that it was in itself a good system; that it was a way by which they got hold of young men and women who had had a good preparatory training before they actually went into the training schools. He thought that there was something in an apprenticeship in teaching which was superior to the mere art of teaching how to do a thing. He had greater confidence in a person who had been a pupil teacher for four or five years than he had in a young person who had simply attended lectures for that period; but however that might be, they must take things as they found them. They were in a difficulty. They had to see how they could suddenly do their duty in education, and a part of that duty consisted in their being able at once to furnish a very great number of fresh masters and mistresses. What would be the result of their proceeding upon the plan that the pupil teachers after having served three years should go into the training colleges? The immediate result would be a dead-lock; for how could they get the schools taught in which there were at present pupil teachers? The same thing would apply to their remaining for three years in the training colleges. They could not do that at present, because they wanted teachers. He did not undertake that there should at once be the best possible training for our teachers, but he wished to remind the House of the present difficulties, and that they had to meet a great and sudden demand. They required a number of fresh masters and mistresses, and must take the best they could get. They could at present only

1441
look upon the training colleges as giving a high tone to education; but they could not as yet rely upon them altogether for supplying teachers. The hon. Member for Birmingham seemed to think that they might have too many pupil teachers. [Mr. DIXON: As regarded the future.] In that case the hon. Member seemed to be looking forward to a blessed Millennium, when they would all have done their work and got the country covered with schools. What they had now to deal with, however, was the difficulties that arose before they got to that point, and he must say that he rejoiced that the number of pupil teachers was very largely increased. He rejoiced that whilst in 1866 the number of pupil teachers had fallen from 16,000 to 11,000, it was now raised to 22,000. That would enable them to secure to the training colleges and to those who entered them, a better future. They must most carefully consider whether they could secure better teaching to pupil teachers by masters and mistresses in the schools; but they must also bear in mind that with their present dearth of teaching power they could not afford to give time to the masters and mistresses to teach them, or to the pupil teachers to learn. He was only showing their difficulty, and was by no means saying what they would like to do. One thing they had done—they said that these youths must be taught separately by themselves; and that he believed was a matter of considerable importance. As to undenominational schools, he must say that the hon. Members (Mr. B. Samuelson and Mr. Dixon) showed very great fairness in the way in which they alluded to the question; but there was one mistake that they had fallen into—they supposed that the cost of the present schools was borne by the State in a larger proportion than was the fact. The figures on page 137 of the Report showed that last year of the cost of the training schools not three-fourths, but only two-thirds, was granted by the State. The amount granted was £81,000, and there was derived from other sources £40,000. It must not be overlooked also that of the original cost of the schools, £446,000, there was granted by the State only £138,000, whilst there was furnished by subscriptions, &c., £308,000. At the same time, he had great pleasure in observing, that though building grants
1442
had been discontinued, the past year had seen two British and one Wesleyan college started. Of course, more training colleges were wanted; but if the State entered into the business it would, probably, drive voluntary effort out, and would lead to considerable cost. With respect to giving any encouragement to the establishment of undenominational or secular training schools, the State ought to consider the matter very carefully before it reversed the policy adopted in the stopping of building grants. If it did so, however, and if the advocates of secular education started a training college, and endeavoured to obtain a grant, the Department would, no doubt, consider any application made on its behalf. He must remind the House that in consequence of the passing of the Education Act, the State no longer interfered with religious education in denominational schools, and he rejoiced to say that those who started training colleges, whatever their religious views might be, felt how absolutely necessary it was, unless more harm was to be done than good, that the master and mistress to whom they entrusted young children should be able to give them a moral training. He did not know what the precise conditions of State aid in Germany or elsewhere might be, and it was impossible to make a just comparison with those countries, unless they knew the precise conditions both of the children and the teachers; but the Scotch schools had been alluded to, and it was true that they were not boarding schools, but care was taken that the young persons who attended those schools should be well looked after, and in the case of the young women it was found better to have boarding colleges. Moreover, it must not be forgotten in dealing with England that there were special moral duties for the teachers to perform, and special moral temptations to which they were subject. That being the case, he thought that they might challenge comparison with most parts of the world for the good conduct of the teachers in the Government schools. He was, nevertheless, prepared to acknowledge that strong arguments had been adduced in favour of day training schools, if conducted with due care for the good discipline and management of the teachers. That was one of the questions which must be borne in mind, and which the Government

1443
would bear in mind with the most careful attention. Several persons of strong religious character, and anxious for religious training, had told him that this matter was under their consideration, and he should himself earnestly desire to consider any plan on this subject which might be brought before him, or to devise how we could supplement the present system. His hon. Friend would not, however, expect him to state any crude views before he had come to a proper conclusion in the matter. He was sorry to check the present useful and practical discussion, but he would appeal to the hon. Member not to press his Amendment to a division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
£1,146,560, to complete the sum for Public Education in Great Britain.
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in rising to move the Vote for Public Education, said, he had to trouble the Committee with some dull and dry figures, which, however, as had been before observed, made up a very large bill. The Elementary Education bill this year was more than £1,500,000 sterling, the net increase over the Vote of last year being £93,158. This increase was made up of an increase in salaries to the amount of £354, of an increased expenditure of £2,000 for extra copying in working the Act, and of £1,413 for Inspectors' salaries. This last increase was not owing to an increase in the number for the inspection of day schools, but it was found desirable to have the examination of night schools by unauthorized Inspectors replaced by authorized Inspectors. Then there was an increase for Scotland in the salaries of teachers of £8,520. That arose from there being more schools, necessitating the employment of 99 additional certificated teachers and 376 additional pupil teachers. There was also an increase of £30,956 in the annual grants to day schools, and of £5,192 to night schools, making for those two items an increase of
1444
£36,148. In building grants there was an increase of £80,000. This year £160,000 were asked for, and last year the sum asked was £80,000, but the actual payments were only £45,607. He had only to say with respect to the building grants, that that was no real saving, and that there was no reason to alter the estimate of February 15, of about £400,000 for 2,400 schools, providing for 400,000 children. Out of 3,330 applications 2,281 had been approved on fulfilment of the conditions, 293 had been refused, 223 had been withdrawn, and 533 were undecided upon, and, he believed, in most cases given up without the Education Department being informed of the fact. The grants, however, actually paid were 365, and in the case of 1,123 an actual promise had been given. The items of increase in the Vote made up a total of £128,000. There was a decrease of £2,272 upon travelling allowances to Inspectors, owing to the abolition of denominational inspection, and there was a decrease of £3,000 in training schools, though the number of students had very much increased. At Christmas, 1863, there were 3,107 students in the training colleges, in 1867 the number fell to 1,922; but it was now increased to 3,347, the largest figure at which it had ever stood. The female schools were quite full, and the male schools very nearly full. The reason of the decrease in the Estimate was that the cost of the scholars had not risen to the amount that was anticipated. Then there was a decrease in the cost of the working of the Act. Last year that item was put down at £70,000, and the actual expenditure was £29,809. The Estimate for this year was £49,000. The items of decrease showed a total of £35,000, making the net increase in the Vote £93,158. The annual grants to English and Welsh schools were for close upon 1,600,000 children in day schools at an average cost of 12 s. 2d. a-child, and about 83,500 children in night schools at an average cost of 9s. a-child. The actual grant last year was, in day schools, upon an average of 10 s. 4¾d. a-child, and night schools 6s. 7¾d.; but the night schools were upon the Old Code, whereas the present at 9s. were upon the New; and the day schools were 8 months upon the Revised Code and 4 months upon the New Code, The change which had been

1445
made in the Code prevented his entering with any advantage into any comparison between the number of children presented and the number who passed, because the conditions of presentation and passing were both different to what they were under the old system. For a child to be brought up for examination 250 attendances were now required instead of 200, and the test of examination had been also somewhat raised. The old 1st standard had been got rid of, the standards had been rather strung up throughout, and a considerable change had been made in putting the infant age up to seven instead of six. The first effect of these changes had been to some slight extent an apparent hardship to the schools; but, notwithstanding, they had earned considerably more than they did under the Old Code. Compelling a larger number of attendances had resulted in a more constant attendance, and the Government had done no more than their duty—if they had done their duty—in the stringing up of the Code. In spite of the difficulty in making comparisons to which he had alluded, it was in his power to give the Committee a comparison of the actual number of children whose education they had aided. In the year ending 31st August, 1871, there were present on the day of examination 1,509,000 children in day schools as against 1,434,000 the year before, being an increase of 75,000, and in night schools 86,000 were present as against 78,000, making an increase of 8,000. The average attendance in day schools was 1,231,000, as against 1,152,000, being an increase of 79,000. As regarded the future, he must prepare the House for a very considerable increase in the bill, and he believed that in a year or two it would quickly increase. The amount of the grant depended upon two conditions—the number of the children who attended, and the number of children who passed. And with reference to the latter he must here repeat the warning, which he had already given to managers and teachers—that there was not the least intention to make the examination less perfect. In fact, they must be prepared for a greater stringing up of the examinations, for it would be the duty of the Education Department to make them more and more difficult as soon as the children could bear it. They must insist upon the children
1446
being taught all they were able to learn; and the teacher, therefore, was in the unfortunate position that the more he did the more he would have to do. The difficulty of the larger attendance would, he believed, be comparatively little felt next year, and more children would be found attending 250 times than attended 200 times under the old system. There was one difficulty in which they must sympathize with both managers and teachers, and that was in the bringing into the schools by the by-laws and by the attention given to education, children who had been utterly neglected till now; and, undoubtedly, it was a hard task to teach them. The Marquess of Ripon and himself, therefore, had agreed to postpone the time at which it should be compulsory for children to be examined at a certain age. They had not, however, given up the principle. It was important that teachers should not be tempted to keep children to a lower standard, and it had been determined to lengthen the time by about a year and three-quarters, in order to give the country time to solve the problem of compulsory education. He fully believed that under that system more children would be found to attend the schools; partly because parents were getting more alive to the importance of education, and partly from the success which had already attended the compulsory system. A large part of the country was under compulsory by-laws, and generally speaking they were working better than he had anticipated. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and his colleagues were engaged in almost the most difficult task that anyone could undertake in relation to this subject—namely, in applying the principle of compulsion to the metropolis. He did not in the least degree find fault with them, because they had not yet been able to carry out their theory, as the danger of making a false step was great; and he thanked them with all his heart for having laid down the principle that compulsion should be applied throughout London. They might take comfort from what was being done in other large towns. In Liverpool, as he was informed by the chairman of the school board, they had increased the attendance at the schools by 10,000, and they had done so at a considerable diminution in the payment of fees from poor children, while

1447
a great number of those formerly assisted by the Education Aid Society were now able and willing to pay for their own teaching. In fact, they had laid down the principle of only helping those who were in absolute destitution. They had not brought the Act into operation throughout the whole country for two reasons—first, he did not believe it was possible for them to do more than they had done; and, secondly, what they had not done other people had done. They had gained by leaving the country to work voluntarily. He, indeed, believed they would have hindered the work if they had interfered more quickly. Of course, this work must depend on the permanent officials, and no one could have been more devotedly assisted than he had been by the permanent officials of the Department, from the Secretary downwards. He might illustrate the difficulties they had to encounter by referring to a Bill which had occupied much of their attention this Session—the Scotch Education Bill. The Committee might take this rule-of-three calculation. He had been asked the question—if a body of Commissioners having nothing else to do would take from three to five years to bring the Scotch Education Act into operation in 500 parishes, there being already some sort of school board in the remaining parishes, how long would it take the Education Department, with a great deal else to do, to introduce school boards into 15,000 parishes? His answer was, that he believed it would be brought into operation in five years, if not in less. He would now say a few words as to the position in which we were as regards the working of the Act. The Census of 1871 gave the English and Welsh population at 22,704,108, of which the metropolitan district was 3,265,005; the 224 municipal boroughs 6,524,899; 15,119 civil parishes, 13,000,000. The London School Board was prescribed by the Act, and in the same position as Scotland; they had to rely very much on its members, merely seeing that they did their duty, and giving them any assistance in their power. In the 224 municipal boroughs, 100 had anticipated the Act establishing school boards, with a population of 5,212,093. In the 15,119 civil parishes, 279 had done the same, and though that was but a small portion of the whole, reckoning them by their size
1448
they were not unimportant, containing as they did a population of 1,234,000. So that rather more than 43 per cent., or 9,711,667 of the population, were under school boards; leaving, without school boards in boroughs and parishes, a population of 13,000,000. But were they in that large population which was without school boards doing nothing for education? He ventured to say there was hardly a village in the country in which attention had not been called to the subject, and in which they were not endeavouring as best they could to fulfil their duty. But the time had come when they should put the provisions of the Act into operation, and he would give some statistics collected chiefly from the counties of Dorset, Northumberland, and Sussex. Their first notices were sent out on May 16, 1872, and by the 22nd of last month they had dealt with 1,412 parishes, and the Committee would be glad to learn the result of their inquiries as to those parishes. In 637 parishes they found sufficient education, but a deficiency, which he hoped might be supplied, in 775 parishes. In 381 of these they had given notices for union with other parishes. He would only further give one or two figures in relation to statistics. They had got experimental school boards beginning to build to a large extent. Applications for grants by the Loan Commissioners, which had been approved, had been made by 36 boards, amounting to £353,726. Undoubtedly, that sum would be very largely increased. Then, with regard to the extent to which compulsion had been enforced. On the 1st of May, 1872, there were actually sanctioned by-laws not only in the metropolis, with a population of 3,265,005, but in 65 boroughs, with a population of 4,267,642, and 41 parishes, with a population of 608,010, representing in the whole 8,140,657, or 35 per cent of the whole population, and more than 65 per cent of the borough population, The work was done better in the manufacturing and mining districts, where the schools were in existence before the passing of the Act; but they must look for improvement most in the agricultural districts. Although much had been done and much more was being done, he was aware as much as his hon. Friend that there still remained a great deal more to do. He had given all his abilities, any

1449
experience he possessed, and almost his undivided attention to this work for some months past, and he should be at all times happy to give assistance with the experience he had gained on the subject under discussion. There were some very difficult problems to solve—how to meet the large demand for teachers, how to keep up the standard, and even to raise the standard of teachers; the great problem, however, was how to raise the standard of education in schools themselves—giving more knowledge on advanced subjects, without diminishing the amount of elementary teaching. These might be easy problems on paper, but they were most difficult in practice. There was also another most difficult problem which presented the apparent key of the whole question—how to solve the attendance difficulty, and apply the stimulus of compulsion throughout the kingdom. He could only repeat he never was more conscious of the difficulty of solving these problems; but he thought the general conviction throughout the country that that was the case was the most favourable feature of the present position of the question. He had now to move that a sum to complete the Vote of £1,551,560 for Education in Great Britain be granted to Her Majesty.
MR. STEVENSONcalled attention to the provisions in the New Code requiring children to be taught the advantages of the metric system of weights and measures, and to the instructions to Inspectors on the same subject. He maintained that a great constitutional principle was involved in this matter, Parliament never having sanctioned the abolition of our present units of weights and measures. It was very questionable, indeed, for the Department to require elementary schools to take one side of a question so complex in its nature, on which men of the highest scientific authority were divided. Against the metric system he might quote the Astronomer Royal and also a gentleman who was at the head of one of our training colleges, and who complained that managers were called upon to run the risk of sacrificing a portion of the Government grants if they did not give attention to this useless subject. The metric charts which managers were recommended to hang up in their schools also illustrated decimal coinage, and explained the relative value of imaginary coins, such as cents and mils,
1450
which were utterly unknown to the law and practice of this country. If any chart were to be hung up in schools, surely it ought to be one illustrative of our own standard weights and measures, respecting which much useful and interesting information might be given, such as that a half-penny of our new bronze coinage was just an inch in diameter; that an English cubic foot was practically the measure of 1000 ounces of water; that a pint was the measure of 20 ounces of water, and so on. What was the use of teaching children facts respecting the French system, and omitting to teach them corresponding facts connected with our own system? It was a serious matter that enthusiastic doctrinaires should have the opportunity of putting forward their doctrines through the powerful medium of the Education Department. In the inaugural address given by the President of the Society of Civil Engineers, Mr. Hawksley insisted that the English system was as capable of being referred to natural standards as the French system, and, naming the nations which used the English system, deduced the important fact that four-fifths of the commercial business of the world was carried on in them. It was no part of his case to prove that decimal subdivisions were practically worse than binary and duodecimal, though he thought he could do so; and he quite approved of children being taught to manipulate our units decimally. It was quite enough for him to show that the Education Department was requiring children to be taught systems which were not legally established in this country; and in doing that he thought the Department had very much exceeded its duty.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that in reviewing the practical operation of the Education Act the increase, however satisfactory, had not been so large year by year as it had been in former years, but it went to show the work and labour which fell on school boards, the magnitude of which could scarcely be comprehended. The voluntary efforts of the country had been great and earnest; and before the passing of the Education Act the zealous friends of education used every exertion to induce parents to send their children to the schools they had provided for their training. In London the School Board had to deal with a

1451
careless, dissolute, and almost criminal class, and great difficulties existed in inducing them to send their children to school. It should be recollected that the metropolitan district extended over an area of 35 or 40 miles; that its population exceeded that of the whole of Scotland; and dealt with difficulties greater than those presented by that country. The parents of the children were not amenable to that discipline which the Scotch people exercised over each other; and they disappeared when called on by persons who presumed to exercise a little authority over them. The School Board of London had, therefore, owing to the great difficulties they had to contend with, to ask for the forbearance of the public in the discharge of its duties. They had to establish schools and enforce compulsory by-laws, besides having to contend against a multitude of details almost overwhelming. The difficulty of erecting schools was greater in London than in the provinces, owing to the value of land, and then when they were established a complaint was made that they interfered with voluntary schools, and that by so doing the School Board was damaging the cause of education. All the London School Board asked for, was time in order that they might show that they were only doing a necessary work, and that the evils complained of would adjust themselves. The Report that had just been issued stated that the average attendances were less than 70 per cent, and it was the irregularity of attendances which interfered with the training of the children in the elementary schools. It behoved all to endeavour to persuade parents to send their children constantly to school, and it would require but little to show them that it was to their pecuniary advantage, that they should let their children regularly attend school. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the great demands that would have in a few years to be made on the public income in order to carry out and sustain the operation of the Act. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) trusted that the demands on the public purse for education would continue to be large, for such expenditure should contribute only to the security, prosperity, and wealth of the country; and he was certain they would be most readily met by both that House and the country. The Department had, from year to year, con-
1452
sistently, though sometimes rather hardly from the managers' point of view, raised the standards and requirements; but in everything it had aimed at efficiency, which could be attained only step by step; and from that point of view, he believed the Department had exercised a wise discretion in postponing the application of the Act of last year, so far as the examination of children in the 2nd standard was concerned, for another year. The difficulties which would have to be encountered in board schools in dealing with destitute children would be enough to appall any schoolmaster. On that account, and for that reason only, and not because he desired to see a low standard of examination, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had exercised a very wise discretion in postponing the application of the change until the result of compulsion had been to some extent ascertained, and until these poor children had been subjected to some amount of training and discipline. In conclusion, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he had presented to them.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was quite true that the number of attendances did at the first sight appear to be smaller than was expected, but the statistics only extended to the 31st of August, 1871, at which period the school boards had not got to work. He believed the number would be much larger in proportion next year. With regard to the metric system, he might remark that a Committee of the House of Commons in 1862 unanimously recommended it to be taught by means of tables and diagrams in all schools receiving grants from the public funds. In 1864 both Houses of Parliament passed by large majorities a permissive Bill on the subject, and in 1868 the second reading of a Bill for the compulsory use of the system was carried in that House by 217 votes against 65. Still more recently, in 1869, the Standards Commission expressed approval of the system. Now, the metric system was a decimal system, and the best way to teach it to the children was by grounding them thoroughly in decimals. The charts complained of by the hon. Gentleman were simply object lessons for the decimal system, and were found very useful to the children, though they had French names.
MR. BERESFORD HOPE, supplementing and correcting the history given by his right hon. Friend of the metric war, reminded the Committee that last year the House, which was then for the first time brought face to face with the question, rejected the Metric Bill on its second reading. In 1868 he, as the principal opponent to the measure, went to a division under many disadvantages. The metric system was not only decimal, but every dimension, weight, and area in it differed from the old English system. Indeed, the only good that could result from teaching the metric system to children was that for the rest of their lives they would be thoroughly disgusted with its semi-scientific gibberish. He pitied the poor little children puzzled to death with terms half Greek and half French, and believed the result would be that they would be more than ever in love with the old-fashioned weights and measures of this country.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £176,312, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Science and Art, and of the Establishments connected therewith."
MR. RYLANDSasked the Government to postpone it, as it could not be properly discussed at that hour—6.40 P.M.
MR. W. E. FORSTER, on behalf of the Government, said, he would accede to the request.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £73,601, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the British Museum, including the amount required for Furniture, Fittings, &c."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again this day.
And it being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—REVISED NEW CODE (1871).—RESOLUTION.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Sir, I rise to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to modify the new code of regulations issued by the Committee of the Privy Council, in such a manner as to give more encouragement to the teaching of history, geography, elementary social economy, and the other so-called extra subjects, in the Elementary Schools of the Country."
In the first place I shall endeavour to show that the grants nominally offered in the New Code for the encouragement of extra subjects are to a great extent illusory; and secondly, that the educational system of the country has suffered, and is suffering, from the course at present pursued. In doing so I need not rest my case on any arguments or opinions of my own, but I trust I shall be able to satisfy the House that the Resolution which I have the honour to propose expresses the conclusion arrived at, almost unanimously, by those specially qualified to judge upon such points. In the first place, the effect of the present system has been carefully examined into by the Royal Commission recently appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science. This Commission, presided over by his Grace the Duke of Devonshire, has recently reported that although grants are nominally offered for extra subjects, still in their opinion from the manner in which the payments are arranged, they will be under the new system as under the old—
"Almost wholly given for reading, writing, and arithmetic; and that little encouragement will be afforded to the study of other subjects, even of history and geography."
It is true that grants of 3s. each are offered for proficiency in any two extra subjects, under which term the Committee of the Privy Council on Education include

1455
everything except reading, writing, and arithmetic; but, continue the Commissioners—
"It appears to us that the encouragement thus apparently held out is rendered to a great extent illusory by the other conditions of the Code. To make this clear, it is necessary to state the manner in which, under the Code, grants are earned. The sum of 6 shillings is granted for each scholar on account of attendance, and 4 shillings each for the three subjects, making 12 shillings for reading, writing, and arithmetic. Thus each scholar can earn 18 shillings apart from extra subjects, and as 14 shillings a-head (or 15 shillings where music is taught) is the maximum payable, it is evident that schools can earn the whole amount without teaching any of the so-called extra subjects. Indeed, it is obvious that if 75 per cent of the children pass in reading, writing, and arithmetic, the school will earn the maximum grant; and, in fairly good schools, this amount of success has been, and we doubt not will be, attained without difficulty."
Having thus shown that the effect of the present system is to discourage everything except reading, writing, and arithmetic, I now come to consider whether it would not be desirable to offer inducements to instruction in other subjects. Here, again, I will rely first on the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission already referred to. After carefully discussing the whole question, they conclude with two recommendations; firstly, as regards the elder children in elementary schools—that instruction in the rudiments of physical science should receive more substantial encouragement than is given in the Regulations of the New Code; and, secondly, as regards the younger children—
That Her Majesty's Inspectors should be directed to satisfy themselves that such elementary lessons are given as would prepare these children for the more advanced instruction which will follow."
Again, the Committee appointed by this House in 1868, on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson), after a very careful inquiry, reported that—
"Nearly every witness speaks of the extraordinary rapid progress of Continental nations in manufactures, and attributes that rapidity besides other causes.… to the elementary instruction which is universal among the working population of Germany and Switzerland. All the witnesses concur in desiring similar advantages of education for this country, and are satisfied that nothing more is required, and that nothing less will suffice in order that we may retain the position which we now hold in the van of all industrial nations."
And they consequently recommended—
1456
"That elementary instruction in drawing, in physical geography, and in the phenomena of nature, should be given in elementary schools."
That these views are very generally entertained throughout the country is shewn by the fact that, in spite of Government discouragement, the principal school boards in the country—for instance, those of London and Liverpool—have determined that history, geography, elementary social economy, and systematized object lessons, shall be taught in all the schools under their control. Nor is it only in its direct action on elementary schools that the present system is working so badly. The effect on the training colleges and consequently on the schoolmasters is also very unfortunate. Much evidence on this point has been given by the principals of training colleges. Thus, Canon Cromwell stated before the Science Commission that in consequence of the system introduced by the Revised Code, the amount of instruction encouraged and paid for in the training colleges has been very much diminished. The special subjects were all struck out in 1862, and the syllabus reduced almost to what a clever boy in the first class of a national school might have known. The amount of instruction given to pupil teachers all over the country was diminished, and he concludes—
"We tried to retain the higher standard as long as it was possible with the students; we taught more things in the colleges than the Government required; but year by year we found that the pupils who came in were worse and worse prepared, so that, at last, it was almost impossible to give anything more than the Government syllabus required."
Much misapprehension has no doubt arisen from the use of the term—"extra subjects." Anyone would suppose that extra subjects meant mathematics, or perhaps French or German; no one would à priori imagine that Her Majesty's Government include under this term the history of England, elementary geography, and, in fact, everything except reading, writing, and arithmetic. No doubt, reading, writing, and arithmetic are very important, and form, indeed, the basis of instruction, but they do not in themselves constitute an education, however humble, any more than a knife and fork make a dinner. What should be the objects of an education? The late Prince Consort, in one of his

1457
admirable addresses, said that in education our aim should be to teach—1. The physical laws on which health depends; 2. The moral laws on which happiness depends; 3. The intellectual laws on which knowledge depends; 4. The social and political laws on which national prosperity depends; 5. The economic laws on which wealth depends. Which of these objects is, I will not say attained, but even aimed at, by our present system? We seem to be entering on a phase of history in which it will be of vital importance to us that our people should possess some knowledge of political economy. I will not, however, occupy the House by repeating on this point the arguments and quotations which I brought forward last year; I will only quote one sentence from the committee appointed in 1870 by the Social Science Association to report on the relations between science and labour. That committee presented to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education a report, in which they stated their—
"Strong conviction that the hostility between labour and capital, arising from an erroneous belief that the interests of work-people and their employers, and of tenants and landlords, are opposed to each other—a belief leading, in manufactures, to attempts to impose harrassing restrictions regarding rates of wages, hours of labour, piece-work, number of apprentices, and the use of machinery; and, in agriculture, to attempts to dictate the amount of rent to be exacted and the selection of tenants, and leading, in its further stages, to strikes, lock-outs, rattenings, and threats of personal violence and ultimately, in many cases, to murder itself—might have been mitigated, and in great measure prevented, had the people of this country in their youth and before the mind could be warped, been instructed in the elements of economic science. And on this and on other grounds they respectfully urge that no more time be lost in taking measures for gradually introducing this knowledge as a regular branch of education into all schools to which the State gives pecuniary aid. That the practicability of communicating such knowledge to the minds of even very young persons, and of making it both interesting and attractive, has been demonstrated on such a scale as to place the matter beyond doubt."
For my own part I deeply regret that the differences which exist between us with reference to the metaphysical speculations of rival theological schools should endanger the teaching of religion in its moral and practical aspects. The secretary of the Birmingham League has indeed said in a recent report—
1458
"Let the State keep to its proper work, and fit its children to take their places as citizens of a great Empire, and let it leave their religious training and all that concerns their education for the kingdom which is not of this world to the care of the Churches and the responsibility of parents."
Practically, this may be necessary; but it is not the less to be regretted; partly, because the result must be to give undue prominence to those questions by which sects are divided, instead of to those more important moral lessons on which most men are agreed; partly because it seems to me that a system of education which has no tendency to fit persons for the kingdom which is not of this world, can be but ill suited to render them good citizens in this life. If, however, moral and religious culture is thus in danger of exclusion from our schools, it seems all the more necessary that some subjects should be introduced which have a tendency to educate, and are not mere matters of instruction. For such a purpose some branches of science are well adapted. I know there are many—some even in this House—who would take a different view, and who consider that science is hostile to religion. Hostile to all false religions, undoubtedly it is. Scientific men will not, and could not if they would, sacrifice truth to the supposed exigencies of temporary expediency. Science will, perhaps, continue in the future, as it has in the past, to modify profoundly our religious conceptions; it will root out even our dearest errors, and consistently oppose all but the highest possible conceptions of the Divine Nature. That there is great room for such action can hardly be denied. Without entering on the debateable grounds of the theological differences existing amongst educated men, it must be admitted that in spite of all our churches and sects, witchcraft is still rife amongst us. But whatever may be the case as regards the higher and more abstruse parts of science, the question certainly cannot arise with reference to such elementary science as might be taught in national schools. Moreover, though I admit that reading, writing, and arithmetic, are the very foundation of education, and I would not therefore say anything against them in themselves, still by themselves they can by no means be considered as forming even the rudiments of an education. Reading and writing are mechanical

1459
exercises; arithmetic is a matter of definition. Sir W. Hamilton filled a lengthy essay, with quotations from great authorities, condemning the exclusive use of mathematics as a training for the mind. A great living writer has pointed out that it is a subject which "knows nothing of observation, nothing of induction, nothing of experiment, nothing of causation." We need, therefore, some fourth subject which should train the powers of observation—some study which would give a knowledge of things, not merely of names of things. In reading, writing, and arithmetic you arrive, by one process or another, at a certain conclusion; but in life it is not so. Success or failure, happiness or misery, prosperity or misfortune, depend with most of us on our powers of observation and of balancing probabilities.
Now, the State is assuming a great responsibility. We are taking on ourselves the education of all children. It is our manifest interest, our plain duty, to consider most anxiously and carefully of what that education is to consist. At present, so far as the State can do so, it limits the education given in national schools to reading, writing, and arithmetic. Surely such a system is eminently incomplete and unsatisfactory. The light hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us once that under the present extended franchise, it was necessary that we should educate our masters. Does he, the Representative of a great University, call this education? In an address delivered before the South London Working Men's College, Professor Huxley has forcibly asked whether, if our prospects in life depended on our knowledge of chess, we should allow our children to grow up in ignorance of that game?—
"Yet," he continues, "it is a very plain and elementary truth, that the life, the fortune, and the happiness of everyone of us, and, more or less, of those who are connected with us, do depend upon our knowing something of the rules of a game infinitely more difficult and complicated than chess. It is a game which has been played for untold ages, every man and woman of us being one of the two players in a game of his own. The chessboard is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the Universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just, and patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance
1460
for ignorance. To the man who plays well the highest stakes are paid with that sort of overflowing generosity with which the strong shows delight in strength. And one who plays ill is checkmated, without haste, but without remorse."—[Huxley's Lay Sermons, p. 36.]
It must be remembered that our Motion is especially directed to children of 11 and upwards. I should like to ask any hon. Member of this House, whether he would be satisfied that a child of his at that age should be entirely ignorant of history and geography? But, for so long as they are at school, I see no reason why children in national schools should learn less than those privately educated. I hope the House will not suppose that we are asking for any addition to the grant. That is not our object, but what we wish is that it should not be so exclusively devoted to reading, writing, and arithmetic. But the right hon. Gentleman argued last year that we "ought not to have a modification of the New Code before we had time to try it." But why should we try it? As 3 times 4 are 12, and 6 more make 18, we can tell how the system will work. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon, if I rightly understood him, that the children have earned an average of 12 s. 2d. a-head. If this be the average, it is obvious that good schools must have earned the full grant of 15 s. It is self-evident that any school in which three quarters of the children pass the examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic will earn the whole possible grant, and can get nothing for extra subjects. Of course, the Inspectors may pass fewer children, and then the schools may fall back upon the extra subjects. I do not know if this is what the right hon. Gentleman contemplates; but, if so, I must say that it would alter, but, far from removing, would increase my objection to the present system of grants. Anxious as I am that history and the rudiments of science should be taught in all our schools, I should shrink from introducing them by such means. Pass examinations in village schools ought not to be pitched so high that a good schoolmaster could not pass three quarters of his children; recollect that such a failure is a great disappointment to the master, and a discouragement to the children. Nor ought extra subjects to be used as a means of compensating for failure elsewhere; I should

1461
deeply regret any action which tended to discourage either masters or children. The Science Commission has specially called attention to this danger. They say—
"We do not think it would be desirable that the standards should be raised in such a manner as to reduce the passes below this proportion; such a course would, we think, tend to discourage both the masters and pupils."
But, although the right hon. Gentleman opposed our Motion last year, he did, in fact, admit the principle for which we contend. He said that—
"The Motion of the hon. Member was, on the whole, in accordance with the principle of action adopted by the Government; but it would not be wise to adopt it at that point, considering how recently the Elementary Education Act had come into force. … He believed the right course had been adopted in discarding the idea that all they had to do was to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic."—[3 Hansard, ccviii. 122.]
Well, then, we ask the Government to act in accordance with their principles. What is the use of a principle if you act in direct opposition to it? What is the use of "discarding the idea that all you have to do is to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic," if you act in accordance with the ideas you discard, and in opposition to those you entertain? But the right hon. Gentleman says that the Elementary Education Act has very recently come into force. That is true; but what we complain of is not the Elementary Education Act, but the principle introduced by the Revised Code in 1861, and continued by the New Code of last year, of limiting payments to mere reading, writing, and arithmetic. This system has now been in operation for 11 years, and has been almost universally condemned by those interested in education. It is sometimes said that the function of Government is only to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. I reply that even from this point of view the present system breaks down. Mr. Lingen, then Secretary of the Committee of Council on Education, gave evidence, in 1868, before Mr. Samuelson's Committee, that the children learnt reading, writing, and arithmetic more quickly in schools where other subjects were taught in addition. This is also the experience of Scotland, and hon. Members will remember that in the debates on the Scotch Education Bill this year, great dread was expressed by Scotch Members lest
1462
the effect should be to reduce Scotch schools to the English level. Moreover, what is the evidence as regards English schools? We sacrifice everything to reading, writing, and arithmetic, do we succeed in securing even so much? No; last year in the whole of England and Wales less than 20,000 children passed in the sixth standard—that is to say, shewed that they could read and write well, and had a fair knowledge of arithmetic. On such a result comment is unnecessary. Moreover, it must be remembered that if Government creates bad schools all over the country, it prevents the establishment of good ones. The right hon. Gentleman said last year that I am too sanguine. Sir, I only hope I am not too despondent; for, far from taking a cheerful view of things, I am firmly persuaded that under the present system we shall make no progress, and that Government grants, as at present administered, will, in the long run, impede, not aid, the cause of education. We shall have plenty of school-rooms but no real schools. As yet, indeed, our schools are, I am thankful to say, much better than the Government system, if continued, must ere long make them. I fully recognize the great ability which the right hon. Gentleman has brought to bear on education, as on every other subject which he takes up, yet so far from schools conducted in accordance with the New Code being satisfactory places of education, I maintain that they will be places where children will get not education, but a hatred of education; that their effect will be to check intellectual growth; that instead of being a blessing and an advantage to the country, they will prove a curse and a misfortune. Our great danger in education is the worship of book-learning—the confusion of instruction and education. We strain the memory, instead of cultivating the mind. Such a system makes intellectual exercise an effort and a fatigue. We should follow exactly the opposite course, and it would be a pleasure; depend upon it under a natural system of education the nourishment of the mind ought to be as pleasant as that of the body. In their food children yearn for what is sweet, and we know now that they are right. So also in education we may safely trust much to their instincts, and we should endeavour to cultivate their tastes, rather than to fill them with dry facts. The

1463
important thing is not so much that every child should be taught, as that every child should have the opportunity of teaching itself. What does it matter whether a child of 12 knows a little more or a little less? That is not the point; the question is whether we are pursuing a course which makes intellectual exercise a pleasure or the reverse. Under the present system our schools will become more and more places of mere instruction; instead of developing intellectual tastes, they will make all mental effort irksome. We have now, or soon shall have, the control of the vast majority of children up the age of 12, and we ought in that time not only to teach them to read, but to enjoy what they read. We should educate them so that every country walk may be a pleasure; that the discoveries of science may be a living interest; that our national history and poetry may be sources of legitimate pride and rational enjoyment; in short, our schools, if they are to be worthy of the name—if they are in any measure to fulfil their high function, must be something more than mere places of dry study; must train the children educated in them, so that they may be able to appreciate and enjoy those intellectual gifts which might be, and ought to be, a source of interest and of happiness alike to the high and to the low, to the rich and to the poor. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to modify the new code of regulations issued by the Committee of the Privy Council, in such a manner as to give more encouragement to the teaching of history, geography, elementary social economy, and the other so-called extra subjects, in the Elementary Schools of the Country,"—(Sir John Lubbock,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, his hon. Friend in his eloquent speech had made precisely the same Motion in exactly the same terms that he had made it last year, and he would therefore find little fault with him (Mr. W. E. Forster) if he began his reply as he began it then. He only wished that his practical experience in the matter enabled him to look
1464
at it in exactly the same light as his hon. Friend did, and to feel that he had an opportunity of carrying into practice the various and delightful expectations which his hon. Friend had so eloquently descanted on. He would be very glad, indeed, if it were possible that the schools he had to do with could make instruction as pleasant as ordinary food; but he was afraid that that would be making them much more pleasant than he himself had experience of in his youth, and if his hon. Friend had that delightful pabulum in his youth his experience must have been remarkably exceptional. His hon. Friend had stated that they ought not to be contented with mere book learning, and he complained against book learning of itself. He said it did not much matter whether there was more or less of it. Well, it was very much the case in the experience of life that a great deal of book learning was of very little use to a great number of men; but was that a guide with respect to children? What was book learning? Book learning was giving children merely a tool with which they could fight the battle of life, and the moral his hon. Friend drew was, that too much stress was laid upon mere reading, writing, and arithmetic. His hon. Friend, however, knew this—that a man or woman who had to fight the battle of life in England at this time and earn a livelihood without a knowledge of reading and writing was scarcely able to earn it. It was the one important thing which they must get. It was not a question of book learning against practical learning; it was absolutely necessary that they should have that key to unlock other means of instruction. If they were not taught to read and write, then the result was absolute failure. His hon. Friend said they would be better taught if other things were attended to. Now, would any hon. Member teach his child political economy before he taught him to read? Would he teach him science before he taught him to read? It was quite admitted that an intelligent teacher in teaching children to read and write would put such questions as would give them a great deal of information. So far, however, as he had seen in such schools, that was more encouraged and better done for the children of the poor than in some richer families. But the fact was, they must condescend to what

1465
they had to do, and he asked again, could they begin to teach political economy before they had taught the children to read? He thought they were doing a great deal more than his hon. Friend supposed. The experience of the last four months of which they had any account, ending 31st August, 1871, told them that under the new system 34,000 children had been presented in the three upper standards, 4, 5, 6, of whom nearly 20,000 had been presented in the extra subjects. His hon. Friend was mistaken, therefore, in supposing that the Code did not encourage teaching those subjects. How many of these 20,000 had passed? Some 3,500 had passed in two subjects, and 9,000 in one. [Sir JOHN LUBBOCK: What are those subjects?] They were geography, history, algebra; language including English grammar or literature, and the elements of Latin, French, or German, physical geography, and animal physiology. But the real difficulty of the Department was this—his hon. Friend said that 34,000 was a small number. So it was. That was where the difficulty lay, and that difficulty could not be got over by driving classes into political economy. The difficulty was, that the children of the poor were badly educated to begin with, and the Department had to educate them better. He would give some particulars of the examinations under the New Code during the same four months, the four months ending August 31, 1871. During that time 2,851 day schools, having room for 625,000 children, and an average attendance of 372,000, were examined by the Inspectors. Deducting infants and those not qualified by attendance, 227,000 children above seven years could have been presented, of whom the managers ventured to present 184,000. Of these 184,000 children, 150,000 were presented only in the three low standards 1, 2, and 3, and of those more than 70,000 in Standard 1, more than 56,000 of whom were above 10 years of age, showing how neglected they were up to that time. Well, it was not the fault of the managers, nor of the Department, nor of the House, that the children were so backward, though it might be said to be their fault so far as they did not set to work to make attendance compulsory. But they must take the fact as they found it—namely, that 70,000 children were in such a state of comparative ignorance
1466
that they had to be presented in Standard 1. His hon. Friend was right in putting pressure on the Department to give as high an education as possible; but he ought to remember that they had to deal with children in a most ignorant state, and he did not believe that it was by setting them to learn political economy, geography, and other such matters, that the children could be best taught to read. His hon. Friend said there was no encouragement for teaching the extra subjects in the way the grant was given. His (Mr. W. E. Forster's) reply was that there was encouragement, or else 20,000 out of 34,000 would not have been presented in those subjects, and teachers would not have troubled themselves to give instruction in them. Now, 15 s. for the average attendance was the limit, but this might be increased to 18 s. Six shillings was paid upon the average attendance; but the 12 s. that might possibly be earned was not paid upon the same conditions as the average attendance, but only to children who had fulfilled these three conditions. In the first place, they should have attended 250 times; secondly, they should be present on the day of the examination; and thirdly, they should be offered for examination; or, in other words, they should not be absolutely ignorant, as if they had been swept off the streets. That was the explanation of the great number of children whom the teachers could not present for the average attendance. Nor would they be able to do so until the time should come when the children would be better prepared by means of infant schools, and there should be a better attendance than hitherto. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would agree with him that, in the first place, for some time to come we must make it our great point to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic; and, secondly, that our Code had not been a failure in the extra subjects, seeing that a very large proportion of those at all capable had been presented in them. At the same time, he was as anxious as his hon. Friend that the money which the country generously voted from year to year should get the best possible return in quality, as well as quantity, and he was determined, as long as he had to do with it, that the higher instruction should be given as long as it could be done without dimi-

1467
nishing elementary education; but, of course, elementary education must be first and foremost.
MR. RATHBONEventured to answer the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman, and to say that reading, writing, and arithmetic could be taught better by teaching the higher branches. It was an unceasing complaint with the managers of schools that there was increasing difficulty in providing pupil teachers and masters, and he believed that was attributable to the decreased attention which was given to those higher subjects, compared with the three points of reading, writing, and arithmetic, which were the subjects that paid. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would impress strongly on the Inspectors the importance of giving more time than at present to the examination of the schools in general intelligence and in the higher subjects.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he believed a good deal of the higher class of teaching was already being done in the country, as was evidenced by the fact that the valuable works of Spence and Major were sold in thousands. He did not take so desponding a view of the work now going on as was taken by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock); but he was rather astonished at the small progress which had been made since the passing of the Education Act. There were 34,000 children who had been presented in the three upper standards, but we should have 500,000. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Not for four months.] No; for a year. He believed, however, that his right hon. Friend was doing all that he could to improve the present state of things, and he believed that by giving premiums, say 2s. or 3s. beyond the 15 s. limit to the grant, for passing in extra subjects, they would get many more children to pass.
MR. CORRYsaid, that when he became a Member of the Committee of Council for Education some years ago, he found that the Parliamentary Grants for the support of education were such as to give only the merest possible educational means of fighting the battle of life to the scholars in the schools receiving these grants, and with the view of improving the standard of education, he proposed a Minute for the purpose of giving a higher rate of grant for extra subjects. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed his Minute, and argued that it
1468
was entirely repugnant to the principles of political economy; but he (Mr. Corry) thought it entirely consistent with the principles of common sense, and he had the satisfaction of beating the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a very considerable majority on that occasion. In the first one or two years he knew that his Minute produced very satisfactory results, and he should like to know how many of the 34,000 children who had passed in the three upper standards, and of the 20,000 who had passed in extra subjects, had passed in consequence of the money allowance made under that Minute.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in stating that the Minute which he proposed had produced a most beneficial change, and the Committee of Council were endeavouring by the New Code to develop the system of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to extra subjects. It was owing to that development that the grants to the 34,000 and the 20,000 children had been made.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) deserved great credit and honour for his Minute. It was the first step taken by the Privy Council out of the "Slough of Despond" into which the Revised Code had led them. He would suggest that the Vice President of the Committee of Council, before he proposed the Code for next year, should seriously consider whether in schools where extra subjects were efficiently taught, and where a larger number of pupil or assistant teachers were employed, a limit of 17 s. should not be substituted for the limit of 15 s. per child in average attendance, for the purpose of encouraging schoolmasters to teach extra subjects.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that last year he went to Germany, and studied some of the educational establishments there. He made "surprise visits," to schools in Dresden, and was surprised to see children who had neither boots nor shoes regular in attendance at schools in which the education given was equal to the highest education given in the State-supported schools of this country. He attended a whole day in each of three schools, and he had long and intimate conversations with the masters engaged. He found that the Revised Code was in Germany

1469
universally a laughing stock, and they were astonished that a country like England could be content in teaching the mere elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic. [Mr. FORSTER said, that he was not content.] But we remained simply teaching them. German teachers were convinced that in proportion as ordinary and extra subjects were mixed together the standard of education was raised, the one class of subjects helping the other. He had also taken the opinion of English masters, and had found that they were anxious for an alteration of the Code, some of them regretting the abolition of the old system, recollecting, perhaps, only what was good in it. Under that system, however, he knew the children of agricultural labourers rise to comparatively high positions, which would be almost impossible now. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said, it was still more likely to happen now.] He agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) that if extra subjects were encouraged a higher modicum of reading and writing would be obtained, so that the low standards might, perhaps, be abolished. In two primary schools in which he took an interest he recently offered a prize to every child who passed in an extra subject, whether above or below the fourth standard, and in one of the schools, out of 30 who thus passed, 7 were below the standard. Something more might be done in this direction, even without materially raising the present standards.
MR. BAINESsaid, he had witnessed last year in Switzerland what the noble Lord had seen in Germany. In the elementary schools children at a very early age were taught something of geography, history, and natural science, and he (Mr. Baines) had been very much struck with the utility of the system of object lessons, by which the children were introduced to the study of higher subjects. Moreover, 40 years ago, at New Lanark, in the first infant school established in the country, he saw young children with maps and diagrams of plants and animals, learning something of botany, natural history, astronomy, geography, and elementary science. Such instruction stimulated the faculties, and instead of mere reading and writing, which taught by themselves were dry and difficult, there should be object lessons, as in the Kindergarten system. [Mr.
1470
W. E. FORSTER said, these were given in some schools.] He was glad to hear it, but he thought extra subjects should be begun at an earlier age than 11.
MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that many children in the fourth standard were under 10, and that a child who had been well taught in an infant school, where object lessons were encouraged, might be presented at ten, nine, or eight years of age in that standard.
MR. BAINESsaid, he had not been aware of that. It might be inferred from the New Code that children would not reach the fourth standard till they were 11 years of age. He was anxious that the faculties of children should be developed by the early study of extra subjects. He hoped, however, the Resolution would not be pressed, feeling that the right hon. Gentleman was sensible of the value of extra subjects, and trusting that he would do all he could to promote them.
MR. B. SAMUELSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would tell him what portion of the 20,000 children who passed in the "extra subjects" earned in consequence an increased grant from the schools; and, also, he should like to know in what manner the Revised Code, or the instructions to Inspectors, encouraged these object lessons, which were rightly considered to be of so much importance?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not answer the first question without inquiry. The New Code clearly did not discourage extra subjects, for of all the children in the three upper standards—scarcely any in the lower being capable of presentation—20 out of 35 were presented, and 12½ passed. As to the second question, lessons leading up to extra subjects were encouraged by the whole system. He scarcely ever went into a school without seeing an intelligent teaching of reading which gave more information than the mere learning to read.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that under the denominational system it was clear that reading, writing, and arithmetic would be the principal objects of study, and that the extra subjects would be neglected. The truth was, that the denominational system was intended to shackle the mind and to keep it in subjection to those who superintended that system. He denied that reading, writing, and

1471
arithmetic were the first elements of education; they might rather be called the end of it, and indeed many of the most competent and practical persons were wholly ignorant of them—were wholly free from the unhappy effects of reading, writing, and arithmetic. In a colliery with which he was connected, he knew instances in which men who could not read or write were found to be more reliable than those who possessed those accomplishments. In the case of an ill-regulated mind, reading became a most unhappy faculty; and hon. Members had only to go to the back streets of London to see the kind of literary trash that was bought by those whose tastes and passions were totally undisciplined. Further, every housekeeper in London was aware that the accomplishment of reading was not always exercised by domestic servants for their own benefit. There was a time when the Principality with which he was connected was pre-eminently the seat of learning. He spoke of ancient British times—about the time of Julius Cæsar—when the Eistedfodds were annually celebrated. At that time reading and writing were absolutely prohibited, until the children or the people could show that they had such tastes and knowledge as would enable them to be relied upon to use those accomplishments to their own advantage. Believing, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary that the tastes and passions of children should be brought under control before they were taught to read and write, he heartily supported the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone.
MR. WHITWELLremarked that until we had a new class of masters we must not expect any sudden change in the tasks of the children in the elementary schools. It might be worth while to mention to the House a plan that was adopted in the town he represented, by those who interested themselves in the cause of elementary education. It was this—that prizes were offered to the children in the elementary schools—irrespective of religious denomination—for such as showed themselves most competent in geography, algebra, and similar subjects. The results had been of a most beneficial character.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

PARLIAMENT—COUNTS OUT.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BOWRING, after some prefatory observations upon the inconvenience that resulted from counting out, moved—"That every Member taking notice that 40 Members are not present shall do so from his place."
  MR. R. N. FOWLERseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "every Member taking notice that 40 Members are not present shall do so from his place,"—(Mr. Bowring,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that no doubt the practice was formerly such as the hon. Gentleman now proposed it should be. He would, however, point out that every discussion of a needless character was really a prolongation of the Session. That subject could not be entertained with advantage under the present circumstances of pressure on their time, and the sense of exhaustion which was, he thought, creeping more or less over them all. If considered at all, it should be considered as part of that wide question—the procedure of the House. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY—CONTROL DEPARTMENT.

  MOTION FOR A COMMISSION.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOT, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be pleased to cause full inquiry by means of a Royal Commission into the working of the Control Department of the Army, and that the said Commission may be required to frame a Report embodying suggestions, if found necessary, for such alterations, both of principle and detail, as may conduce to efficiency and economy in the Civil and Administrative Departments of Her Majesty's Army."
  said, at that late hour, and at the late period of the Session at which they had arrived, he would be as brief as

  1473
  he possibly could in calling the attention of the House to the important question of the state of the Administrative Departments of the Army. Hon. Members who had made a study of that subject would readily admit its magnitude, its intricate character, and the difficulty of dealing with it—and especially of finding fault, without wounding the susceptibilities of the members of those Departments. They would therefore, he hoped, be indulgent with him, and pardon him if—notwithstanding all his efforts to the contrary—he should be compelled to trespass longer on their time than he could wish. If any justification were necessary for the course he was pursuing, it was, he thought, to be found in our observation of, and in the experience which we had derived—or ought to have derived—from the events of the last great European War, in which the success of the victor and the defeat of the vanquished were due—not so much to bigger battalions or superior generalship, or even greater valour on the one side than on the other—as to the fact that the one nation was found, on the outbreak of hostilities, in possession of an organization which enabled it to mass its armies without delay and without confusion, and with a system of transport and supply which stood the test of gigantic operations in an enemy's country, while the other was found miserably deficient in each and all of those vital particulars. He did not for a moment advocate that we in this country should be always ready to wage an offensive war, as foreign nations had to be—or as unfortunately for themselves they often were—any more than he would urge the adoption in all its details of even the most perfect of those foreign systems which enabled its possessor to be so prepared. All that he contended was that it would be an unnecessary and wasteful expenditure to keep up a standing Army at all, unless we were always able to move and to supply such a proportion of it as might be of some use in a case of emergency. He did not ask that we should be able to accomplish great things from a warlike point of view; but he did not think it was asking too much to expect that we should be able to concentrate in any part of the country, at the shortest notice, such a force as would be sufficient to overwhelm any Army which an enemy would have
  1474
  had time to throw upon our shores, and at the same time to be able to embark such a contingent as might be deemed necessary for the relief of any of our colonial possessions which were threatened; or, if need be, to disembark such contingent, complete in every particular, on the shores of the country by whom our interests were threatened, so that by acting on the seaboard in conjunction with our Fleet, it might indirectly strengthen our defensive power. There were some people, perhaps, sanguine enough to believe that we could do that at present. He was not so sanguine; and, perhaps, the best thing he could do, in corroboration of his views, would be to quote what had been effected in the Autumn Manœuvres of last year, on which occasion it was whispered about that the movements of the troops had been adapted to the capabilities of the Supply and Transport Departments, instead of those Departments adapting themselves to the exigencies of the campaign. It was far from his wish to depreciate the advantages of those Manœuvres, or to detract from whatever credit might be due to those who had initiated them; but he thought that the principal advantage which we had derived from them was, that they had taught us—not what we could do, but what we could not do. They had proved that our Supply Departments, as far as they were tested—and in the matter of the supply of warlike stores it had been no test whatever—were very far from what they should be, and that our Transport Department was absolutely futile. What had we effected? We had shown that we could place some 30,000 men in the field and keep them there for a week or ten days—for he did not consider them to have taken the field until they left their standing camp at Aldershot. During that time they were most inadequately supplied. He had no wish to enter into a recital of the shortcomings of the Supply Departments during those Manœuvres. He did not suppose anyone would contend that they did more than barely keep the soldiers alive. Then, as to the mobility of the Army, what had we effected? We had moved it by brigades backwards and forwards, over a radius of something like 12 miles from its base of operations, that base being our largest military station, situated 40 miles from the metropolis, and in a country inter-

  1475
  sected by canals and railroads. And in order to effect this, we had withdrawn nearly all our standing Transport not only from England, but from Ireland; we had been compelled to have recourse to hired transport from London, which generally broke down when off the high roads; and, what was more serious, we had absolutely crippled a large portion of our field artillery. He used the word "crippled" advisedly, for not only had we broken up the depôt of field and horse artillery—the only means which we possessed of filling up casualties—using the men and horses for Transport purposes, but we had rendered many of the service batteries not employed in the Manœuvres, inefficient by calling on them to perform the normal duties of the Army Service Corps at the several stations from which detachments of that corps were removed to Aldershot. He presumed that the Surveyor General would draw a very different picture of the Manœuvres. He would probably paint everything couleur de rose—at least, such was the colouring or character of a circular Memorandum which he had issued to his Department shortly after the Manœuvres, in which, while admitting that time and experience were very good things in their way, he seemed to infer that, as far as the Control Department was concerned, there was very little room for improvement, and that time and experience could do very little for it—in which opinion he quite agreed, at any rate, as long as Control was based on existing principles. Another argument which might be used in defence of the present system, or at least in opposition to those who criticized it, was "the unfairness of judging of the success of a comparatively new department by its results in a campaign which was itself a novelty." He entirely dissented from that view, and he contended that however valid the argument might have been had the Department only just been formed, it lost all its force when they remembered that the Manœuvres of last year did not occur until the Department had been more than a year and a-half in full operation, and that it was now more than two and a-half years old. Believing as he did the principles upon which it was based to be false, and the manner in which those principles had been put into operation to be vicious and mischievous, and knowing also the difficulty of uprooting or even modifying
  1476
  any institution, whether good or evil, which had had time to take deep root, he thought that action should be taken in this matter at once, before such was the case, and before vested interests had had time to accumulate.
  He would now, with the permission of the House, say a few words as to the more immediate origin of Control, and the action in the way of Committees which had conduced to the existing state of things. In July, 1866, the Secretary of State for War (General Peel), acting on the recommendation of a Committee which had sat the previous year to inquire into the best mode of supplying stores to an army in the field, appointed another Committee to report on the best system of Army Transport. Of that Committee Lord Strathnairn was Chairman, and the following names were subscribed to the Report:—Lieutenant General Sir J. Hope Grant; Major General Sir D. A. Cameron; Commissary General Sir W. Tyrone Power; Colonel Gloucester Gambier, D.A.G., R.A.; Colonel J. Clarke Kennedy, Comm., M.T.; Colonel L. Shadwell, Military Assistant, W.O.; William Brown, Accountant General.
  The intimate relation existing between Transport and Supply induced the Committee to apply for permission to go fully into both these Departments, and, acting upon the sanction accorded, they framed what he would only characterize as a comprehensive and valuable Report. Time would not allow him to go fully into the evidence, or even into the Report itself. He would therefore content himself with merely quoting a few of the leading principles laid down. These were as follows—namely:—(a.) That a Department should be formed to be responsible for—1st, Commissariat, including Store accountants for provisions, forage, fuel, and light; 2nd, Purveyors; 3rd, Military Stores, as regards clothing and stores generally, but not arms, ammunition, or warlike stores, being subsequently defined; 4th, Barrack, as regards fuel, light, and straw, at home as well as abroad and in camp; and also as regards cash and barrack and miscellaneous stores, now administered by barrack masters; 5th, Army Transport. (b.) That all munitions of war should be administered by an Ordnance Department, to be formed in the first instance from Military Store

  1477
  officers and Royal Artillery, but on no account to be under the Controller. (c.) That the Transport should be of three classes, organized as one service. (d.) That some means of expansion should be provided. (e.) That the duties at home, abroad, and in the field should be assimilated. (f.) Moreover, throughout the Report, stress is laid on the subordinate character of the Controller to the General commanding, whom he is intended to assist and relieve from troublesome details. Strange as it might seem, in all these and other important particulars, the recommendations of that Committee had been ignored. The Committee examined 28 witnesses, among whom—although, of course, there were certain points on which opinions differed—there was, on the whole, a remarkable unanimity in favour of the principles upon which the Committee subsequently framed its Report. Perhaps the most important and valuable evidence in that direction was that of the Surveyor General and General Balfour. The Committee reported in 1867. In 1869 another Committee was appointed charged with equal, or, indeed, far more important functions. It was entitled "a Committee to inquire into the Arrangements in force for the Conduct of Business in the Army Departments," and consisted of Lord Northbrook, Mr. Stansfeld, Sir Edward Lugard, and Mr. W. G. Anderson. To this Committee of four, one only of whom could have had any practical knowledge of the requirements of an army, was entrusted the responsible duty of reporting on and virtually remodelling the Civil and Administrative Departments of the British Army. Wide as was the scope of its inquiry, this Committee examined but 11 witnesses, and yet its recommendations, as far as Transport and Supply are concerned, were allowed to override the recommendations of the more important Committee presided over by Lord Strathnairn, which had specially devoted itself to those particular subjects. There were two facts worthy of notice in connection with this Committee. The first was, that its Report did not appear to be framed in accordance with the balance of evidence which it received; the second was, the remarkable change of opinion on the part of the Surveyor General and General Balfour, who was then his coadjutor or subordinate, He (Major
  1478
  Arbuthnot) had no intention whatever of imputing motives to either of those Gentlemen. Indeed, those who like himself knew the Surveyor General must be quite convinced that he was incapable of entertaining anything like an arriere pensée (and the same doubtless applied to General Balfour); but to those who did not know him, his complete change of opinion must, to say the least, have been open to misconstruction, considering that if the views which he entertained in 1867 had been carried into operation, the character of the Department over which he presided might have been entirely altered, and his own position would probably have been greatly reduced in importance, even if the necessity for it had not altogether ceased to exist. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be on the horns of a dilemma. Either the very decided opinions which he expressed in 1867 must have been hasty, crude, and ill-considered; or if, on the other hand, they were the result of mature reflection and deliberation, then his total repudiation of them in 1869 was at least open to misconstruction. Altogether, the proceedings and Report of that (Lord Northbrook's) Committee did not tend to raise his (Major Arbuthnot's) opinion of Committees appointed by Government, and composed of Government officials; but confirmed him rather in the belief that they were usually appointed to carry out a foregone conclusion, and to justify preconceived determinations.
  Having dwelt thus far on the proceedings of the Committees from which the present state of things had resulted, it remained for him to show what that state of things was, and what were the objections to it. Control, as the House was probably aware, consisted of the Amalgamated Civil Departments—namely, the Commissariat, the Military Store, the Barrack and Purveyors' Departments together with a Pay sub-Department and Transport of all kinds. These were all concentrated centrally under the Surveyor General assisted by the Director of Ordnance and Stores, and the Director of Transport and Supply; and locally under the Administrative officer of the Control Department, whom he should always refer to in the remarks he was about to make by the generic term of Controller, although the Administrative ranks included Controllers

  1479
  ranking as Major Generals, of whom there were three, Deputy Controllers, ranking as Colonels, of whom there were eight, and Assistant Controllers ranking as Lieutenant Colonels, of whom there were 14. The executive officers being Commissaries, who ranked as Majors, Deputy Commissaries ranking as Captains, and Assistant Commissaries as Lieutenants. The object of those who amalgamated all these scattered units was to produce efficiency and economy, to reduce the amount of correspondence, and to limit the channels of responsibility. Without instituting any comparison between the existing system and that which it superseded, it would be his object to show that these desirable ends had not been effected.
  Putting the economy question on one side for the moment, he would deal only with that of efficiency; and in order to prove his case, he would have to state some few of the numerous objections which might be urged. Everyone would admit that the efficiency of an Army or department of an Army depended materially on the ability of its head to perform the duties devolving on him. From that point of view, he might comment on the anomalous position of the central head (the Surveyor General), who, in addition to his Parliamentary duties, had to discharge most onerous administrative and executive duties. He preferred, however, to rest his case upon the false position of the local administrative officers; and, as regarded these, although he would admit, for the sake of argument—though he denied it in point of fact—that they were equal to the duties which devolved on them in peace time, he contended that in time of war no man could be found, either mentally or physically, equal to the various and opposite duties which would devolve on them. Putting aside such matters as the Control of Transport and Finance, they would find it almost sufficient strain on their energies to complete and to maintain their depôts and reserves, of food and forage, without troubling themselves with the all important branch of warlike stores, even supposing them to possess the technical knowledge necessary for the latter. But perhaps he should be told that they were not expected to do this—that they were merely to act as channels of communication between the general officers and
  1480
  their own subordinates who would superintend the sub-departments. He denied that that could be so, because the subordinate officer would decline to issue anything, unless it was sanctioned by the signature of the senior officer of the Department, and therefore the senior officer, according to the usage of the English Army, would be responsible; but even if it were the case, what did it amount to except to this—that the senior officer was to be a mere dummy and an extra link in the chain of responsibility. A combatant Staff officer would perform the duty far better, inasmuch as he would not be shackled by the feeling of responsibility, while from his military education he would more readily apprehend the wishes of his general. Besides this, did any human being exist, who, when at the head of a great Department, would not insist on carrying out his own ideas? It would be hard to say which Army would be in the worst plight—one in which such responsible duties were entrusted to a man who interfered without understanding them, or one in which they were administered by an official who, being responsible, was contented to endorse the views and actions of his subordinates, because he did not understand the details of those duties. Those who now filled these positions were not equal to the task. They would be more than human if they were, for they had devoted their professional lives to the study of one, and had suddenly found themselves at the head not only of that one, but of five or six other Departments. Endless instances might be quoted to show how entirely innocent they were of the various duties which devolved on them, but it would only be necessary to mention one or two to prove his case. At an important military station not long since application had been made to the Controller—a late Commissariat officer—for cartridges. He ordered their issue; his subordinate—a late Military Store officer—declined to supply the particular sort ordered; the superior officer was very indignant and reported him not to the General, but to the War Office; but, on inquiry, it proved that the cartridges ordered to be issued were of an obsolete and dangerous character. Had this happened in war-time what a tragedy might have ensued.
  Passing from the tragic to the comic view of the case, he would mention an

  1481
  incident which had come under his notice during the last Autumn Manœuvres. An Artillery officer of high rank, in a playful mood, told the representative of the Control Department attached to his division that, owing to the heavy fighting of the previous few days, his batteries had run short of shell. After much reflection, the Controller offered to telegraph to Woolwich for a supply of shell, not seeing the absurdity of the idea of firing shell during peaceful manœuvres on the Surrey hills. But it might be said that it was necessary to utilize the services of the officers of the old Departments, and that when they died out, or rather had retired on high pensions, their places should be filled by men who had acquired universal knowledge. He believed that they would be then going from bad to worse. They would have Jacks of all trades and masters of none. The next point to which he must refer was a most important one—namely, the relations of the Controller to the General commanding. He was quite aware that, according to the Regulations, the Controller was supposed to be subordinate to the General, and to be instrumental in carrying out his wishes. In point of fact, however, he was far more frequently an impediment rather than an aid, as the members of the Department had come to look upon themselves as the agents of the War Office, and to consider it their special duty to act as checks on the combatant officers; so that, in place of being as of old merely custodians and issuers, under superior authority, of munitions de bouche and munitions de guerre, they had become another, and, he might almost say, an antagonistic power in the Service. Whether that feeling was derived from the parent source, the War Office or not, he could not say; but so it was, and the Department possessed, to the very full, the same faults which were attributed—and justly attributed—by the Surveyor General, in his evidence before Lord Strathnairn's Committee, to the French Intendance. As already stated, the Regulations directed that the Controller is to be subordinate to the General. The official words run as follows, in Paragraph 11:—
  "The Controller will conduct his duties under the direct orders of the officer commanding in the district or station to which he may be attached. He will be the adviser and agent of the officer
  1482
  commanding in all matters connected with the raising or issue of money, the supply of provisions, stores, clothing and transport. He will relieve him, as far as possible, from details connected therewith."
  Nothing could be more satisfactory; but, unfortunately, Paragraph 13 concludes with the following words:—
  "The Controller will be held responsible for any measure which may be adopted on his recommendation."
  What did this mean, except placing the Controller on an equality with the general—the division of power and the division of responsibility? But the next Paragraph (14) was even more objectionable, and absolutely made the Controller in some sense superior to the General, for it laid down that in the event of the General and Controller disagreeing—
  "A report of the circumstances, countersigned by the officer commanding, together with a copy of the correspondence, will be transmitted by the Controller to the Secretary of State for War, who will hold the officer commanding responsible for the measures ordered by him."
  So that the Controller is absolutely invested with the power of reporting his commanding officer. This independence on the part of Controllers was much to be deprecated. Not only was it unfair on general officers as tending to cramp their action, but it was the very way to make small generals, for it at once gave an unsuccessful General grounds for excusing himself. He would be able to say—"The Control broke down;" or "I could not carry out my wishes without bringing myself into collision with the War Office;" no small matter in these days when the Secretary for War possessed such an amount of power and patronage, if he did not actually assume the command of the Army. Before leaving this branch of the subject, he wished to quote one or two instances tending to show that the feeling which he had stated to exist really did animate the members of the Department. Thus not long since a camp was formed in the vicinity of a swamp. Owing to that circumstance, the senior medical officer recommended that each man should be supplied with an extra blanket. The commanding officer, a colonel of Engineers, approved the suggestion, and forwarded it to the Control officer for compliance. That official, in place of doing so, forwarded it with his reason for non-compliance to his superior in the district,

  1483
  who, in his turn, forwarded it with more observations to the War Office. In the meanwhile, the men went without their blankets. Again, a site had to be selected for a magazine. A Committee of Artillery and Engineer officers was sent down for that purpose. They performed the duty, and reported accordingly. The Control officer in the district, however, selected a different site, and reported accordingly to his superior, who forwarded the same to the War Office, with remarks of his own, endorsing the views of his subordinate.
  It had, however, been frequently alleged as a reason for maintaining the existing system that the Navy had to be considered as well as the Army. Now, it did not appear that the relation of Controllers to Admirals was much more satisfactory than was the case with Generals, as the following would demonstrate:—The Admiral commanding at our principal naval station directed the Controller to issue a few rifles to blue-jackets, who were about to compete at Wimbledon. That official wrote a curt memorandum, agreeing "To do so on that occasion, as the case appeared to be one of urgency;" but stating that he would never do so in future, "unless the requisition came through the Admiralty," or words to that effect. This did not accord with the Admiral's ideas of discipline, so he wrote to the Admiralty requesting that he might be informed with whom the discretion rested as to naval requirements—with the Controller or the Admiral Commanding. The Admiralty consequently requested the War Office to issue instructions preventing a recurrence of such conduct.
  The next ground of objection to be taken to the present system was one which especially affected the executive officers of the Department. Could a system be good under which a man might be in charge of bread and beef one day, of barrels and brooms the next, of warlike stores after that, and then of horses and men; or, perhaps, as was frequently the case, of two of these at the same time? He supposed they would hear the old story that "Control consisted of so many sub-departments, officered by men specially trained for each purpose." How was that to be reconciled with one of the leading principles of Control—namely, that the officers, though borne on separate lists for pro-
  1484
  motion, were to be interchangeable? But it might be said that though interchangeable in theory, such change was not carried into practice. To refute that, he would only refer the House to The Army List, which showed that in almost every station there were men performing duties for which they had received no special training. It mattered little whether this was due to interchangeability, or to their having been pitchforked into their places on the formation of the Department. Taking Chatham as an example, it would be seen that there was a late Purveyor's clerk performing the duties connected with warlike stores in the Gun Wharf. There was also a military store officer in the Pay sub-department. There he was, handed over to cash accounts, and flinging his experience of over 20 years to the winds. Again, at the same station—and this applied to almost every garrison—there was a detachment of Army Service Corps, all men taken from the ranks of the Army, officered partly by Military Train officers, but commanded by a Commissariat officer, who, besides looking after the bread and beef, had to drill men, and administer discipline and military law without any experience or instruction whatever. What became of the outcry which had been raised of late as to the necessity for higher military qualifications on the part of the combatant officers, if the officers of the Civil Departments were to be permitted to discharge all the functions of combatants, without any test, examination, or qualification whatever from the day they joined the service until they left it on a far higher pension than combatant officers of corresponding rank could hope to attain, all their tests and examinations notwithstanding.
  The last exception which he would take was the absence of any definite rules guiding the relations between Control officers and combatant officers other than general officers. Whatever were the faults of the old system, everyone knew to whom, and through whom, application should be made for what might be required. Now it was not so; but it did not end here. There were absolutely no rules clearly defining the relations which subsisted between members of the Department itself. For instance, in a district in which there was a gun wharf, he could never find any one

  1485
  who could tell him where the duties of the district Controller ended, and those of the gun-wharf Controller began. The official regulations were as follows:—
  "District Controllers will conduct their duties immediately under the authority of the generals commanding districts, and will be responsible to them in all matters connected with Supply, Transport, and all duties lately in charge of the Commissariat, Store, Purveyors', and Barrack Departments, under existing regulations and instructions for the several Departments, together with such special regulations as may have been approved for the conduct of Control duties.
  "The Store Departments are excluded from the Great Britain charge, and will not be in any way responsible to general officers commanding districts for the direct supply of the troops, except that all demands for stores, ammunition, and camp equipage in different districts, will be addressed direct to them, to be complied with."
  Anything more vague and apparently contradictory could not be conceived; for it appeared that in the same district there were two officers of equal rank whose relations to the general officer were entirely different, and whose relations to each other were both confusing and confused. Perhaps, the best way to show the complicated working of the system would be to state what would be the course of proceeding in the event of a General wishing to send out a flying column. He would, in the first place, request his district Controller to make all arrangements for Transport and Supply of all kinds. The district Controller would, in his turn, order his subordinate—usually an Assistant Commissary, who ranks as a Lieutenant—to provide provision and transport. He would also have to indent upon the gun-wharf Controller for warlike stores, who, in his turn, would order their issue by his subordinate, also an Assistant Commissary. All these gentlemen have different offices. Was there any simplicity in the arrangements; and did they not belie the theory that one administrative head was responsible for everything connected with Transport and Supply? The four points he had endeavoured to establish were—1st. The inability, both mental and physical, of any man to discharge the duties of a Controller in time of war; 2nd. The unsatisfactory relation of the Controller to the general commanding; 3rd. The unsatisfactory effects of interchangeability—inasmuch as it placed men in positions for which they were unfitted; 4th. The confused and com-
  1486
  plicated working of the system, owing to the absence of any definite rules.
  It might fairly be asked—"To what were these grave evils due in a system which could not have been established without anxious consideration?" In his opinion they were due to that bane of armies—over centralization, and to the amalgamation of too many Departments for the sake of an imaginary simplicity, to effect which antagonistic duties had been thrown together, and vital principles disregarded. It might fairly be asked—"What was the remedy for these evils?" Well, that raised important points both of principle and detail; indeed, it was with the view of solving the question that he was about to move for a Commission. He might, however, be permitted—indeed, he felt bound to state two changes which he held to be indispensable to efficiency—namely, the removal of warlike stores from the control of the officers who have charge of Transport and Supply, and the re-organization of the Transport Department. When these fundamental changes had been made, others springing from, or, to use an ill-omened expression, "growing out of them," would be sure to come to the surface. The removal of warlike stores would necessitate the formation of an Ordnance Department, which he agreed with Lord Strathnairn's Committee in thinking should be composed of officers of the late Military Store Department, supplemented by Artillery officers. It was true that some Military Store officers, including Captain Gordon—whose opinion, he admitted, on matters connected with stores was of greater value than that of any man in the country, had objected to the separation of stores. He doubted whether they held the same views now; but, whether they did or not, the arguments which they used before the Committees of 1867 and 1869 were directed against the separation of Artillery from other military stores. He (Major Arbuthnot) advocated the removal of all warlike stores from the charge of the Controller. Surely, if there were two kinds of stores—the one requiring special and scientific knowledge and manipulation, while the other required only ordinary care and attention—it would be more consistent with common sense to place the latter under the supervision of men who understood the former, than to act on the opposite

  1487
  principle, as was now the case. Then, again, although most anxious not to appear to argue this case from an Artillery point of view, the House should recollect that these stores were, with the exception of those few supplied by contract, manufactured under the supervision of Artillery officers. They were used to a large extent by Artillery officers, and in times of war would be used to a far greater extent, and would probably have to be moved by the Artillery, while, even in peace time, they were sent to Artillery officers, when damaged, for repair. Under these circumstances it did seem only natural that either Artillery officers or others, who possessed the same qualifications, should have the custody of such stores. Again, although as an Artillery officer he felt he was treading on delicate ground, he might point out the advantages of employing Artillery officers in this manner, inasmuch as it would, to a great extent, solve the difficult question of how to provide a permeation of steps in the junior ranks, while, on the other hand, to entrust such duties to Control officers would act detrimentally on all officers of garrison artillery, and more especially on commanding officers—the importance and responsibility of whose position would thus be seriously impaired. As regarded the Transport Department, not only the evidence and the Report of Lord Strathnairn's Committee, but the highest military authorities of past and present times, were unanimous in advocating that it should be of a military character. That, no doubt, only applied to standing and not to local or auxiliary transport. A deputy adjutant general of Transport on the Staff of the Commander-in-Chief would at once stamp the Transport Department with a military character. Again, far greater efficiency would be obtained by a complete system of regimental transport. It was rumoured that this was to be carried out, to a certain extent, in the forthcoming Manœuvres; but the advantage of it would be immensely marred, if the men required for regimental transport purposes were to be taken from the ranks of the fighting men. These, and other suggestions which might be made, did not in any sense militate against the principle of a responsible officer for Supply and Transport, because it only had reference to
  1488
  permanent standing, and not to local transport, which would be under the Supply officer. The removal of the discipline of the standing transport would be of immense advantage, as it would give the Supply officers time—which they had not now got—to investigate the resources of their districts as to food, forage, and transport, and would also enable them to make arrangements for the utilization of the same.
  With regard to the question of economy time would allow him to deal but briefly. That was to be regretted, as the more he could say on this point the stronger would be his case for asking an inquiry. He would, however, be content with pointing out a few false principles which the present system had created—for instance, the expenditure on stores and the control of such expenditure was in the same hands, or, at any rate, under the same Department. Again, the expenditure was subject to no audit outside the Department. From a financial point of view, the Warrant regulating the pay and retiring allowances of Control officers required careful reconsideration. He was quite aware that pecuniary advantages had to be offered to induce talented men, whether from military or civil life, to take service in these Departments; and he would be the last man in the world to advocate the violation of what might be termed "vested interests,"—to rob anyone of those advantages on the faith of which he had taken service in that Department. At the same time, as far as the future was concerned, ordinary prudence and common justice to the combatant branches and the taxpayers of the country demanded a careful reconsideration of the Warrant. The Warrant of 1st January, 1870, laid down the following rates of pay:—

  On Appointment.

  After 5 years in the rank.

  £

  s.

  d.

  …

  £

  s.

  d.

  Controller

  3

  0

  0

  …

  3

  0

  0

  Deputy Controller

  2

  0

  0

  …

  2

  4

  0

  Assistant Controller

  1

  4

  0

  1

  9

  0

  RETIRED PAY.

  After 30 years.

  After 20, but under 30 years' service.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Controller

  2

  0

  0

  …

  2

  0

  0

  Deputy Controller

  1

  13

  0

  …

  1

  5

  0

  Assistant Controller

  1

  0

  0

  …

  0

  15

  0

  Paragraph 18 stated—

  1489
  "An officer to be eligible for promotion shall have served on full-pay for the following periods, dating from his first entrance into our service:—To the rank of Controller, 13 years, of which at least 3 shall have been as Deputy Controller.
  "Deputy Controller, 10 years, of which at least 3 (including probationary service) shall have been as Assistant Controller."
  Thus an officer of 13 years' service, 7 of which might have been in the War Office, was eligible for a position conferring on him the relative rank of Major General. Paragraph 29 laid down that—
  "Officers who shall have completed 30 years' full-pay service (including previous departmental, War Office, or combatant service) shall, on giving 6 months' notice, have an unqualified right to retire on retired pay,"
  namely, £730 per annum. The same clause further empowered the Secretary of State for War to place any officer of the Department, disqualified by bodily infirmity contracted in the service, on the retired list at the same rate of pension—namely, £730, if a Controller; £602, if a Deputy Controller; £365, if an Assistant Controller, after 20 years' meritorious service, including Departmental, War Office, or combatant service. How was that to be reconciled with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, that £600 per annum was too high a pension for colonels of Artillery and Engineers who had completed 30 years' service? Of the many other points to which he would have wished to refer, had time allowed, he would mention but one—namely, the Pay Departments. It was difficult to understand why there should be two Pay Departments at all, and still more difficult to understand why the officers of the one Pay Department should be so much more favourably circumstanced than those of the other, those connected with Control receiving far higher pay and better retiring allowances, although not compelled to deposit money or provide security on obtaining the appointment as regimental paymasters had to do, both classes being civilians, and being called upon to discharge work of identically the same character.
  In conclusion, he could only regret that the hour of the night, the magnitude of the question, and, above all, his own shortcomings had enabled him to do such scant justice to it. Notwithstanding all these disadvantages, he trusted he had shown sufficient
  1490
  grounds to justify an inquiry. If the general officers, the Staff officers, or even the Control officers themselves could be canvassed, there would be scarcely a dissentient voice as to the necessity for inquiry and change. Did the Secretary of State for War, or even the Surveyor General believe in the present system? but whether they did or not, there was no reason why they should refuse inquiry. If they proved right and all the rest of the military world wrong—for the whole military world would be arrayed against them—so much the more would it be to their credit; but if they were in the wrong and refused to accede to his Motion, great and heavy would be the responsibility which they would incur. As a last resort he would point out to the Secretary of State for War that he might agree to this Motion without in any way stultifying himself. He had promised great and important, and doubtless, in some instances, useful changes in the organization of the combatant forces. These changes would, of themselves, necessitate large organic changes in the Administrative Departments. Unless these changes were carried out simultaneously, his plans, however good they might be in theory, would fail to give what the House and the country had demanded, and with nothing short of which would they be satisfied—namely, an Army—a defensive Army—not only numerically formidable, but an Army which could be fed, which could be moved, and which, in the event of its being called upon to do so, would prove itself able to meet and to sustain the shock and the strain of a prolonged campaign. In conclusion he begged to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be pleased to cause full inquiry by means of a Royal Commission into the working of the Control Department of the Army, and that the said Commission may be required to frame a Report embodying suggestions, if found necessary, for such alterations, both of principle and detail, as may conduce to efficiency and economy in the Civil and Administrative Departments of Her Majesty's Army,"—(Major Arbuthnot,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made a great many feints that Session on the subject, but at last he had that night proposed a Motion. Early in the Session he gave Notice of a Motion for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the Control Department, but up to the present time that Motion had not come on, and now he moved for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. As regarded the evidence which he (Sir Henry Storks) gave on that subject before Lord Strathnairn's Committee, he admitted that he had since found his former views impracticable. Stores must, he now felt, all be consigned to one individual, and if that were not done mischief would ensue. They had effected reductions in the personnel of the Department amounting to £45,000 a-year, while the number of communications addressed to the War Office on administrative subjects had diminished by no less than 60,000 per annum. The great object, however, they had had in view was to make the general officer responsible for all that had happened under his command, and, with that view, he unequivocally declared that the Controller was an officer placed at the disposal of the General, that his duty was to carry out the General's orders, and that he could make no communication to the War Office without its first passing under the eye of his superior officer and bearing his signature. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that so far from their object being one of centralization, they had done all in their power towards decentralization, and that if there was one thing more than another upon which his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War had insisted it was decentralization. The system of storekeeping had received every consideration, and although he was aware that in India Artillery officers were frequently appointed as storekeepers, the plan was an expensive one, and one which would not in this country tend, in his opinion, to the advantage of the public service. The Control officers did not under the present system receive that large increase of pay which the hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to imagine; indeed, in many cases they had lost money by the change. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman really had the interest of the Control Department at heart, he was not pursuing the course
  1492
  best calculated to promote that interest. No doubt the Department was not perfect; and although he had received many reports in favour of it, there were many matters which would have to be altered, and much that would require correction; but they were matters of detail, and with time and fair play the Department would, he was convinced, fulfil all the requirements of the service.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Hibbert.)

[BILL 215.] COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 41 (Public Works Loan Commissioners may lend to sanitary authority on security of rates).
Amendment proposed in page 20, line 40, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert the word "fifty."—(Mr. Russell Gurney.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the clause."
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had carefully considered the matter, and he was willing to accept the Amendment in a modified form by the insertion of the words "30 or 50 years;" but in that case, and with the view of giving every consideration to the permanence of value as well as the permanence and duration of the works proposed to be constructed by means of these loans, he should move the addition of the following proviso to the clause:—
"Provided that, in determining the time when a loan under this section shall be repayable, the Local Government Board shall have regard to the probable duration and continuing utility of the works in respect of which the same shall be lent."
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYexpressed himself quite satisfied with the Amendment as modified by the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 40, after the word "thirty," to insert the words "or fifty."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the proposal to lend public money for these works was a very different thing from giving the local Boards power to borrow money from private individuals. It was a matter of doubt whether the whole of the drainage system and sanitary arrangements of the country would not be entirely changed in the next 50 years, as they had been changed during the last 40 years, and he thought it was questionable whether public money should be lent for so long a time as 50 years on the faith of works of this description.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHdoubted whether such loans would be repaid at all.
COLONEL BARTTELOTwished to know if the 50 years' loans were only to be granted for permanent buildings, and the 30 years' loans for drainage works?
MR. COLLINSsupposed that the Unions' rates were to be mortgaged for the loans, and as the principle of 50 years' loans had been recognized in the case of loans for educational purposes, he did not see why it should not also be recognized in the case of loans for sanitary purposes, though he thought that 50 years too long a period for which to lend money in either case.
MR. MONKpreferred the original term of 30 years, and was prepared to vote against the Amendment.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he was quite willing to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, it was at present legal for local Boards to borrow for 50 years in the market.
MR. W. H. SMITHconsidered that it was contrary to public policy to extend the period of loans for sanitary purposes, when it was not improbable that, as science advanced, the works now thought important might be found to be unnecessary.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that if the local Boards went into the open market there was no doubt that they could borrow money within the terms of the statute. Therefore, the question was merely whether the Public Loan Commissioners should have the same power of lending as other bodies.
MR. WHITWELLhoped the Amendment would not be opposed. He would
1494
remind the Committee that, of all the money lent by the Loan Commissioners in Ireland, not one penny had been lost.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYobserved that the question was between 3½ and 4 per cent, seeing that the Local Government Board could get money for 50 years at the latter rate. The Amendment would benefit those who might live 30 years hence, because under its operation they would only have to pay 3½ instead of 5 per cent.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYexplained that the clause did not affect the sum for which money might be borrowed, but simply extended the period for lending at 3½ per cent to 50 years.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSwished to know why the Government had changed their opinion on this point since the introduction of the Bill.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the clause had never restricted the power of borrowing to 30 years. The proposed alteration would only apply the rate of 3½ per cent alike to loans for 30 or 50 years.
MR. CAWLEYsaid, he could not help thinking that the clause would affect the extent of borrowing powers so far as the Public Loan Commissioners were concerned, and feared it would induce lavish expenditure, leading to excessive taxation.
MR. CANDLISHpointed out that if the Amendment was rejected the present borrowing powers would not be restricted.
MR. COLLINStrusted the Committee would not assent to the period of 50 years. The local authorities would, of course, prefer to borrow at 3½ per cent for 30 years, rather than at 5 per cent for 50 years, and therefore the Amendment would practically increase borrowing powers, and so encourage the present generation of ratepayers to throw upon others the burdens they ought to bear themselves.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the Public Loan Commissioners were to lend on the same conditions as other bodies.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENthought that a clear understanding should be come to by the Committee as to what the rate should be.
DR. BREWERsaid, that they ought not to stint the necessary powers in a case like this.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSrepeated that he thought the period too long, and he wished to ask the opinion of the Committee.
MR. HENLEYconsidered that it was a misfortune to give a longer period than 30 years.
Question put, "That the words 'or fifty' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 56: Majority 23.
SIR MASSEY LOPES SIR MASSEY LOPES moved an Amendment, the effect of which was, in the case of good and permanent works, to allow the Loan Commissioners to advance money at 3½ per cent.
Amendment proposed, in line 40, to leave out the words "not less than."—(Sir Massey Lopes.)
MR. STANSFELDopposed the Amendment on the ground that Government itself might be compelled in times of pressure to borrow money at 4 or 4½ per cent, with the view of lending it, if the Amendment were adopted, at 3½ per cent.
MR. GOLDSMIDhoped the right hon. Gentleman would give way to the proposition of the hon. Baronet.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the House knew very well that all loans which were contemplated would be given under the sanction of the Exchequer Loan Board, and they might rely upon that Board seeing to the sufficiency of the security. It would be much better to adopt the usual rule, and give the minimum rate; but he did not think it right that they should be tied down to the minimum rate. The Government sometimes had to pay more than that rate of interest, and, therefore, the Commissioners could not undertake to lend at that rate uniformly.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 61: Majority 4.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that in order to meet the views of the hon. Baronet (Sir Massey Lopes) he was willing to introduce words which would allow the Public Loan Commissioners to lend money at any such rate below the minimum at present fixed by the clause as
1496
would not involve loss to the public Treasury. He would, therefore, move to insert after "3½ percent" the following words:—
"Or such other rate as may in the judgment of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury be necessary in order to enable the loan to be made without loss to the Exchequer."
Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
MR. DILLWYN MR. DILLWYN moved an Amendment, by adding words at the end of the clause, authorizing the Public Works Loan Commissioners to reduce the interest on any loan already made to any sanitary authority under the Sanitary Acts, to not less than 3½ per cent.
Amendment proposed,
In page 21, at the end of the Clause to add the words "Provided also, That in the case of any loan already made to any sanitary authority in pursuance of any powers conferred by the Sanitary Acts, the Public Works Loan Commissioners may reduce the interest payable thereon to the rate of not less than three and a-half per centum per annum."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
MR. STANSFELDopposed the Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 49: Majority 7.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 (Confirmation of provisional orders by Parliament).
MR. CAWLEY MR. CAWLEY moved, as an Amendment, in line 4, after "Act," insert—
"Unless public notice shall have been previously given by Advertisement in two successive weeks in some newspaper published or circulating in the district to which such provisional order relates, and after hearing any objections which may be made thereto by any persons affected thereby, and."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 (Costs of provisional orders).
MR. ASSHETON CROSS MR. ASSHETON CROSS moved an Amendment, giving power to rural districts to pay out of their rates the expenses of opposing any amalgamation with an urban district, in the event of an urban district wanting to extend its area under the power granted by the clause.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. F. S. POWELL, the following new clauses were agreed to, and added to the Bill:—After Clause 10—"The fourth section of 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings' Act, 1868,' is hereby repealed." After Clause 12—"The fourth section of 'The Sanitary Act, 1866,' is hereby repealed."
House resumed
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]

BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 109.]
(Mr. Charley, Mr. Thomas Hughes, Mr. Eykyn, Mr. Whitwell.)

CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [15th July], "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after the word "money," to insert the words "not exceeding seven shillings."—(Mr. Charley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Debate arising;
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Monk.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made.
MR. CHARLEYsaid, he would withdraw that part of the Bill altering the law relating to seduction, with the view of proceeding with the subject next Session, and he would accordingly move its omission.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 20, to leave out the words "part of this."—(Mr. Charley.)
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 32: Majority 10.
Other Amendments made.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

REVISING BARRISTERS BILL.
On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to amend the Law relating to the appointment of Revising Barristers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 262.]

FACTORIES (STEAM WHISTLES) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. FRANCIS SHARP POWELL, Bill to regulate the use of Steam Whistles in certain Manufactories, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FRANCIS SHARP POWELL, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Mr. CLARE READ, Major WATERHOUSE, Colonel GRAY, and Mr. CHARLEY.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 263.]
House adjourned at Three o'clock till Monday next.