Commons Sitting of 4 June 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee Resolutions [June 3] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* [185]; Betting* [186].
Second Reading—Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation [137], debate adjourned; Local Legislation (Ireland) (No. 2)* [27], debate adjourned; Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland)* [70], debate adjourned.
Referred to Select Committee—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* [172].
Select Committee—Juries* [114], nominated.
Committee—Education (Scotland) [31]—R. P.
Committee—Report—Court of Chancery (Funds) (re-comm.)* [140]; Sites for Places of Worship and Schools* [2].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—MILITIA SURGEONS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL CORBETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is now prepared to state how Militia Surgeons are to be remunerated for the losses they will sustain by the new regulations, which transfers those portions of their duties to Army Surgeons, for the performance of which the greater part of their emolument has hitherto been derived?
  MR. CAMPBELL (for Mr. CARDWELL)said, his right hon. Friend had nothing to add to what he had previously stated on that subject. If any claims were preferred on the part of Militia surgeons, his right hon. Friend would at all times be ready to give them due consideration, but he had not prepared a general scheme for compensation to those officers.

FRANCE—QUARANTINE IN FRENCH PORTS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why all sailing vessels, yachts included, are subjected to quarantine on entering any French Ports unless provided with a clean Bill of health, while steamers are permitted to land their passengers without any restriction?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the French Government enforced again last year a regulation of some years' standing requiring all vessels entering a French port to be provided with a clean bill of health. But in consequence of representations respecting the inconvenience thereby occasioned to the regular mail and passenger steamers, it was relaxed in their favour, but not in the case of other sailing craft.

INDIA—HURRICANE AT MADRAS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will state to the House the loss of life and ships, and the damage to public and private property, caused by the late hurricane at Madras, specifying the names of the ships and the number of native crafts; and, whether the Government of Madras is in possession of any steam tugs or other appliance by which assistance may be afforded to shipping on such occasions?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply, Sir, to the hon. Baronet, I have to say that all the information we have as yet received on the subject of the hurricane at Madras is contained in a telegram from the Governor of the 6th of May, which I will read—
  "Disastrous cyclone here on 2nd of May. Following ships driven ashore and wrecked:—Sir Robert Seppings, Burlington, Ardberg, Armenian, John Scott, Hotspur, Misser, Kingdom of Belgium, and Invereshie. Captain Hobson and the chief officer of Ardberg and six of crew lost. Second and third officers, Morris and Boodle, of Hotspur, and Thompson (here follow two words which are unintelligible) of crew lost. Native crafts in port all sunk or driven on shore. Considerable loss of life feared. Loss of property serious. Madras pier breached. Extraordinary fall of rain reported from North Arcot and Tanjore from 30th of April to 2nd of May. Vellore town inundated from breached tanks. Immense damage to town and great loss of life among native population. Relief measures in progress; ship Isabel Croom dismasted near point Calimere; also ship Orissa,50 miles east of Madras."
  With regard to the second part of the hon. Baronet's Question, I am not aware that the Government of Madras has any steam tugs or other appliance by which assistance may be afforded to shipping on such occasions; but, at the same time, I cannot positively say that it has nothing of the kind.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 31.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. William Edward Forster.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 31.]

  I.—GENERAL MANAGEMENT.
  Clause 1 (Interpretation of Act).
  Section, Definition of "Parish School."
  MR. GORDONsaid, he desired to draw a distinction between parish schools and schools to be placed under the management and control of the local education boards. He would therefore move to insert words defining Parliamentary schools, as "schools established under the provisions of the Act, 1 & 2 Vict., c. 87."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEobjected to the proposed Amendment, but would himself move an Amendment which he thought would meet the views of the hon. And learned Gentleman, and also of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren.) In the next section, "Burgh Schools" were defined as any school to

  1195
  which that term is now legally applicable—and any public school situate in a burgh, "and now under the management or partial management of the town council thereof." He proposed to strike out these words.
  After short discussion, Amendment agreed to; words struck out.
  Then, on the Motion of Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, the word "Schoolmistress" was added to the definition of "Teacher."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Expenses of Scotch Education Department).
  MR. ELLICEmoved that the Clause be postponed.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that if the Committee adopted the view of the hon. Member as being the most convenient, he should not object to it; but he failed to see the necessity of it. The Committee on the previous night decided that a Scotch Department should be created for the performance of certain duties. What those duties would be must, of course, depend upon the form in which the Bill passed; but if officers were to be appointed, they must be paid, and all the clause asked was that provision for such payment should be made.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that this clause was absolutely necessary, inasmuch as the Committee had already affirmed that there must be a Scotch Education Department to distribute the Education Grant, which was now distributed by the Committee of Council without distinction between Scotland and England.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, be thought the point aimed at had been missed by the advocates of the Bill. What he wanted to know was whether the Scotch Board was to be a sham—which he was rather afraid was what was intended—or whether it was to be a real working Board. If the latter, it would, of course, be necessary to provide for the salaries of the officers; but he thought they should not make that provision until it was seen what would be required.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, there was no intention on the part of the Privy Council to interfere with the Scotch Board; and if there was to be a Scotch Board it ought to be paid.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he did not understand the decision of the previous night as being in favour of a Scotch
  1196
  Education Department of the Privy Council. What he wanted to see was a Scotch Board, managing in Scotland the education of the Scotch people, and not a double set of paid officials performing the same work.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would oppose the appointment of a paid temporary Commission, because he thought such a Commission would be useless, and would be not unlikely to become a permanent burden upon the Exchequer. But he did not understand his hon. And learned Friend to say that the appointment of a paid Commission was intended. As there must be officers to manage education matters in Scotland, he saw no reason for postponing a clause which merely provided for the payment of their salaries.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that before the clause was agreed to the Government ought to state what was to be the exact nature of this Board. If the clause defining the Education Board, its duties and requirements, was not yet prepared and ready to lay on the Table of the House, let the present clause be postponed until it was.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had asked what was to be the nature of the Scotch Board, because the Lord Advocate stated distinctly last night that he had substantially adopted his (Mr. M'Lagan's) Amendment. The right hon. And learned Gentleman at the same time said that the members of the Board were to be paid. It was expedient that this clause should be postponed until the Government laid before the Committee the clause which they intended to propose instead of his Amendment. He hoped that clause would not disappoint Scotch Members by proposing the appointment of a sham Board.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEalso agreed as to the advisability of postponing the clause, although he thought the real question was not so much the payment of the officers as the definition of their duties.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in consenting to the postponement of Clauses 2 and 3, said, he hoped hon. Members had no fear, after the explanation which had been afforded, of anything like a sham Board being constituted under the provisions of this Bill. The Government would consent to the temporary appoint-

  1197
  ment of a body which should exist as long as, and no longer than, necessary to give the measure a fair start, but should have no power to interfere with the mode in which the Imperial Government distributed the Imperial funds.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved, that if the Committee went on postponing clauses in this way the result would be to leave a very small residium of work. The Bill had been draughted with the intention of placing the whole of these powers in the hands of the Committee of Council in London, and the Government having changed their ground at the last moment, much confusion had naturally occurred. It was impossible to proceed with it until the Government had decided upon the constitution and powers of the new Board in Scotland, and until those points were settled the Committee would be working in the dark, and would be sure to make a most unsatisfactory affair of the Bill.
  SIR JOHN HAYtrusted that before the postponed clauses were again brought up the Government would find some more appropriate designation for the Scotch Board than "Officers to be appointed in Scotland."
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEattributed the whole of the inconvenience the Committee had to endure in this matter to the fact that the right hon. And learned Lord Advocate had changed his plan. What the decision of the Government was to be they were, it seemed, not to know before Thursday. In order to enable the Government to amend their Bill as a whole he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress, and that the measure be proceeded with next Thursday.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion, in order that those parts of the Bill which were unaffected by the change in the views of the Government might be proceeded with.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that being just as anxious as his hon. Friend to press the Bill forward, he would not persevere with his Motion to report Progress; but it appeared to him that the Government ought, at the earliest possible opportunity, to state to the Committee what they proposed to do in reference to this clause. He believed the Board in Ireland administered public funds independently, and he thought Scotchmen were quite as competent as
  1198
  Irishmen to do this. The whole amount would be only about £250,000 a-year—not more than the income of many a private gentleman in this country. An attempt was being made to get political capital by degrading his countrymen, by supposing that they could not administer a sum like this in an honest way. [Murmurs.] If Scotch Members said a Board in Edinburgh could not administer a sum like that, they did not give their countrymen a very good character.
  Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 3 postponed.

  II. LOCAL MANAGEMENT.
  Clause 4 (Election of school boards).
  MR. GORDONsaid, the Amendment he was about to move was one of an important character. His proposal was, that in page 3, line 10, the words "parish and" should be omitted, the result of which omission would be that the establishing of the school boards would be confined to burghs. He admitted the propriety of establishing local boards in the burghs, because, while in the parishes there was provision made by statute for the existence of a school or schools—and in some parishes there were three—there was no such statutory provision made for schools in the burghs. Now, the purpose of his Amendment was to exclude the parish schools from the operation of the Bill. At present, there was at least one school in every parish—while in some parishes there were one or two additional schools provided by the heritors, and the management was vested in those who had property substantially to the value of £100 Scots a-year, and the parish minister. There were also schools voluntarily established and supported by the proprietors, who took a deep interest in the educational requirements of the people. These schools were also supported by the different churches. The Church of Scotland had about 1,200 such schools, the Free Church about 600, and the United Presbyterian Church about 45. These were further supplemented by adventure schools, which would scarcely be affected by the operation of the measure now under consideration. In the course of the discussion last night the principle of the Education Act of 1870

  1199
  was stated to be that existing schools should not be destroyed, but that they should be supplemented by new schools to be established by school boards wherever there was a deficiency of educational means. This was stated in the most distinct manner by the Vice President of the Council. There could, in fact, be no doubt about that principle, and it was said that it was the only safe and proper principle upon which to proceed. His Amendment was calculated to bring this Bill within the lines of the English Act, and to preserve the parish schools, with certain alterations to which he would afterwards refer. These parish schools had done good service towards education in Scotland; but this Bill would abolish them, and destroy their character in every respect. The parish schools were not only sufficient for the educational wants of many of the parishes in Scotland; but they were also distinguished for their efficiency. Of all others, they were the institutions of which Scotchmen might well be proud, and they had afforded the best education for the humbler classes of people. They had been held up as an example to England and other countries, and distinguished foreigners had stated that such admirable institutions did not exist in any other country in the world. Having such valuable schools, therefore, why should they be destroyed, as he maintained they would be, by this Bill? The proposal was not in accordance with the principle of the English Education Act; but even if it were, he would maintain that they had not had sufficient experience of the working of that Act to justify them in altering it. He appealed to Scotch Members to say whether there was not a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the parish schools? Why should they not be maintained as they were? Therefore—at least, in the first instance—let them have the two systems working concurrently, so that they might see which worked best, and they would then be able to say whether they would be prepared to bring these schools under the cognizance and management of the local Boards, or whether they would leave them under the management of those who had hitherto proved so efficient in conducting education in Scotland? This was a question involving finance as well as matters of policy. With reference to the management of schools, it was
  1200
  proposed to give to the proprietors—who were at present liable under assessment established in 1696, and which had continued increasing with the requirements of the times down to the present day—a sum of nearly £50,000, which was at present available for educational purposes. That was a kind of bribe offered to the managers of these schools in order to obtain their assent to the sacrifice of the parochial schools; but he ventured to say that the heritors who were liable to this assessment were most willing to continue the present system, and they did not want the gift of this money. They desired that the management should be continued, subject to some enlargement, to which he should hereafter refer. The effect of the Lord Advocate's proposal would be to impose a very heavy burden upon the ratepayers, varying from 1½ d. to 8d. in the pound. In return for these burdens to be borne by them, the ratepayers would acquire the privilege of sharing to a very infinitesimal degree in the nomination of the schoolmaster when the office became vacant. He (Mr. Gordon) had recently received a letter from one of the constituents of the hon. Member for Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther) to the effect that whereas he was able to secure education for his three children under the existing system for £4 a-year, including the cost of books, and for this had them instructed in the three Rs', in geography, Latin, and mathematics, he would, under this Bill, have to send them to a burgh school at a cost of £20 or £30, and pay rates in addition. [Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER asked the name of the correspondent.] He had not the letter with him, but believed he could put his hand on it, and would ask for permission to communicate the name of the writer to the hon. Baronet. [The LORD ADVOCATE asked whether he was a tenant farmer?] He (Mr. Gordon) said he was. The recommendations of the Education Commissioners in Scotland seemed to have been utterly set aside by the Government. The Commissioners resolved that no alteration should be made in the existing management of parochial schools, and that they should, as far as possible, be carried on as they stood, subject, of course, to inspection and examination. Now, what were the provisions made by the Bills introduced into that House by the

  1201
  Liberal Government? The Bill of 1869 approved by the House of Commons fresh from the hustings, had acted on this recommendation, except in one particular—namely, that the electors of the controlling body should not be confined to heriots paying £100 Scots, but should include all who paid stipend There was a general cry in Scotland of "Save us from the local Boards." It was universally felt that it was dangerous to trust the ratepayers with the management of the schools, and that to do so would imperil the interests of higher education. It was well known that one-half of the students of the University of Scotland were educated in the parish schools, and it was feared this fortunate state of things would not be maintained if the local Boards assumed the control. Under these circumstances, he proposed that the present board of heritors should be continued, but that there should be an addition made to their number. It would be said the Bill did not destroy the parish schools, because there would be a school in every parish. This was so, but they would not be the same schools. The controlling body would be elected by £4 householders; the funds at present at command would no longer exist; the teachers would no longer have a life interest in their apappointments, and the advantages resulting from the fact that the teacher held a freehold in his office would not continue; the teachers would not act subject to any regulations such as those made by the heritors; the highest branches of education would not be taught; and he feared religious disputes would be frequent in school boards. These were the objections to the Bill; and he asked that, to prevent the evil consequences which he had described, school boards should be established in those places only where they were proved to be necessary. If his Amendment did not express that, he would gladly assent to its being amended.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, to leave out the words "parish and."—(Mr. Gordon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he hoped, in considering this question, the
  1202
  Committee would not forget what the parish schools had done for Scotland. They had proved eminently successful, and had raised the character of Scotch education, and made it known throughout the world. What were they now asked to do? Nothing short of this—to destroy an old and successful system. He could speak from experience, that the parish schools of Scotland had solved the religious difficulty. They would find within the walls of those schools Roman Catholics, members of the Free Church, and the United Presbyterians. They were now, in effect, asked to sow religious difficulties in the schools of Scotland, in which it did not now exist. Under the Act there must be in twelve months a school board elected for every parish in Scotland. Why, the fact was they had already school boards in most of the parishes; they had the heritors and the minister as a board—["Hear, hear!"]—and under their management an admirable school in each parish. But the proposal in the Bill was to overthrow that which had admittedly worked well. He did not look so much to the higher kind of education; but he held that they ought to give every child an opportunity of obtaining moral and religious instruction. That the existing system had hitherto done, and he trusted nothing would be done to disturb it. If they did, he feared they would create discontent in the minds of the people of Scotland.
  MR. M'LARENwas strongly of opinion that the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. And learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Gordon) would inflict a great blow upon the Bill. The Amendment was, in fact, a new Bill, and a new Bill of a most objectionable character. It was quite true, as had been said by his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Baillie Cochrane), that there was at this moment a school board in every parish in Scotland. That very fact struck at the argument of the hon. And learned Gentleman, whose objection was that under the Bill a school board would be established in every parish. There was a school board now; but the question was, whether that school board should not be enlarged and liberalized, or whether it should be confined to the heritors and ministers. Why should not an enlarged constituency provide a better

  1203
  board? For his part, he could not see why the schools could not be in all cases as well, and in many cases better, managed under the boards provided by the Bill than under the existing system; and therefore the words "destroy the parish schools" and "sacrifice the parochial system," which had been so freely used, were altogether inapplicable. He thought the actual result would be analogous to what had taken place under the Scotch Reform Act of 1832. Before that measure, 2,800 freeholders returned 30 Members of Parliament. There were now 70,000 electors—but had the character of the representation deteriorated? He thought just the contrary. The original law of Scotland was that every heritor, great and small, was a manager of his school, and it was not until 1803 that the number was restricted by a fictitious valuation of £100 Scots, and thus the small heritors were deprived of their hereditary right. What it was now asked to do was to reverse that process to give to the small as well as to the great the right of becoming electors and managers. Moreover, they should remember that the great owner, although he might pay the assessment in the first instance, deducted one-half of it from the tenant, and therefore the tenant, paying virtually one-half of the assessment, had an equal right to become an elector as the landlord. Was it, he asked, consistent with the ends of justice that those who paid one-half should have no voice in the election of the board of management of the schools? And when they were going to lay on an additional charge on every kind of property in a parish, surely they had a right to liberalize the board, and by so doing to satisfy the demands of the people of Scotland. The hon. And learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) had offered some calculations as to the expenses that would be imposed for working the Bill. But he (Mr. M'Laren) said that the question of assessment was very little understood. He believed it would be very small in amount, and would nevertheless secure an excellent system of education throughout the country. As to the £50,000 now raised under the assessment of 1696 from the heritors, he thought that should be allowed to stand until the rate came to more than that amount. He believed that the average sum to be provided by the rates would not be more than 8s. or
  1204
  10 s. a-head. That, he believed, would be a fair average sum, although in some cases the rate would amount to 1s. in the pound instead of 2½ d.; but whatever the cost might be, of this he was sure—that the people of Scotland had made up their minds in favour of the Bill, and especially of this—that the parish schools should not be disunited from the board schools.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEsaid, he thought that, as a rule, in the country districts of Scotland there was no deficiency of schools, and all that was wanted was a compulsory clause, which should not be a "sham," but a reality. For the burghs, school boards might be admirable; but in the rural districts there was little or no demand for them, and he even doubted whether the materials for electing them existed in many such places. There was great danger in intrusting the interests of education to the control of local Boards of imperfectly educated people. Whatever might be said as to the deficiency of schools in some parts of Scotland, unquestionably there was no such deficiency in country districts—all that was really required in such places was a compulsory clause. He was anxious to point out to the English Members that in the event of local Boards being appointed under this Bill for every parish in Scotland, the same principle would be subsequently applied to England, and thus the most valuable principle in the English Act of 1870—that of letting well alone—would be set aside. The great evil from which Scotland was likely to suffer under this Bill was the sacrifice of everything to symmetrical arrangement. It might save trouble to have a local Board in each district; but he was strongly of opinion that in so important a matter as the present, unless they wished for change merely for the sake of change, some regard should be had to the wants and circumstances and condition of each parish. As he had said, the proposed arrangement would answer for burghs, and he hoped to see it carried out there; but he thought that the Scotch Education Department, or the Commissioners who might be appointed, might look into the condition of the parishes with a view to supplying any deficiency that might be found to exist. By some such means it would be practicable to do all that was required to meet existing necessities, and the establish-

  1205
  ment of the universal system of school boards need not be enforced.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEobserved that there was one point on which he was disposed to agree with his hon. And learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gordon), and that was as to the anxiety which existed on the subject of the constitution of the future Board throughout Scotland. That feeling prevailed, too, in that House; and it was not confined to hon. Gentlemen who held Conservative opinions. He admitted that the proposal of the Government to place the management of the parochial school in the hands of an elective board would place the schoolmaster in an uncertain position; and in some places, no doubt, local and religious feeling would be mixed up in their elections. These and other difficulties had to be contended with, and the question was how far the Bill provided a remedy. He was not behind any Member of the House in his desire to reform the present school system, and, in proof, he placed Notices of several Amendments on the Paper which he trusted would have the effect of putting both the managers and schoolmasters on a more satisfactory footing. Other points required attention—such as the arrangement of the religious difficulty, and a more efficient system of instruction. Again, the pecuniary demands upon the people would be heavy, and it was necessary that the assessment should be made upon the present value of property, and not according to the inadequate valuation made more than a century ago; and this was a further reason for improved administration, and for giving the taxpayers a voice in the management of that for which they paid. It was, he thought, imperative upon the Government and the House that they should take these matters into their serious consideration. The only question in his mind was whether they should be dealt with in the manner suggested three years ago, or in the way proposed by the Bill before the Committee. Whilst doing full justice to the active part which the ministers of the Church of Scotland had taken in the management of the schools, it was impossible to deny that they had acted with a natural bias; and, as he considered that the Government had treated this question not only in conformity with the desires of the people of the country,
  1206
  but in the only way in which it could be dealt with, he cheerfully gave his support to this provision of the Bill.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, that after the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke) one would have thought that he would have supported the Amendment. Certainly, he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) coincided in everything he said in behalf of the parochial schools, and acknowledged that the great majority of them were well worked, though he himself had had experience of most inefficient teachers, of whom it was impossible to get rid. Most Members of the House—especially those of the Opposition—would willingly join in any effort to reform the existing system of parochial schools; but the arguments adduced went rather in favour of the present system. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had truly said that there was already a school board in every parish in Scotland. It was true that it was not elected; but still it had worked satisfactorily. It was in accordance with the spirit of the age that those who bore the burden of taxation for the support of the schools should have a share in the management, and he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) contended that it was far more reasonable to liberalize and open up the existing system than to seek its complete overthrow. But the hon. Member for Edinburgh said—"No; we prefer to have an elected board, because it will do its duties much better than the present close board." But the Report of the Assistant Commissioners on Education afforded the strongest evidence to the contrary, and showed that the system of management by a board of heritors was efficient, while such a system as that proposed under the Bill would prove inefficient. Whether the Lord Advocate really believed that by this Bill a more efficient board of management would be established, for his (Mr. Orr-Ewing's) part he believed that the working classes of Scotland were not aware that the Bill proposed to tax them at all. He had talked to many workmen on the subject, and he found that they were surprised to be told that they would have to pay 6d. in the pound; yet the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who was a great authority on figures, stated that the rate would not be 6d. but 1s. in the pound. Now, was it right and proper that they should tax a poor man, who was

  1207
  heavily enough burdened already to educate his own children, in order that he might contribute towards the education of the children of others? When the working classes of Scotland discovered that they would be assessed to the extent of 1s. in the pound, they would not thank the Government for this Bill. He hoped the Lord Advocate would agree to the Amendment of his hon. And learned Friend (Mr. Gordon).
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, no one who had lived so long in the rural districts of Scotland as he had would attempt to deny the benefit the parochial schools had been to Scotland, and he quite agreed with the hon. And learned Member for Glasgow University (Mr. Gordon) in the approval he had expressed of them, but the hon. And learned Gentleman ignored the fact that Scotland was not satisfied with the parochial system. He also ignored the fact that the Bill proposed to establish a system of rate-aided schools—the parochial schools were to be handed over to the school boards. Now, it was impossible to maintain a denominational system when the school became the property of the ratepayers of all denominations. They had been told that there were schools in England left out of the Bill, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had invited them to follow the example of that Bill; but if they were so fond of the English Bill, why did they take a course diametrically opposed to it on the subject of religion, as shadowed forth in the Amendment carried by the hon. And learned Gentleman? They opposed our assistance to remove this ecclesiastical barrier in the way of English education, and they had forthwith proceeded to erect that barrier again in their Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy) who voted against the proposal that the reading of the Bible in schools should be made compulsory, yet voted that religion should be enforced by law in Scotch schools. How they were to teach religion and exclude the Bible he (Mr. Duff) failed to understand. These were the right hon. Gentleman's words—
  "There are three parties to be considered—There is the Parent, the State, and the Church. I think the first duty of the State is to instruct in religion as well as in secular knowledge. But having to address a House composed of men of every religious faith, and no longer of that unity which once existed within it, it would be useless
  1208
  to insist that they should as a State teach religion, for if they decided to teach such a religion as they could agree to impose, nothing would be more hostile to my view."—[3 Hansard, ccii. 519.]
  He (Mr. Duff) thought that was a very sensible view, and regretted that the right hon. Member had not adhered to it. He looked on the Amendment as fatal to the Bill, as it re-imposed a denominational system, and hoped the Committee would at once reject it.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he had ventured last night to represent to the Committee that one of the great features of the Bill was that there should be one uniform system of management, applicable without distinction to all public rate-supported schools—to those existing before the Act as well as to those established under the Act. His hon. And learned Friend (Mr. Gordon) had, he hoped, exhausted his vocabulary of phrases in lauding the parish schools of Scotland, for these encomiums had become somewhat wearisome. It was undeniable that amongst the parochial schools there were good, bad, and in-indifferent. Those which were good were represented by the Royal Commissioners as amounting to about 75 per cent of the whole; but that included all varieties of goodness. Those on the other hand which were bad, were not less than 25 per cent, including all degrees of badness. That, he confessed, was not a state of matters of which to boast. Some of the schools were very excellent, but some of them were discreditably and scandalously bad. With reference to the subject immediately before the House, there were no doubt public rate-supported schools already existing, and the question they had to consider was, whether the management under which they were placed ought to be interfered with. His hon. And learned Friend, in the most argumentative part of his speech, contended that the existing schools should not be disturbed. The Bill certainly proposed to interfere with these schools so far as the management was concerned, and he did not think that the House would agree with his hon. And learned Friend that a body of heritors, with the parish minister, constituted the best board of management for public rate-supported schools. The purpose of the Amendment was two-fold—namely, to exclude the parish schools from the operation of this Bill, and to

  1209
  provide for the deficiency in the other schools being supplied by denominational effort, and the schools themselves placed under denominational management. According to the conscientious conviction of his hon. And learned Friend, that was the best system of national education which could be established. That, however, was not the view of the Government in presenting this Bill to Parliament. The Government were of opinion that the existing management of the parish schools was unsatisfactory, and they were of opinion that it ought to be reformed by placing them under the same system of management which they proposed for all public rate-supported schools which it should be necessary to establish in order to provide sufficient education in Scotland. In order to provide a sufficient supply of schools for Scotland, it would certainly be necessary to raise the local rates. The Government proceeded upon the view that the people of Scotland were resolved to have a sufficient number of efficient schools for the education of their children. These schools must be maintained from three sources—from money granted by Parliament for national education in Great Britain; from the fees paid by the pupils; and from the produce of local rates. The amount which the local rates would have to contribute must be determined by the amount of money necessary to meet the expenses in excess of what was met by the Parliamentary money and the fees. The people of Scotland were so resolved to have a sufficient number of good, well-taught schools, that they would, he believed, gladly bear the burden of the expenses which were necessary for that purpose. Now, what was the natural system of management for such schools as existed and were to be created? Why, certainly the management of those who contributed to the expenses. The ratepayers would be too large a body to be managers themselves, and therefore they must resort to the expedient of making the ratepayers the constituency to appoint from their own number, or, without limiting them to their own number, to appoint those in whom they had most confidence to make efficient provision for the respective parishes and burghs. His hon. And learned Friend referred to the English Education Act of 1870, and complained that they were departing from
  1210
  the lines of that Act. Well, then, who were the constituents who elected the managers of the rate-supported schools in England? Why, the ratepayers. The constituents were not confined to landed proprietors who were rated upon a certain rental—generally speaking, a very high rental. Why, he asked, in the language of his hon. And learned Friend, were the people of Scotland not to be trusted to elect good school managers as well as the people of England? Why were they to say to the parents of Scotland—to the parents who had to send their children to the public rate-supported schools of Scotland—"You are not fit to elect school managers. The people of England are, and Parliament has committed to them that duty; but in Scotland we must only look to the heritors—the landed proprietors?" But his hon. And learned Friend said that the principle of the English Bill was not to disturb existing schools, and it was in that particular that he complained that the Government in this Bill had departed from the lines of the English measure. Why—were there any existing public rate-supported schools to disturb? Not one. The English measure proceeded upon the principle of not disturbing schools established and maintained by voluntary effort, and the principle enunciated by the hon. Gentleman to whose speeches his hon. And learned Friend referred about not disturbing existing schools, referred not to existing public rate-supporting schools, for there were none such, but to schools established and maintained by voluntary effort. They had followed the lines of the English Bill in that respect. They did not meddle with any school of the class of which alone there were schools in England at the passing of the Act of 1870. But with respect to existing public rate-supported schools, why was not the Legislature to deal with them as well as with the public rate-supported schools for which it made provision? They were in search of the best system of management. They had existing public rate-supported schools which were not under the best system of management. If they determined that, with respect to the schools to be established under the Act, a popular elected school board was the best system of management, he wanted to know why that principle was not to be applied to the existing schools also,

  1211
  Why were they to have a dual system of management? Nothing possibly could be more unreasonable or inconvenient, and the Government must therefore adhere to the proposal of the Bill, and reform the management of existing schools in such a way that under the same management they could be able to place all the schools that were to be established under the Bill. It was conceded—indeed, it could not be disputed—that the multitude of schools to be established under the Bill could not be put under the charge of heritors and the parish minister. The management of the heritors and the parish minister, so as to keep the schools still attached to the parish church, could only be maintained by creating a dual system of management—one applicable to the old, and the other to the new schools. The Government knew of no reason for taking such a course except to exempt the existing schools from the operation of the present Act. This was what was called destroying these schools. Why was it destroying them? The Government said that these schools should be maintained as at present, except in so far as they would be improved. They did not think that all the wisdom in a parish in Scotland was in the heritors rated above £100. There were intelligent tenants whether they paid school rates or not. His hon. And learned Friend said that the Government were throwing away the heritors' money which they were paying ungrudgingly and without any grumbling. Well, he (the Lord Advocate) did not know that the heritors of Scotland ever paid any rates ungrudgingly. But in that respect, if they did grudge and grumble a little, they were only like other ratepayers, for one unpleasant circumstance connected with all rates was—that they had to be paid. The Government did not in the least propose to relieve the heritors of the rates which it would be necessary to impose. He thought the heritors contributed to the cause of education in Scotland between £40,000 and £50,000. He did not speak of their voluntary contributions; but they contributed in rates between £40,000 and £50,000 a-year, and half of that sum was payable by their tenants. His own opinion was that it was paid by the tenants—because, whether they paid it directly or not, they were legally liable. Prom the accidental
  1212
  circumstance that the valued rent—which was a valuation made some centuries ago—was adopted as the scale of assessment, these rates fell very unequally. The incidence was entirely objectionable, and men, whether proprietors or tenants, did not pay in proportion to the extent and value of their possessions. Now, they should require a much larger rate. £40,000 or £50,000 a-year would not nearly meet the requirements of the Bill, and they could not impose the additional burden upon the valued rent heritors with the present inequality of incidence. But they were not going to make two rates. They were going to make one rate for all the money required for the purposes of the Bill—that was, one rate in each district for so much as was necessary to supply the deficiency arising after the Imperial grant and the fees were applied, and it was proposed to raise that rate by a tax equally imposed upon all landlords and all tenants according to the real value of their possessions. With reference to existing public rate-supported schools, as well as with respect to those which should become so, they proposed that there should be a school board elected in each parish by the inhabitants—namely, by those who were chiefly interested in the matter of education, and they entirely repudiated the object which was proposed to be attained by the Amendment.
  LORD GARLIESsaid, he would not follow the learned Lord in the special pleading of which he had shown himself such a master. He wished simply to remind the Committee that they had been informed by the learned Lord that 75 per cent of the parish schools in Scotland had been reported by the Inspector as good. That being so, he agreed with the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. C. Dalrymple) that it would be much better to leave well alone. He believed that the proposal of the Government would only tend to sow discord throughout the greater part of Scotland, as there was no wish there for anything of the kind, since there was a sufficiency of education which would render the new system unnecessary. He trusted that the House would not vote for the proposition of the Government, and that they would consent to leave out the few words proposed by his hon. And learned Friend, believing that the adoption of such a Mo-

  1213
  tion would be more beneficial to Scotland than if they were allowed to remain in the Bill.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he could not accept the statement of the learned Lord Advocate that the parish schools in Scotland were rate-supported schools. In England, wherever you had a rate-founded school, you naturally gave representation to the ratepayers. But the landward schools in Scotland were supported out of the rent-charge upon property of very ancient date, and the burden rested on the owners alone. The heritors had not only assessed themselves, but had also given voluntary subscriptions towards the schools; and therefore to describe those schools as rate-supported schools, as that term was generally understood, was calculated to mislead. The greatest proportion of the money which had made the schools such as they were now, and such as would bear favourable comparison with kindred institutions in any other portion of the United Kingdom, had been contributed by the heritors. If these gentlemen had stuck to the mere duty of providing schools only in so far as they were actually compulsorily demanded to do, would they have been in the satisfactory condition in which they were now, or would the schoolmasters' houses have been as they were? If they had had to be furnished out of absolute necessity, both would have been of a wholly different character. He claimed for the heritors of Scotland, in their position as managers of voluntary schools, as well as of those provided by legal compulsion, the most honourable title. Therefore, to shut them out altogether from the advantages of management would be obviously unfair. It was otherwise in England, where rate-supported schools were to be established only wherever the necessity for them existed. If that principle had been carried out by the learned Lord Advocate, he would not have objected. In the landward parishes in Scotland, the learned Lord Advocate could not say so,—it was contrary to the opinion of the Commissioners—that the schools were not adequate to the wants of the district. The real object of this Bill should be to create better schools in burghs. He (Lord Henry Scott) sympathized with him in that object, and should support him in successfully accomplishing it; but the
  1214
  learned Lord Advocate had completely shut his eyes to the fact that in the counties the ground was already covered, and the complaint was, that being so, this Bill stepped in and forced on the people a state of things which was not in the slightest degree required. The change proposed by his hon. And learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Gordon) was in the right direction, by giving increased representation to those who now contributed to the schools. For that the greatest possible credit was due. It did not differ from the proposal of the Government in 1869; and, besides, it went a good deal farther. They had a right to ask the Government why they had changed their opinion in three years, making compulsory school boards and altering the whole system of rating for schools. His learned Friend conceded what was required in burghs. There was no difference between him and the Lord Advocate on that point. All the difference was, that the landward schools should be supported in the same manner and enlarged in the sphere of representation of the heritors. After all, those on that side of the House had conceded that one-half of the board should be elected by the heritors and the other half by the ratepayers. What could be fairer than that? But the Lord Advocate said—"No; we must sweep away the heritors altogether." Now, was that fair to use them so, after the admirable way in which they had discharged their duties? Were they going to set, up side by side with a school which might be voluntarily supported by the heritors, another that was founded and maintained out of the rates? Was that likely to promote harmony? School boards were not to be compulsorily established in England where they were not required. Why, then, were they to be forced upon Scotland, where there existed a very superior managing body? Were they to treat Scotland on the principle of Fiat experimentum in corpore vili? Would the Government like to establish school boards all over Ireland? This was an Imperial question, and not one for Scotland only. Let them not overlook the probable effect of the precedent they proposed to set in the case of Scotland. The opponents of the Bill having met the Government half-way, the latter ought to be prepared to make some concession.
  MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, it was only due to the heritors to take the opportunity of acknowledging the services which they had rendered to the cause of education. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Henry Scott) had stated truly that the heritors not only paid the money they had inherited as a burden on their property, but supplemented it in such a way as to arouse the gratitude of all interested in this important subject. But he laid too much stress on the fact. The noble Lord was justified in declining to regard the parochial schools of Scotland entirely as rate-supported schools, because part of their funds came from this voluntary source. But some £40,000 or £50,000 of the money contributed by the heritors was public money, and was, in fact, reported by the Commissioners as one of the largest items of assets available for education in Scotland. That fact placed the parochial schools in a different position from any of the schools in England, because there were none there so supported. If this arrangement was to be continued, the noble Lord had not gone beyond what was fair when he asked that there should be some kind of recognition on the part of the Government towards the heritors. What he (Mr. Parker) wished to point out was that there were two totally different ways, in which some concession might be made. The one was that proposed by the right hon. And learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gordon), to distinguish between the mode of treating those parish schools and the other public schools throughout the country; the other way would be to include in one system the burgh and parish schools, but to provide that where the funds came from the heritors there should be some recognition of it in the management. There was a growing feeling in Scotland that the money derived from the heritors should not be sacrificed, and that feeling was shared in by both political parties, neither of whom were averse to the heritors being represented in respect of their special contributions. If the ratepayers elected a majority of the managers they would have no objection to let the heritors retain their seats on the board. But the issue placed before the Committee by the present Amendment was whether they should set up a duplicate system—namely, one for the burghs, and another
  1216
  for the parish schools. While the Conservatives would leave the schools in the hands of the parish ministers and the heritors, the progressive party would not allow any minister to be a manager simply ex officio, but would liberalize and enlarge the management.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that English Members had a deep interest in the decision of the Committee on this question, because it interfered with the parochial school system of Scotland, which had been avowedly successful. The Lord Advocate pointed to the schools throughout England, and said—"See, we have left you these schools supported by voluntary contributions." But they knew those schools had not been so successful as the Scottish parochial schools. They knew, also, that the system of education in Scotland brought to the schools a larger proportion of children than were brought to the schools in England. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered that the new President of the Board of Trade had several times intimated that the retention of voluntary schools in England was only a question of time, and that he looked forward to a period when there should be a system of school boards throughout the whole of England. If the Scottish parochial schools were not to be supported—if the system of school boards was to override them—what prospect had they of the continuance of the voluntary system in England? None whatever. And therefore, as an English Member, he deprecated the stern adherence to uniformity which, notwithstanding the acknowledged merits of the Scottish schools—notwithstanding the acknowledgment of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) of the good conduct of the heritors, was intended to sweep away the system on which the parochial schools were built, although the evidence before the House showed it to be one which the people of Scotland clung to and admired. He (Mr. Newdegate) put this to English Members. The Vice President of the Council had taken to himself immense credit for not having swept away the voluntary system. If they passed that clause striking down the Scottish parochial system, did they think that the system in England would remain? It certainly would not. It appeared to him that they were about to break up the best system of education which existed in Great Britain—which

  1217
  existed in the United Kingdom. And for what reason? To gratify a feeling of small jealousy which wished to establish equality. The Government say—We will have a ratepaying system of school boards. But had they not a rate-paying system in England? Had they not church rates? Was not every ratepayer represented in the vestry? And yet what had been the end of that system? Why, the same jealousy crept up; that system had been swept away, and no provision had been made for the maintenance of the Church. It was simply sacrificed to that small jealousy which would establish equality, and which ended in spoliation. There was another thing to be considered. The heritors of Scotland were men of many different religious persuasions—but they had always maintained a religious education. They knew from the experience of England that religious education was very much put aside in the rate-paying schools—it was not enjoined, it was only permitted; and they knew that there was a constant study in the school boards to get rid of religious teaching altogether. They had that experience before them. He (Mr. Newdegate) rejoiced the House had decided that religion should still form an essential part of the education of Scotland, and in doing so it had represented and reflected the feelings of the Scottish people. But if they swept away from these heritors the control which they had maintained over religious education, and adopted their uniform system of rate-paying schools, they would introduce into the Scottish school system the struggles that were going on in the English boards, and would lay the foundation of disturbing, and, he believed, of destroying that religious education which they had decided ought to be maintained in Scotland.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEalso supported the Amendment. He considered that it was a scandalous imputation upon the people of Scotland to say that an Educational Board in that country could not be entrusted with the expenditure of £250,000 a-year, and that it was necessary to delegate the duty to the Privy Council. He should do all in his power to oppose the clause in the Bill and render it nugatory.
  MR. GORDON, in replying, said, he objected to the payment made to the
  1218
  parochial schools under the present system being called a rate, because a rate was a payment made by all classes upon an assessment. It was not a charge upon the proprietors of the land; whereas at present there was always a special charge upon the land for the parochial school whenever it changed hands. The Lord Advocate said that he was sick and tired of hearing so much about the parochial schools. No doubt, when he proposed to destroy them, it was very disagreeable to him to hear so much said in their praise from all sides of the House. Some stress had been laid upon the deficiency in the education in burgh schools; but even in respect to them, although 20 were reported indifferent, only seven were reported bad; while in the country districts the parochial schools were admitted on all hands to be excellent. And those were the schools which were to be destroyed! He recollected that last year two Professors of English Universities and one from a Scotch University urged upon the Vice President of the Council and the Lord Advocate the necessity of proceeding with the greatest caution in reference to these parish schools, and expressed great doubts as to whether the schools which would be established under the new system would equal them, because, as they said, they had never seen them excelled. That was not the opinion of Scotchmen only, but of English Professors, who had no prejudice on the subject. The Lord Advocate was a great master of the use of adjectives, and he said that the system proposed in opposition to the Government scheme was utterly unreasonable and incorrect. If so, his (Mr. Gordon's) excuse was that his Amendment was in the terms of the recommendation of the Commissioners who reported on Scottish Education. But he had a still higher authority under which he could shield himself—namely, the authority of the present Ministry; for in 1869 they produced a Bill which contained provisions with reference to the parish schools, which were almost identical with those he proposed, because they proposed a scheme under which there would be a dual management. [The LORD ADVOCATE said, that they were exempted under that Bill.] He (Mr. Gordon) was under the impression that the dual system was proposed under it, and therefore he considered that he was only following in the footsteps of the

  1219
  present Ministry when he moved the present Amendment, which he trusted would be accepted by the House.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 222; Noes 177: Majority 45.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

BISHOPS RESIGNATION ACT (1869) PERPETUATION BILL—(Lords)— [BILL 137.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. DICKINSON, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, said, the Bill provided for the case of a Bishop resigning his bishopric, and also of a Bishop who from mental infirmity had become unable to perform the duties of his office. In the case of resignation the Bishop was to receive either a third of his salary or £2,000 a-year; whichever of those sums was the larger. There were 28 Archbishops and Bishops, one of whom received £15,000 a-year, two £10,000, one £8,000, one £7,000, one £5,500, eight £5,000, seven £4,500, and six £4,200 a-year. He apprehended that the same principle was applicable to Bishops as to other officials; and it appeared to him that if they were to have legislation of a permanent character to provide for a Bishop not able to discharge the duties of his office, there ought to be some provision for the purpose of securing that the public should have an efficient person to perform the duties for which that person was paid. There should be some provision that in case of incompetency the Bishop should be made to resign, instead of having it left to his own will and pleasure. He would ask, did it answer to hold out a bribe to an official to induce him to resign? The bribe was insufficient, because the truth was, that persons in office who had attained a considerable age would be rarely found willing to admit that they were incapable of discharging their duties. Another portion of the Bill was also unsound and vicious in principle—he referred to that part which provided that
  1220
  when a Bishop resigned the successor appointed to him should not receive the whole of the episcopal income fixed for that diocese, but should defray a charge out of that income for the benefit of the late holder of the office. That principle, although it had been acted upon in the Army here and in India was an unsound one. The scheme in the Bill was that, in case of resignation from age or physical or mental infirmity, provision was to be made for the Bishop's successor by paying him £2,000 a-year, or one-third of the income of the retiring Bishop. It was said as a reason for a large allowance to Bishops, that they had great claims upon them for social status, charities, and on other accounts; but there would be all those claims upon the new Bishop with the smaller income, whilst the previous Bishop retiring into private life would have no demands upon him beyond those of an ordinary clergyman. In the case of the retirement of ordinary incumbents of livings there was a different rule to be adopted from that which prevailed in the case of Bishops and Deans. For an ordinary incumbent to retire with an annuity he must have been seven years an incumbent, and, practically, the Bishops had some power to force an incapacitated incumbent to resign. Again, in case any Archbishop of Canterbury became subject to permanent mental infirmity, the new Archbishop would receive only £4,000 a-year, while the committee of the estate of the retiring Archbishop would receive £11,000 as an accumulating fund for the benefit of the family. Surely that would not be just. Bishops had large allowances, and therefore it was in their power to make provision for old age and incapacity. The statute, which had hitherto been only temporary, it was now proposed to make permanent, and therefore it behoved them to see that it it was a sound one. He believed that the sound principle was that Bishops, as well as other public servants, when they were unable to perform their duties should be got rid of and other persons appointed in their stead. The public interests required that the country should pay only for work done. Pay and work should be commensurate, and it was no part of the duty of the public to provide in old age for a person who received sufficient pay while he was in the public service to make that provision for himself. He hoped the House would

  1221
  consider the case of retirements generally. There was a Bill now before the House to increase the superannuation allowances to retiring Colonial Governors. The whole subject should be investigated, for they were now spending to an enormous extent on ineffective services in every Department.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Dickinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved that if his hon. Friend objected to the details of the measure the proper place to deal with that measure would be in Committee; or if he thought that the present was not a convenient time to consider those details, then the proper course would be not to move the rejection of the Bill, but simply that it should be a Bill to continue the existing measure for a term of years, instead of making a permanent arrangement. He agreed with his hon. Friend that some of the details now or at a future time might receive further consideration, though he did not agree precisely with all the remarks which had been made. He should also be quite willing either to try to improve the details of the Bill, or, if the hands of Parliament were too full just now, he was perfectly willing to make the present Bill simply one for continuing the existing law for three, five, or seven years. The case of Bishops was not, however, to be dealt with in the lump along with those of Colonial Governors and other Civil servants. It was distinguished by a multitude of specialities from the case of Civil servants, and nothing would be gained by the endeavour to mix together things which were entirely and absolutely heterogeneous. Nor did he agree that a Bishop was to be considered as a person whose duty it was to lay by large sums out of his income with a view to provide for his old age. He believed it was the practice of Bishops to insure their lives, with a view to some provision for their families. But it would not have a good moral effect upon the position or influence of Bishops to set forth on the authority of this House, the doctrine that it was their business to make considerable reservations, independent of a provision for their
  1222
  families, in order to lay by for themselves in their old age. It was true that no fewer than five cases had been or would have been brought under this Bill had not death supervened; but although it was that accumulation of particular cases which brought home to the mind of Parliament the necessity for a provision of this kind, it was obvious, apart from those cases, that something must be done. The administrative duties of the Bishops had of late years undergone an enormous increase. The episcopal office was now a more laborious one than it used to be; and it must be expected that, if dioceses were to be efficiently administered, cases would from time to time occur in which, through the weight of duty and of years, it would be necessary to provide for the resignations of Bishops. He submitted that there was no necessity for taking the judgment of the House as to whether this Bill should or should not go forward. The only question was whether an attempt should be made to improve its details, or whether its operation should be limited.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought that a case had been made out by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson), and that, as the Bill was imperfect, and was admitted to be so by the Prime Minister, it ought not to be pushed on to the detriment of other important measures. He could not conceive why a difference should be made between Bishops and Deans. Was it that Deans consumed more than Bishops? There was no urgent necessity for legislating on the subject. He thought that Bishops, Deans, and Incumbents should all be dealt with in the same manner.
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate was adjourned till this day.
  And it being now Seven of the Clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the Clock.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
MR. RAIKESrose, pursuant to Notice, to move a series of Resolutions on this subject. The first Resolution was—
"That during those Sittings of the House which are limited as to time no Motion for the Adjourn-

1223
ment of any Debate be put from the Chair within half-an-hour of the time fixed for the conclusion of Opposed Business."
An incident occurred one Wednesday in the month of April last which was a sufficient proof of the necessity of some such rule as that which he was desirous of seeing adopted. On that occasion the House, after full and long debate, was prepared for a division upon the second reading of an important Bill—the Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill—when an hon. Member (Sir Frederick W. Heygate) thought fit to move the adjournment of the House at about 25 minutes before six o'clock. The result of that was that a division was necessarily taken on the Question of adjournment, and the very numbers of those who opposed and rejected that Motion constituted the real reason why the adjournment became the inevitable consequence of the Motion being made. That was a practical absurdity the repetition of which ought to be prevented. He wished to see the principle already recognized by the House, in fixing a quarter before six on Wednesday or 10 minutes before seven at Morning Sittings extended, so as to make the limit within which the adjournment might be moved half-an-hour before the time fixed for the conclusion of Opposed Business.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That during those Sittings of the House which are limited as to time, no Motion for the Adjournment of any Debate be put from the Chair within half an hour of the time fixed for the conclusion of Opposed Business."—(Mr. Raikes.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, all Rules which tended to complicate Parliamentary procedure were not beneficial, and should only be adopted when they could be proved to be effectual for the attainment of the object contemplated. So far as he had observed, the method of adjourning the debate on occasions when their Sittings terminated at a fixed time was not the favourite method of obstructing business. The method much more frequently resorted to was what was known as "talking the measure out." A distinguished Member whom he now had in his mind's eye had vaunted himself for having performed an achievement of that kind in the course of the present Session. This was like a case in which they had two vents open, a
1224
large vent and a small one, and they wanted to keep the vessel watertight. The hon. Member (Mr. Raikes) appeared to him to shut the small vent and to leave the large one open. The proposal would not be effective for its purpose, while it tended to complicate the Rules of the House.
MR. DENMANsupported the Resolution. No doubt, on Wednesdays attempts might be made to obstruct Business by talking questions out; but occasionally that process was exhausted, and then the second method was resorted to, of moving the adjournment at an hour when the division must occupy so much time as practically to put an end to the matter in hand. The Resolution would at least destroy that second method of obstruction.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought they had all experienced the complicated process resorted to on such occasions, under the cover of moving the adjournment of the debate or of the House; and he was of opinion that the proposal of his hon. Friend should be tried as an experiment.
MR. M. CHAMBERSbelieved in the sincerity of the Members of that House, and had heard an hon. Gentleman opposite move the adjournment of a debate on the ground that there were several Members on their side who wished to speak. It was a very curious thing, that although the Motion for the adjournment of the debate on that occasion was negatived by a very large majority, the result desired by the hon. Member who made the Motion was attained, because before the division was concluded the time had arrived when by the Rules of the House the debate stood adjourned. He was afraid that if the proposal of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) were adopted, half-an-hour instead of five or ten minutes would be lost on all occasions when the Rules of the House required a debate to stand adjourned at a particular hour.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he could scarcely tell from the very lucid speech to which they had just listened which side the hon. And learned Gentleman had taken on this question; but, at all events, he was mistaken in assuming that half-an-hour would be lost on the occasions to which he referred; because that time would be occupied in discussing the subject before the House.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUproceeded to say that if he could see the slightest use in moving the adjournment of a debate within half-an-hour before it would stand adjourned by the Rules of the House, he would be willing to vote against the Amendment. But what was the use of making such a Motion when the event must naturally take place without its being made? It was done merely to evade the inconvenient responsibility of Members. To quote a case in point, he might refer to the Motion made for the adjournment of the debate on the Permissive Bill on a recent Wednesday by an hon. Member below the gangway on the other side of the House, with the sole object of enabling hon. Members to evade committing themselves by voting on the Main Question.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to correct the noble Lord's statement. The Motion for the adjournment of the debate on the occasion to which he referred had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate) who sat immediately behind the noble Lord himself.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdoubted whether it would be advisable to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Chester. He thought a question of so great importance as the Business of the House ought to be dealt with as a whole by the Government, instead of being left to the fragmentary fancies—if he might say so—of different Members. If the House dealt with the question of the Business of the House in small scraps, as indicated by the string of Motions relating to that question, they would hopelessly complicate, instead of facilitating, the carrying on of the Business of the country.
MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he thought 40 or 50 Members sitting in the House could deal with this subject quite as well as any Committee sitting up-stairs. The Motion of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) was a small step in the right direction.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, after the House had been engaged five hours on one of the most important Bills of the Session, and after a short Recess the
1226
House was necessarily thin. About one-twelfth of its Members were asked to consider the important question of the future conduct of the Business of the House, and he believed that if the propositions on the Paper were adopted to-night, they would not approve themselves to the common sense of hon. Members tomorrow. On those grounds, he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Chester.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. Johnston) were both young Members of the House, and they had fallen into the trap which had been laid for them by the front benches. The hon. Gentleman opposite seemed totally to have forgotten the antecedents of this question. A few years ago the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) devised a plan, by means of a new arrangement of Morning Sittings, for further limiting the opportunities of private Members; but he was not present on this occasion. And the right hon. Gentleman who now led the House followed in the course begun by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. In fact, it was the desire of every Government to limit the rights and privileges of private Members as far as they possibly could. He (Mr. Bentinck) protested against Members of the House getting up one after the other to air their own little crotchets without any attempt to deal with the whole subject in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner. The present Leader of the House moved last Session for a Committee to inquire into this matter. The right hon. Gentleman was able after that by a small majority to take away that constitutional right which every Member had of stating the grievances of his constituents before going into Committee of Supply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represented Her Majesty's Government on the Committee, proposed still further to curtail the rights of independent Members by preventing them from making Motions on going into Supply on Thursdays as well as Mondays. In such circumstances, and with the disastrous Resolution of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire in operation, what was to become of the rights of private Members? Her Majesty's Government would have no mo-

1227
tive whatever for keeping a House at the Evening Sittings, and without the Government no private Member could do so. Under all the circumstances, and considering the state of the House, he thought it would be improper to come to any determination on the question tonight, and he would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
MR. GLADSTONEwished to show how the course of Business since 9 o'clock had altered the position in which the House stood. The hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) made a very brief speech—two or three remarks merely—in support of his Motion. When the hon. Member sat down he (Mr. Gladstone) did not rise at once. He thought it his duty to wait until the subject had been discussed; but as no hon. Gentleman offered to address the House, when the Speaker was about to put the Question, he rose and made one or two observations. When he sat down various Members addressed the House, and a great many new points were raised. In the meantime, there was no one on the part of the Government to discharge the duty of speaking to those new points until he was rescued from his difficulty by the Motion of the hon. Member who had just sat down. It was obvious that the Motion of the hon. Member for Chester could not be adopted, and what was really wanted was a preliminary conversational discussion upon each of the propositions which had been placed upon the Paper, which could not be dealt with in set speeches, as the points involved were of a comparatively minute order, and could better be dealt with by a Committee than by the House itself. He had already pointed out that the Motion for adjournment was only one of the methods adopted for obstructing business, and did not touch the chief method. A large portion of the business of Morning Sittings, indeed, nearly all of it which was Government Business, was conducted in Committee; but the Motion of the hon. Member did not touch Committees at all. The analogous Motion in Committees to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate was the Motion to report Progress, or that the Chairman do leave the Chair. The Motion of the
1228
hon. Member, therefore, did not touch the peccant part of the proceedings, if there was a peccant part. But the fundamental objection to the Motion was that it assumed that all Motions for adjournment were necessarily factious, which was not the case; and if they were, the only result of carrying this proposal would be that a factious opponent would make his Motion a little earlier, and therefore cut off a little more of the time at the disposal of the House. But there were occasions where a minority were justified in pressing for an adjournment, or where an adjournment was wished for on both sides of the House; but if this Motion were carried—they would be placed in this preposterous position—that where every man in the House wished for an adjournment it would be impossible to adjourn.
MR. CLAYremarked that it had been felt that the Business of the House had outgrown its forms, and the various Motions which hon. Members proposed to make on the subject must be taken as evidence of an earnest desire for a more practical discharge of Public Business. That being so, it would be rather hard if the discussion was not allowed to proceed, especially as the House was getting more and more full. The Prime Minister had spoken of a Committee as the best place for this discussion, and if the right hon. Gentleman would reappoint one, he would be perfectly content.
LORD JOHN MANNERSpointed out that to refer these questions to a Committee would be nothing more than proceeding in a vicious circle. When the Committee which sat before had reported in favour of certain Resolutions and the subject was brought before the House, when one of those Resolutions was adopted, the Government found that there was so much dispute about the others that they dropped them like a hot potato. And now it was suggested that another Committee should be appointed. But if that were done, any Resolutions that the Committee might adopt would come back to the House, where the greatest opposition would be offered to them; the same forms would be gone through as before, and the Resolutions would be suffered to drop. Only part of the proposal of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) was being discussed; but the very next branch of that proposal would, if adopted,

1229
remove some of the objections which, had been urged. The former discussion upon the Government proposals had been suddenly terminated, and therefore hon. Members had a right to express their opinions upon the present occasion; and he should have thought that his hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven and the University of Cambridge would have sustained, instead of attempting to stop this discussion. Their having been for five hours engaged in discussing the Scotch Education Bill was surely no reason why they should not now go on with the present discussion. If that were so, it would be better that there should be an end to the 9 o'clock Sittings altogether. He was surprised that hon. Members who pretended to be vindicators of the rights of private Members should place the matter upon such a footing.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEdid not complain of the 2 o'clock Sittings, but contended that after a five hours' debate on an important Government question, the House was by physical laws incapacitated at 9 o'clock from entering into other questions as important. The question was not one between the privileges of private Members or of the Government. The plain common sense was that the House was now neither in numbers, in good humour, nor in serious attention to business capable of discussing the matter before it. Such a subject should be the first Business of the night. The Government ought to give a night for it, and was seriously to blame for the burlesque of to-night through having tried to cram into one Session this and other subjects which there was no time properly to discuss. With a view to the dignity of the House, and in order that their proceedings might be wisely regulated by some of their best heads, and in an ample House, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) for the adjournment of the debate.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he thought that the House violated all the principles of common sense, and all the rules for transacting Business by the way in which important matters were disposed of after 12 o'clock at night. This arose not from their being overcharged with work; it was only an attempt to prevent the action of independent Members. The system of sitting after 12 o'clock at
1230
night was framed for the deliberate purpose of carrying out, in spite of the House of Commons, the policy, good, bad, or indifferent, of the Government. Under such circumstances, it was impossible for independent Members to discharge their duty to their constituents. Those who remained after 12 at night were mainly the followers of the Government, or those who had particular interest in some of the Orders of the Day; and the system had never been so illustrated as it had been since the present head of the Government had been in office. No proper reports of their proceedings after 12 at night, were published; and he had intended to move that the editor of one of the journals—say, The Times—should be called to the Bar of the House, because they at that late hour gave what was practically a false report of the proceedings of the House. What was stated was that "the other Orders were disposed of." They knew how admirably the gentlemen of the Gallery discharged their duties; they were not responsible; but still the most important questions were raised, discussed, and decided at those hours when either those gentlemen were away, or when what took place could not be reported. When it was said—"the other Orders of the Day were disposed of," it was deceiving the public. If the newspapers were to say that they could give no report, that would be intelligible. Nothing could be more unconstitutional or inexpedient than their way of doing Business at late hours; and as to the supposition that their legislation, under these circumstances, represented the House of Commons, nothing short of the terms "fraudulent" and "false pretences" could characterize it. The debate had better be adjourned to enable the Government to take the subject into their consideration, and then appoint a time for its consideration when it could be properly discussed.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, the House had drifted into a discussion of the subject from not attending to the Rules of the House for the transaction of ordinary Business. The present discussion was in some degree to be attributable to the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman as Chairman of the Committee which had charge of the Report, brought forward one of the Re-

1231
solutions adopted by that Committee for expediting the Ausiness of the Government; but from that time to this they had never heard one word of the other Resolutions that were agreed to by the Committee, and he suggested that it would be far better for the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward the remainder of the Resolutions, and for the House to discuss them, instead of debating the numerous Motions on the subject that were on the Notice Paper for that night, and also on the Order Book for discussion on some future occasion.
MR. ANDERSONremarked that the fact of these Motions having been placed on the Paper was sufficient to show that the recommendations of the Committee were deemed insufficient, and no wonder they were so, considering how the Committee was constituted. It was a mistake to suppose that Members who had not sat in the House for 20 Sessions were incompetent to give an opinion on the question, especially when it was remembered that the older Members had gained their experience under a state of things which had been entirely changed by the adoption of household suffrage. He, therefore, hoped that if the matter were again referred to a Committee it would not be to the old one.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the right course would have been to have had another Committee to go fully into the whole of that subject of the Business of the House, as was originally proposed at the beginning of the Session by the Government. He hoped that discussion might result in a real effort being made by the House to grapple with the difficulty which was growing upon them every day, and which could only be fairly and satisfactorily met by their having a complete scheme before them, instead of a series of isolated and fragmentary proposals.
MR. MONKsaid, he should not have pressed his own Motion relating to the Business of the House if the Government had persevered in their proposal to appoint another Committee on that whole subject. Many of the Motions standing on the Notice Paper for that and subsequent nights in reference to this question had never been brought before the Committee of last year, or considered by any previous Committee on the Business of the House. The
1232
present Motion for the adjournment of the debate was one really in derogation of the rights of private Members, and he hoped that the House would reject it.
MR. DENMANlooked upon what had passed that night as clearly proving that the proposal made at the commencement of the Session by the Government to send that entire matter before a new Committee was a right one, and that it was unfortunate they should have abandoned it at the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). Notices had been given of very considerable importance, which had never practically been considered by any Select Committee, and he rather thought this was one.
MR. J. LOWTHERascribed the whole of the difficulty in which they were placed to the extraordinary conduct adopted on that matter by the Government. That movement for the alteration of the Rules of the House had proceeded from the mistaken notion that what was required was more legislation at the hands of Parliament. For the last 40 years, however, the great curse of the country had been not a want, but a surfeit of legislation. The Committee which had sat upon this subject last year might with advantage be re-appointed, in order to more fully consider the whole matter; but he trusted the House would hesitate before it allowed this great question to be dealt with in the piecemeal manner in which it was proposed to trifle with it that night. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bentinck) would save the House the trouble of dividing by withdrawing his Motion.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he thought the present Rules of the House with regard to Public Business worked very well indeed. It had been urged as a reason for not taking Opposed Business after 12 o'clock at night that the speeches of hon. Members were not reported in the newspapers; but he regarded that as an additional reason why Public Business ought to be proceeded with after that hour, because hon. Members would then make speeches to convince the House, instead of to be read by their constituents. He did not approve the Report of the Committee which sat last year to consider this question, because it appeared to him to be made in the interest of the Government and against that of private Members.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought it desirable that the whole question should be re-considered by a fairly constituted Committee.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsubmitted that the recommendations of the Committee ought to be considered by the House; and, if they were not adopted, he thought another Committee should be appointed.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, his experience was that there was always more talking in the Morning and less work in the Evening Sittings. There was no occasion for appointing a Committee on the subject, because there was no information required respecting the conduct of the Business of the House. If the questions were relegated to a Committee, the Report of that body would find them just where they stood at present.
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN, as an instance of obstruction and delay, said, he had a Bill of his own in Committee on the 20th February, and where it was on that date it stood precisely now. The Government not only possessed the initiative of legislation, but also a power of putting a veto on everything that came up from independent Members, as was witnessed in the progress or want of progress of the University Tests (Dublin) Bill. In his opinion, it was not unreasonable to ask that private Members should be allowed the opportunity of carrying through measures of which they had a special knowledge.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he thought the great fault was with those hon. Members who wanted to ventilate their own opinions, and were much charmed with their peculiar powers of expression. He suggested that the progress of the Business of the House would be greatly facilitated if a rule were adopted that, except in the case of a Minister of the Crown or of an independent Member introducing a question necessarily involving a long statement of facts, the speeches of Members were limited to half-an-hour.
MR. SCOURFIELDremarked that the whole question resolved itself into whether the House meant business or whether they merely meant to let off their superfluous steam. Until that cardinal point was settled they might appoint 50 Committees without any result.
MR. RAIKESsaid, he could not accept the proposition for adjournment. The
1234
Motions which he and other hon. Members had put upon the Paper were intended as Amendments to the Resolutions to be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but no opportunity for their discussion was given. There had been a general expression of opinion that the old Committee should not be re-appointed, but that a new one should be named; and unless the Government gave a promise that should be done, or that a night should be given for the discussion of the Resolutions now on the Paper, he should take the sense of the House upon his Resolution, in order that hon. Members who came after him might be in no way prejudiced.
MR. VANCEsaid, that the Government had brought forward one or two of the Resolutions of the Committee which assisted them in the conduct of their own Business, but they had neglected all the other recommendations. He thought it the duty of the Government to bring the other recommendations of the Committee before the House; and, unless they undertook to do so, he should support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
MR. DALGLISHobserved that it was quite evident when the Committee met that there were certain Members of it who were determined to carry out their pre-conceived opinions. He would suggest, as one way of getting out of the difficulty, that the Speaker should, in consultation with the Clerk at the Table, produce some programme for facilitating the transaction of Business, that this programme should next year be submitted to the House, and the whole or such portions of it adopted as might seem desirable.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Select Committee of last year was composed of Gentlemen of great experience and knowledge who were most entitled, on the whole, to the consideration of the House. They paid great attention to the subject, and made several recommendations. The Government considered those recommendations, and selected four or five which they proposed to the House, every one of which was in accordance with the evidence of the late Speaker and of their most able and experienced Clerk at the Table. The first step which the Government took this Session was to move that the Committee should be re-appointed to consider

1235
certain other important matters; but hon. Gentlemen of great weight and influence immediately got up and objected, and as no one rose to defend the proposal of the Government, and a great deal of opposition had been given, it was withdrawn. No sooner, however, did that happen than a number of Gentlemen got up and said they were entirely in favour of the proposal of the Government. Then the Government took a contrary course, and brought forward three propositions which the Committee had agreed to. One of these was with regard to the expulsion of Strangers; but the opinion of the House was so unfavourable that the Government withdrew their proposal, and the consequence was that on an occasion when most hon. Members regretted it—the debate on the Civil List—Strangers were taken notice of, and the reporters were obliged to withdraw. The second Resolution, with regard to Supply, was carried; but the third, which was entirely for the benefit of private Members, giving them time to assemble at the Evening Sittings, was for some reason or other refused. The Government, therefore, did not think it necessary to go further with the question. Of course, it would be easy enough to appoint another Committee; but until the House made up its mind that it could select a Committee to whose opinions it would be prepared to adhere, it would be a mere waste of time to appoint one. The recommendations of the Committee in this instance did not seem to have had much influence with the House, though they were made by men of experience and authority. The Rule as to Opposed Business after half-past 12 had been adopted, but that was supported by independent authority. As to the Business now before the House, it was quite evident that the House was not prepared to go into the question. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) was right in advising the adjournment of the debate until the House had made up its mind, and he should, therefore, certainly vote for the adjournment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 63: Majority 27.
Debate adjourned till Tuesday 18th June.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CONSOLIDATION STATUTES.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwished to know what course the Government intended to adopt with regard to the various Resolutions on the Paper affecting the Business of the House? Would they appoint a Committee, or would they consider the whole subject themselves, and make a proposal to the House upon it? As the Government did not seem inclined to give him an answer, he would move the Resolution which stood on the Paper in his name. Although he agreed with a previous speaker, that it might not be wise to expedite legislative business and promote changes in the law, yet he thought that there could be no difference of opinion with regard to the object of this Motion—namely, to facilitate the passage of Consolidation Bills and to promote the consolidation of the law. A consolidated law was merely an authoritative declaration of the existing law upon any subject. It was true that the existing statutes were contradictory; it was therefore necessary, in every Consolidation Bill, to take only one member of those opposites. As the Standing Orders then were, one of two things always happened—either a Consolidating and Amending Bill was introduced, and it then consisted of some 500 pages, like the Merchant Shipping Bill, and was introduced Session after Session, and always lay like a log in the way, to be ultimately withdrawn; or else, a Bill was introduced with the sole object of amending the existing law, and then the Members of the House who desired to vote intelligently, had to thumb some 20 or 30 conflicting Acts of Parliament, and study until they could make up their minds what was the existing law on the subject. Such Bills were always unduly hindered, or else were passed in ignorance. The Sanitary Bill of this year was an example of that kind. If the present Motion became a Standing Order, the draftsman would in future have to write his Bill with a pair of scissors, choosing out such clauses of existing Acts as he thought proper, and writing between them, in red ink, whatever he thought necessary to explain or amalgamate them. Such a Consolidation Bill could then not be delayed at the second reading, nor on going into

  1237
  Committee; and it would pass rapidly through Committee, as the only Amendments permitted would be to insert, or else substitute, some clauses of existing Acts which the draftsman had thought better to omit. The amending Bill could then be brought in during the same Session, and the House could easily legislate intelligently upon it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That whenever a Bill for the consolidation of existing Statutes, and containing only Clauses of Acts in force, be on its passage through the House, no Amendment shall be moved at any of its stages except in Committee; and the only Amendments which may then be moved shall be to insert other Clauses of any Acts in force on the same subject, and verbal Amendments rendered necessary by the amalgamation of the Clauses of different Acts."—(Lord Robert Montagu.)
  MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved that the House would not adopt such a Resolution, as by so doing they would simply express distrust of themselves.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that if they adopted the Resolution they would unwisely tie up their hands; and he believed that all attempts to fetter the free action of the House were mischievous, and such a Resolution would be simply making a general law to meet a particular case.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUconsented to withdraw the Motion.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, that, in his opinion, this question as to the Business of the House was in an unsatisfactory position. He believed that Business might be very much facilitated by proper regulations; and he thought that the recommendations to the Committee should have been discussed. If the Government did not adopt some course, it should surely be open to private Members to do so.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that four of the recommendations of the Committee had already been considered by the House, and there was one which it would be obviously improper for the House to consider, because it dealt with the discretion of Ministers and the Prerogative of the Crown; he referred to the proposal to call Parliament together in November, a proposal to which he was very favourable. The Resolutions which remained were of a secondary character, and if it were thought proper they should be considered with any new suggestions by a
  1238
  fresh Committee, it would be necessary at this period of the Session to postpone the appointment of that Committee until next Session.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

METROPOLIS—QUEEN SQUARE, WESTMINSTER, AND BIRDCAGE WALK.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKrose to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it would conduce to the inconvenience of the public if a carriage communication were opened between Queen Square, Westminster, and the Birdcage Walk."
  The hon. Gentleman said, he had brought forward the subject on that day week, when the discussion was abruptly cut short by a "count out." His proposal on that former occasion was wider in its scope than the Motion as he now intended to move it. He now limited himself to proposing that a carriage communication should be opened between Queen Square and Birdcage Walk. He would postpone for the present the other part of his original Motion. He hoped the Chief Commissioner of Works would concur in the opinion of his predecessor in office in 1869, and also in the opinion of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, that the improvement might be effected by private subscription. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it would conduce to the convenience of the public if a carriage communication were opened between Queen Square, Westminster, and the Birdcage Walk."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had not been aware that it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to alter the terms of his Resolution in that way. It was highly inconvenient to adopt one section of a plan at one time, and leave the rest of it till a future day. It was a very serious proposal to make a public thoroughfare from Queen Square to St. James's Street, across St. James's Park, as was suggested by the Motion brought forward by the hon. Member last week. When Lord Llanover first suggested that such a communication might be made it was referred to a Select Committee, and the result was that his Lordship withdrew his original proposition, and prepared a

  1239
  report which condemned the proposal, and which was unanimously adopted by the Committee. From that time to this no one had had the courage to suggest such a scheme to the House of Commons; and furthermore, when Lord Llanover submitted to the House a Vote of money for carrying out a plan interfering with the Park it was rejected by a large majority, and he had to reconsider the proposal he had made. Steps had already been taken by which Members of both Houses of Parliament were enabled to cross the Park from Marlborough Gate to Storey's Gate, and thus to reach Westminster without unnecessary delay, and without impeding the ordinary traffic between Charing Cross and Westminster. The hon. Member, however, proposed to go further, and to enable a public carriage communication to be opened between St. James's Street and Queen Square. If such a communication were to be opened, it would be desirable that it should be by means of a continuation of St. James's Street, through a portion of St. James's Palace, straight across the Park to Queen Square. Were such a road to be on a level with the rest of the Park the enjoyment of the Park by the public would be materially interfered with; if it were carried beneath the Park by means of a tunnel, it would not only be an unpleasant thoroughfare, but it would be very expensive to construct; if it were to run over an embankment the Park would be cut in two by a hideous object, it would be converted into a couple of squares resembling Russell Square, and would be entirely deprived of its present character; and if it were carried over the Park by a handsome and airy viaduct, although the enjoyment of the public would not be interfered with, the cost of such a structure with its approaches, would be nearly £200,000. The first question, therefore, to be decided was, whether the metropolis would undertake the construction of such a structure at such a cost, or whether it was to be made at the expense of the National Exchequer. If once Her Majesty's Government undertook to provide the necessary funds for works which the metropolitan authorities would not construct, pressure would be brought upon them by all the local authorities in the metropolis to execute improvements in other parts
  1240
  of London. Of course, Her Majesty's Government had no right to insist upon the Metropolitan Board of Works executing the work in question. All, therefore, that could be done was to make a carriage way for the use of the inhabitants in the immediate neighbourhood of Queen Square. It could not be made a public thoroughfare, because it would only admit one carriage at a time, leaving a very moderate footway for those who had to enter the Park; and as it would be merely a limited local convenience the inhabitants in the immediate neighbourhood who would profit by it had come forward to bear the expense of making it. But while the grand schemes for making a roadway through St. James's Park, of which the hon. Member for Whitehaven and other hon. Members had given Notice, were under consideration, he did not think it would be right for him to carry out the arrangement. On the understanding, however, that none of those schemes were recognized by what might now be done, he was quite willing to carry out the arrangement.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was surprised the right hon. Gentleman should have spoken to a Motion which was not before the House. To him it was a most extraordinary thing that a work which had been recognized as an improvement and a necessity, and one moreover which would not have entailed any expense upon the Government, should have been delayed for so long a time as it had. He was glad, however, to learn that the work was at last to be carried out. So far as his constituents were concerned they had great reason to complain of the delay. Whatever might be the view of the question as to the approach from Marl-borough House to Birdcage Walk, he hoped the Chief Commissioner of Works would see that no further delay took place in carrying out the plan which he had suggested.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that this Session, at all events, he would not renew his proposition for a carriage way across St. James's Park, and he hoped the desire of the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of Queen Square would be accomplished without further delay.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 55: Majority 12.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE' Bill to confirm Provisional Orders under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," and the Acts amending the same, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 185.]

  BETTING BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Bill to amend the Law relating to Betting, ordered to be brought in by Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, and Mr. BOWRING.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.]

  JURIES BILL.
  Select Committee on the Juries Bill to consist of Seventeen Members:—Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. LOPES, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. RAIKES, Mr. JAMES, Mr. KENNAWAY, Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. LAWRENCE, Mr. AMPHLETT, Mr. PEASE, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. DENMAN, Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Lord GEORGE CAVENDISH, Mr. STRAIGHT, and Sir WILFRID LAWSON:—Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.