Commons Sitting of 13 June 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Habitual Drunkards [No. 242].
SUPPLY—Postponed Resolutions 19–32 [reported 11th June] considered, and agreed to.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Railways Provisional Certificate Confirmation* [192]; Board of Trade Inquiries* [198]; Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* [116]; Custody of Infants [93], [House counted out].
Committee—Education (Scotland) [31]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Court of Chancery (Funds) (re-comm.) [140].
Report—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* [172].
Withdrawn—Bank Notes* [117].

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE LEGISLATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. F. S. POWELL, who had placed a Notice on the Paper to move the following Resolutions:—
  "1. That the range of Local Legislation affecting Towns and other Places ought to be contracted. 2. That the existing system of passing Local Bills on the same subjects as Public General Acts is inconvenient, works injustice between different Towns, and leads to unnecessary complication in the Laws affecting Local Government. 3. That no such Bills shall be introduced or passed unless upon proof (to the satisfaction of the Minister within whose department the subject matter lies) that the circumstances are excep-

  1667
  tional and are not provided for under the Public General Statutes,"
  said, he ventured to lay down the general principle that those who desired to live outside of the general statutes of the realm ought to make out a strong case before being permitted to have private or special legislation. A system, however, had grown up, by virtue of which communities came to Parliament, and, almost as a matter of right and of routine, exempted themselves from the operation of the public general statutes, and constructed local Acts to meet their own wishes and fancies. The number of local Acts in the case of our great towns was in some instances not less than 50 or 60. These statutes were often inconsistent with each other, and difficult of interpretation. He had, indeed, been informed by eminent Parliamentary counsel employed in a local Bill relating to waterworks, that counsel on both sides abandoned all hope of interpreting the Acts taken together; and that it was only by dealing with each Act alone, and throwing out of view all other Acts by mutual consent, that any reasonable progress could be made in the discussion. This circumstance was an incidental illustration of the inconvenience arising from the vicious system which he desired to abolish. He admitted that there were cases in which communities must necessarily regulate their affairs in certain particulars by exceptional legislation; but he believed, after having passed much time in the examination of local Acts, that the number of such communities was greatly exaggerated. On the contrary, he found, on comparison of local Acts, that whole groups of sections were either the same or differed only by the variations of language which must result when two men were engaged independently of each other in expressing the same idea. He found manufacturing towns, having the same industry, the residence of populations in every particular similar, and having similar local circumstances, did nevertheless apply with success for their own local Acts. These local Acts, he would observe, often excluded in express terms the public general Acts, and placed the towns wholly under this private and exceptional legislation. He admitted there would still remain communities which had a claim to some special enactments; but he believed that most of their wants would be
  1668
  met by amendments in the general laws. Surely a corporate town ought to have power to construct markets and town halls without a special law giving the necessary powers. But this system worked injustice. In public general statutes the Bill was introduced, debated, and passed without cost. Private Acts were attended by costs at every stage, whether of promotion or opposition. Parliament, in fact, abandoning the principle that laws were made equally for all, sold these laws to those who were willing to pay the price. It worked injustice between different towns, because the local Acts gave more extended and unequal periods for repayment of money borrowed, and thereby, by capricious action, diminished the pressure of rates in one town while relatively increasing it in another. The same industry experienced different treatment in different towns. In one town severe regulations against certain trades were enacted; in the next town the same trade was exempted even from the moderate restrictions of the public statutes. But there was still another evil—apart from the mere expense of opposition was the practical difficulty. New clauses were often introduced gravely but indirectly affecting private or public interests which never could be admitted into public Acts. Some weeks since they had an eager debate on Parks in London, and much jealousy was expressed in favour of maintaining foot-paths across them. It, therefore, was with no ordinary surprise that he found a local Act of a great Corporation stopping a much-prized foot-path across one of their Parks. He might say much on the inconvenience of this system; but he thought that he had already laid before the House abundant proof that a prompt and vigorous reform was necessary. It would doubtless be more convenient to take the Resolutions separately, and he therefore begged to move the second of the three Resolutions which he had placed on the Paper.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the existing system of passing Local Bills on the same subjects as Public General Acts is inconvenient, works injustice between different towns, and leads to unnecessary complication in the Laws affecting Local Government."—(Mr. Francis Sharp Powell.)
  MR. DENTsaid, he should move the Adjournment of the Debate, on the ground that the subject could not be discussed with any effect when there was so much important Public Business before them.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was prepared at once to admit the importance of the question; but, looking at the state of Business, he must express a hope that the hon. Member would agree to the adjournment of the discussion.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he was willing to accept the suggestion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION.

  JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.
  Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Keogh, one of the Judges selected, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the County of Galway, and also a Special Case submitted for the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland and the Order of the Court upon such Special Case.
  And that he had further received the Minutes of Evidence taken before Mr. Justice Keogh, and an Appendix to such Minutes of Evidence, together with a Copy of the Shorthand Writer's Notes of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh on the Trial of the said Election Petition.
  And the said Certificate and Report were read, as followeth:—
  GAWAY ELECTION,—The Parliamentary Elections Act 1868.
  Election Petition for County of Galway.
  To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  Dublin, 11th June, 1872.
  In the matter of a Petition presented to the Court of Common Pleas by Captain the honourable William le Poer Trench, candidate at the last Election for the County of Galway, against Captain John Philip Nolan, who was returned at the last Parliamentary Election for said County, by which Petition (a copy whereof I transmit herewith), it was prayed that it might be determined that the said William le Poer Trench was duly elected, and ought to have been returned, or that the said John Philip Nolan was not duly elected or returned.
  The trial of this Petition took place before me at Galway, in the said County, upon the first day of April last, and was continued, from day to day, until the 27th of May, in presence of the parties,
  1670
  their Counsel and Agents, and having heard the evidence which was given and counsel for both parties, I did then, at the conclusion of said trial, determine, and do accordingly certify that the said John Philip Nolan was not duly elected to serve in Parliament for the said County of Galway, and ought not to have been returned, and that the said John Philip Nolan had been by himself and his agents guilty of undue influence at such Election, within the meaning of "The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act 1854."
  I further determined, and do certify, that intimidation and undue influence, within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, did extensively prevail in the said County at and previous to such Election.
  I further certify that the persons whose names I have set forth in the Schedule number "One" to this Certificate annexed, were guilty, at and previous to said Election, of undue influence within the meaning of the provisions of said Act.
  And I do further report to Mr. Speaker that the Roman Catholic clergymen whose names have been set forth in the Schedule number "Two" to this Certificate annexed, being the persons of the same name included in Schedule "One," by threats and denunciations of temporal injury, and spiritual punishment, uttered during or immediately after Divine Service, and from the altars of their respective places of worship, and otherwise, as detailed in the evidence, intimidated and unduly influenced great numbers of the Roman Catholic electors of such County to vote for the said John Philip Nolan, or to refrain from voting against him. And further, it was proved that numbers of such electors who had promised to vote for the said William le Poer Trench afterwards had been compelled to vote for the said John Philip Nolan, or to refrain from voting for said William le Poer Trench, and had avowed they were so compelled by said intimidation and undue influence.
  And I further report that, although I have found and reported that the Most Reverend John Mac Hale, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, and the Most Reverend John Mc Evilly, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway, were guilty of undue influence, it was not proved that the said Most Reverend John Mac Hale, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, or that the said Most Reverend John Mc Evilly, Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway, sanctioned or had taken part in such denunciations as before-mentioned. And the Most Reverend the Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway proved that any such denunciations in a Roman Catholic chapel, and more especially if made against any person by name, are in direct violation of the ordinances of the Roman Catholic Church in force in Ireland, as enjoined by certain Synodical decrees furnished to the Court, and which are placed upon the Notes of Evidence.
  And I have further to report that the Reverend Patrick Loftus, one of the clergymen whose names appear in said Schedules, was proved by the testimony of several faithworthy witnesses to have, in connection with such Election, denounced from the altar of his church, in the presence of his congregation on the Sabbath, the wife of a gentleman an elector for said County, and resident in his parish, (both he and his said wife professing the Protestant religion) and to have made other statements material to the inquiry, which the said Reverend Patrick Loftus denied on his oath;

  1671
  and I, being satisfied of his wilful untruth, was then of opinion and so declared, and am now of opinion, that in his evidence before me he committed perjury.
  And I have further to report to Mr. Speaker that the Reverend Peter Conway mentioned in said Schedules is the same Reverend Peter Conway mentioned in the fifth resolution of the Report of the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the Mayo Election Petition 1857, which report was brought before me during the inquiry.
  And I have further to report that a system of intimidation prevailed throughout said County, for many weeks preceding said Election, to prevent voters recording their votes for the said William le Poer Trench, and that such intimidation was exercised, amongst other ways, by means of nocturnal visits to the houses of voters, and threats there uttered, and by the posting, and sending through the post office, threatening notices and letters to voters, and wives of voters, with a view to intimidate such voters from voting, as they had previously promised and intended, for the said William le Poer Trench.
  And I further report to Mr. Speaker that on the day of the polling, at some of the polling places in said County, especially in the towns of Tuam, Oughterard, and Ballinasloe, violent mobs were organised and did attack voters who were proceeding to the poll, to vote for the said William le Poer Trench, and returning there from, and that the lives of voters and agents for the said William le Poer Trench were endangered by such mobs, and that in one part of such County the high road was cut across to prevent voters reaching the poll.
  And I have further to report that the Reverend Patrick J. O'Brien, parish priest in the archdiocese of Tuam, who was the proposer of the said John Philip Nolan at said Election, publicly announced on the morning of the polling, at the polling place in Tuam, to a gentleman of the Protestant persuasion, who had there voted for the said William le Poer Trench, that "there would not be a hair of his head disturbed"—that nothing would he done to him—"that they were all renegade Roman Catholics, who would be excoriated."
  I have further to report that the voters throughout the County were, on the day of polling, systematically conducted to the booths by the Roman Catholic clergy, who interfered actively in such polling, and were in so doing acting as the agents of the said John Philip Nolan.
  And I certify that such acts and practices of the said Roman Catholic clergymen in the several ways and on the occasions to which I have referred, and, as otherwise fully detailed, not only in the evidence for and on behalf of the Petitioner, but upon the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, lay and clerical, produced to give evidence for the said John Philip Nolan, was inconsistent with the free exercise of the franchise by the electors of said County and subversive of freedom of election therein.
  And I have further to report to Mr. Speaker that, during the course of the trial, efforts were made to intimidate witnesses who had either given, or were about to give, evidence before me on such trial, in consequence of which I was obliged to commit to prison two persons, viz., Michael Roach and Patrick Barrett, for contempt of Court; the said Patrick Barrett being the
  1672
  person named in the evidence who was engaged actively, previous to such Election, insulting and intimidating electors, in the interest of said Petitioner, in language so obscene that a witness who deposed thereto refused to state it otherwise than in writing, as appears on the Notes.
  And further that, in one case, a witness who was in Court and about to be called before me by the Petitioner's agent, was addressed by two Roman Catholic clergymen, the Reverend James Staunton and Reverend Patrick Lavelle, on the subject of the evidence he was about to give, and particularly told by the said Reverend James Staunton that "there were two ways of telling the truth," and otherwise cautioned, as appears on the Notes of Evidence, and the said witness was some days afterwards severely beaten on the high road, and was produced before me to make affidavit of the treatment he had so received, but in consequence of the then late period of the inquiry I was unable to do more than remit the case to the ordinary tribunals.
  And I further certify that it appeared to me on the trial of such petition that certain questions of law required further consideration by the Court of Common Pleas before finally determining the matters referred to me, and that accordingly I should postpone granting this my Certificate until the determination of such questions by said Court of Common Pleas pursuant to "The Parliamentary Elections Act 1868."
  And I further certify that I submitted such questions to said Court, in a Case prepared by me for the purpose, and that, said Case having come on before said Court for argument, the Court, after hearing counsel for said William le poer Trench, and for said John Philip Nolan respectively, pronounced their judgment and determined thereon in answer to said questions to the following effect, videlicet: "That the electors who constituted the majority of said Respondent were fixed with sufficient knowledge of the disqualification of the said John Philip Nolan and should have acted on such disqualification, and refrained from voting for said John Philip Nolan. And further the said Court adjudged and determined that the said Honourable William le Poer Trench, there being no disqualification on his part, was entitled to be declared duly elected for said County."
  And I beg to refer to copies of said Case, and said Judgment or determination, which I transmit herewith.
  And I further certify that, having regard to said Judgment and determination, I have accordingly determined, and do determine, that the said Honourable William le Poer Trench was entitled to be declared duly elected for said County of Galway as representative in Parliament for said County. And I do accordingly certify that he was so elected.
  And I beg further to state that the copy of the evidence given at the trial, as taken down by the shorthand writer of the House of Commons, and as furnished by him to me, accompanies this my Certificate.
  Given under my hand this 11th June, 1872,
  WILLIAM KEOGH,
  Second Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and one of the Judges for the time being on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland.

  1673
  Schedule "One" in the foregoing Certificate referred to.
  Captain John Philip Nolan.
  Sebastian Nolan, esquire.
  The Most Reverend John Mac Hale, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam.
  The Most Reverend Patrick Duggan, Roman Catholic Bishop of Confert.
  The Most Reverend John Mc Evilly, Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway,
  The Reverends Patrick Loftus, Bartholomew Quin, James Staunton, Patrick Lavelle, Peter Conway, John Kemmy, Thomas Considine, John O'Grady, John Deely, Jerome Fahy, James Furlong, Patrick Cannon, Patrick Lyons, Patrick Kilkenny, Thomas Kerrins, Timothy Keevil, Coleman Galvin, Michael Byrne, Eugene White, Thomas Walsh, Patrick J. O'Brien, P. Melvin or Mullin, James Madden, William Manning, Malachi Greene, Patrick O'Meara, Patrick Coen, Francis Forde, William McGauran or McGovern, Francis Kenny, John McKeague or McKeirgue.
  Schedule "Two" in the foregoing Certificate referred to.
  The Reverends Patrick Loftus, Bartholomew Quin, James Staunton, Peter Conway, Thomas Considine, John O'Grady, Jerome Fahy, James Furlong, Patrick Cannon, Timothy Keevil, Cole-man Galvin, Michael Byrne, Eugene White, Thomas Walsh, James Madden, William Manning, Malachi Green, Patrick Coen, Francis Ford, William McGuaran or McGovern, Francis Kenny, John McKeague or McKeirgue.
  WILLIAM KEOGH, Election Judge.
  To the Right Honourable
  The Speaker of the House of Commons.
  COMMON PLEAS.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
  In the matter of the Election Petition for the County of Galway, between the Honourable William Le Poer Trench, Petitioner; Captain John Philip Nolan, Respondent.
  Case for the Determination of the Court of Common Pleas.
  I hereby certify that the above Petition to which I refer came on for trial before me at Galway, on the 1st of April last, and that, said trial having been continued from day to day, at the conclusion thereof, on the 27th day of May instant, it appeared to me requisite that before finally determining as to that portion of the Petition which prayed that the said Petitioner might be declared duly elected, and that he should have been returned, I should, under the 12th section of said Act reserve certain questions of law for the consideration of the Court of Common Pleas, and that I should accordingly postpone the granting the Certificate directed by the said Act until the determination of such questions by the said Court.
  I came to the conclusion, as a matter of fact, that the said Respondent had, previously to the said Election, by himself and his agents, committed the offence of undue influence upon the electors in order to induce and compel such electors to give their votes for him or to refrain from voting against him at said Election, contrary to law and against the provisions of the statutes
  1674
  against such practices made and provided, and especially against the provisions of the statute 17 and 18 Victoria, chap. 102, section 5.
  It was proved before me that the number of the electors on the registry for such County was 5,346, but that, making allowance for double entries and deaths, the real number of electors available to vote at the time of such Election, which took place on the 6th of February in this year, did not exceed 4,686, of these 2,823 voted for the Respondent, and 658 for the Petitioner. The Respondent was declared by the Sheriff duly elected.
  It was further proved before me that such undue influence had been practised upon the electors of the County, and had been carried out in pursuance of arrangements made by the said Respondent and his agents previous to such Election, and especially during the months of November and December of the last year, and the month of January of the present year.
  It was also proved that certain of the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church had, by letters written to and read at public meetings, and by resolutions adopted at meetings and conferences of the Roman Catholic clergy at which they presided, and which resolutions were printed, published, and made known throughout the County by the Respondent, and his agents aided and assisted in the exercise of such undue influence. It was also proved that many of the Roman Catholic clergy discharging ecclesiastical duties in said County had by their speeches at public meetings, held in various parts of the County commencing on the 10th of December of last year, and continued through the month of January in the present year, and by denunciations and threats of temporal injury and spiritual punishment uttered during and after Divine service, and in the presence of their congregations, had intimidated and unduly influenced the electors of such County, and that the said Respondent had made himself liable for their acts.
  It was also admitted upon both sides on such trial that at least nine-tenths of the electors were members of the Roman Catholic Church.
  I was satisfied that by the foregoing and other acts of intimidation proved against the Respondent and his agents the status of the said Respondent as a candidate qualified to be elected was destroyed, and that he was disqualified to be elected for the said County by such acts committed by him and his agents as hereinbefore described, and that such disqualification existed previous to the day of nomination for such Election, and that the knowledge of such acts, and especially of such intimidation and undue influence had become generally known through and amongst the great body of the electors throughout the County, and especially amongst those who afterwards voted for the said Respondent.
  It was further proved before me, that large numbers of the electors who had previously declared their intention to vote for said Petitioner had been compelled to vote for said Respondent, or to refrain from voting for the said Petitioner, and had avowed they were so compelled by such intimidation and undue influence. It was proved that the exercise of such intimidation and undue influence had become publicly known amongst the electors of such County previous to the day of nomination.
  It was further proved before me, that on the 3rd day of February, "being the day of nomination," the said Petitioner caused a notice to be posted at and in the immediate vicinity of the place of nomination for said County, and to be advertised in several of the newspapers published in the County, and to be extensively posted in the different polling-places for such County, cautioning the electors that said Respondent was disqualified from being elected for the said County as set forth in said Petition.
  It was further proved that at each of the different polling places and of the respective polling booths the said Petitioner had persons stationed with copies of such notices with the view of serving them on the electors previous to their recording their votes at the poll.
  It was further proved that these notices were served at each of the polling places (with one exception) on some of the electors previous to their voting, the numbers of such services varying considerably in different polling places, but not amounting in the aggregate of personal services to more than a few hundreds; and furthermore it was proved that attempts were made to serve numbers of such notices on the voters as they came to the poll, who either refused to receive them or were prevented receiving them by the confusion in the booths, sometimes by the agents of the Respondent, and frequently by the members of the Roman Catholic clergy who were engaged conducting the electors to the poll. In the excepted booth to which I have referred the person placed to serve the notices did not do so until after the electors had polled, having been told by one of the agents of thee Respondent that was the proper time to do so.
  It was further proved that numbers of those notices were scattered about on the floors and tables of the polling booths. They were all in the English language, and it was proved that many of the electors could not speak English.
  It was, on the foregoing facts, contended before me, on behalf of the Petitioner, that, the status of the said Respondent being destroyed thereby, the Petitioner was the only Candidate before the constituency eligible to receive their votes and be declared elected, and that I should accordingly declare him duly elected.
  It was however contended on the part of the Respondent that, notwithstanding the said Respondent being found ineligible, yet that the votes given to him were not thrown away, as the electors were not bound to act upon his ineligibility, even though made known to them by sufficient notice, until so declared by some competent legal tribunal; and, furthermore, that even if they were bound to act upon such ineligibility, though not so previously found, knowledge thereof was not sufficiently brought home to a sufficient number of electors to displace the majority of the said Respondent and to justify me in declaring said Petitioner duly elected.
  I therefore request the opinion and determination of the Court of Common Pleas upon the following questions:
  1st. Were the electors who constituted the majority of said Respondent fixed with sufficient knowledge of the disqualification of the said Respondent, and should they have acted upon such disqualification and refrained from voting for said Respondent?
  2nd. Was the Petitioner, there being no disqualification on his part, entitled to be declared elected for said County?
  WILLIAM KEOGH, 31st May, 1872.
  Received and filed in Election Petition Office this 31st May, 1872. C. G. BURKE, Master.
  I certify foregoing to be a correct copy.
  C. G. BURKE, Master C.P.

  COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY 11TH JUNE, 1872.
  In re the Parliamentary Elections Act 1868, and the County of Galway Election Petition.
  Honorable William De la Poer Trench, Petitioner;
  John Philip Nolan, Respondent.
  The Case stating certain questions of law for the determination of the Court having been called on for argument on the sixth day of June instant (the day duly appointed for the purpose) Serjeant Armstrong, with whom were Mr. Murphy, Q.C. and Mr. Persee appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, and Mr. Macdonagh, Q.C., with whom was Mr. MacDermott, appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Respondent. Whereupon on reading said Case and on hearing Counsel the argument was adjourned until the seventh day of June instant (the succeeding day), on which last-mentioned day, the argument having concluded, the Court reserved judgment. And on this day doth adjudge and determine, in answer to the first question submitted to them, that the electors who constituted the majority of said Respondent were fixed with sufficient knowledge of the disqualification of the said Respondent, and should have acted on such disqualification and refrained from voting for said Respondent.
  And, in answer to the second question submitted to them—whether the Petitioner (there being no disqualification on his part) was entitled to be declared duly elected,
  The Court doth adjudge and determine that the Petitioner, there being no disqualification on his part, was entitled to be declared duly elected for said County. C. G. BURKE, Master,
  Common Pleas, Ireland.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I beg to read to the House the 13th section of the Parliamentary Elections Act as the simplest mode of informing the House of the Motion I am about to make, and the rendering it unnecessary that I should make any statement, or give any reasons for the course I am about to pursue. The 12th section of the Act refers to the proceedings before the Election Judge, and then the 13th section provides
  "That the House of Commons, on being informed by the Speaker of such Certificate and Report or Reports, if any, shall order the same to be entered on the Journals, and shall give the necessary directions for confirming or altering the Return, or for issuing a writ for a new Election, or for carrying the determination of the Judge into execution, as circumstances may require."
  The first proceeding therefore is, that the House shall order the same to be

  1677
  entered in the Journals of the House, and as a matter of course I make that Motion.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the said Certificate and Report from Mr. Justice Keogh, together with the Special Case and Order of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, be entered in the Journals of this House."
  Motion agreed to.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The further duty, as prescribed by the Act, is that I should move
  "That the Clerk of the Crown do attend this House to-morrow, at Two of the clock, with the last Return for the County of Galway, and amend the same, by rasing out the name of John Philip Nolan, esquire, and inserting the name of Captain the Honourable William le Poer Trench, instead thereof."
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: Sir, I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion this evening. It may be perfectly true that under the provisions of this very extraordinary Act this House has no power whatever to refuse to seat Captain Trench, who has been declared by the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland duly elected for the county of Galway; but it is of the greatest possible importance in a case of this kind—which is a case of first impressions—that the attention of the House should be called to the decision of the Court of Common Pleas; but, of course, it is utterly impossible to do so this evening, as we have not before us the Certificate of the learned Judge, nor the decision of the Court on which it is founded. I do not propose to raise any Motion to-night; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will postpone this Motion until the Papers are in our hands—say to-morrow or Monday—I shall be prepared to move the Motion of which I gave Notice yesterday as an Amendment to this extraordinary Motion. I take it that it is of the utmost importance that this decision, which is one of the highest constitutional weight, and for which there is no precedent, should be calmly considered by the House, and that it should be clearly ascertained by the House whether we are bound to carry it out according to the statute. The learned Judges who decided the case in the Court of Common Pleas stated that there was no decision in point to guide them—that this was a case of first impressions;
  1678
  and that being so, I think that before this House directs the Return to be amended in the manner suggested by the Prime Minister, we should have an opportunity of entering our protest against the decision even if we are bound to carry it out according to the statute. I look on the decision of the Court of Common Pleas as one of the most dangerous decisions as affecting the rights of the electors of the whole country that could be made by any Court of Justice, and the more it is canvassed and considered, the more it will be found to be a decision that ought not to have been made. I say it with respect, but as strongly as I can, that, in my opinion, this decision goes out without authority and will return without respect, and therefore I think the House ought to have an opportunity of considering the decision. I do not propose in so doing to raise any question as to the unseating of Mr. Nolan, but to bring under the attention of the House the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, but which I am unable to do to-night from the want of the necessary Papers. I think I am not asking too much in asking to have the matter postponed for a few days. We can carry out the provisions of the statute, if we are bound to do so, quite as well on Monday as tonight; and in the meantime we shall have an opportunity of looking into the case.
  MR. BOUVERIE: Sir, if the Act of Parliament had given any discretion to the House, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would not have been unreasonable; but the House must bear in mind that it is absolutely powerless in this matter. In spite of the protest of a powerful minority, of which I happened to be one, which pointed out, when the Parliamentary Elections Bill was under discussion, that we were parting with the power of dealing with the seats of this House which the common law gave us, and handing it over to the Judges, the House deliberately agreed by Act of Parliament to the taking of all authority and discretion in the matter out of their own hands. The right hon. Gentleman, in proposing his Motion, did not refer to the previous section to that which provides for the finding of the Judges, to which the 13th section was merely confined. The 13th sub-section of the 11th section provides that—

  1679
  "At the conclusion of the trial the Judge who tries the Petition shall determine whether a Member whose return or election is complained of, or any and what other person was duly returned or elected, or whether the election was void, shall forthwith certify in writing such determination to the Speaker, and upon such certificate being given such decision shall be final to all intents and purposes."
  The next clause provides for an appeal to the Court above, whose decision shall also be final. So that we have absolutely no power whatever in the matter, but we are in this position—that having no power we are unable to deal with the matter at all, and that Captain Trench is entitled to his seat, as has been found by the proper tribunal; and, moreover, that he was entitled to it from the date of the election, now some considerable time ago. Therefore, in common justice, and in compliance with the Act, we are bound to proceed as rapidly as the forms under which we act will allow us to do to place Captain Trench in that seat which he is entitled to occupy.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was about, when my right hon. Friend who has just spoken rose, to remark that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clare had, in his speech, and in the procedure he suggested connected together two things which are really distinct. The one is whether the judgment of the Court in Ireland is a matter demanding or warranting the attention of Parliament; the other is, whether the attention of Parliament can only with propriety be called to it in the interval between our receiving the Certificate and Report of the Judge and our giving effect thereto. Now I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that this judgment is one of great importance, and while, of course, I give no opinion in relation to it, I admit that it is within the right or discretion of any hon. Member to call attention to it. No one can question the legitimacy of such a course, but I cannot see any connection between that and the duty we are now called upon to discharge. In the event of the House acceding to my Motion, it will remain perfectly open to my right hon. Friend or any other hon. Member to make any Motion he pleases, or give any opinion upon the judgment. On the other hand, it appears to us, on examining this section of the Act, that it is our duty neither to deny justice nor to delay it. I admit that we might be perfectly warranted in postponing our compliance
  1680
  with this positive injunction could it be shown that such postponement had a bearing upon something we were to do under the Act; but no discussion that can be raised can have the smallest bearing on the course which we are bound to take. As my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) has pointed out, we have parted with our powers as an independent portion of the Legislature in this matter. We are, therefore, now only called upon to perform Ministerial duties, and we must perform them with the same exactitude—I will add even the same submission and the same desire to set an example of obedience to the law—as the humblest agent of the law. It appears to me, therefore, that to delay compliance with the injunctions of the statute with regard to the consequences of the Certificate and Report of the Judge would tend to cast a doubt upon the dignity of the proceedings of the House, and would not really be warranted by the spirit and intent of the Act. I trust, therefore, the House will agree to the Motion I have made.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, being responsible for the introduction of this Act, I wish to say one word. The proposition which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to bring forward is that there should be an appeal to this House from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. Now, without giving any opinion on the merits of that particular decision—quite unnecessary at the present moment—I beg to remind the House that the question whether there should be an appeal or not was brought under the consideration of Parliament, and was definitively decided in the negative.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Clerk of the Crown do attend this House To-morrow, at Two of the clock, with the last Return for the County of Galway, and amend the same, by rasing out the name of John Philip Nolan, esquire, and inserting the name of Captain the Honourable William le Poer Trench, instead thereof.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): Sir, I beg to move that the Evidence taken at the trial of the Election Petition for the County of Galway and the Judgment of the learned Judge be printed.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: Sir, I wish to ask whether, as the Act expires on the 1st of August this year, and is proposed to be made permanent by a clause in the Corrupt Practices Act—as the working of the Act has been so well estimated by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House and out-of-doors—it is not worthy the consideration of the House whether the Act should be continued or not, or whether it had not better be amended by a separate Bill providing that Election Petitions shall be tried before three Judges instead of one, and that there shall be an appeal? It is of great importance to Irish Members—many of whom have to go on Circuit the first week in July—to know when the clause in the Corrupt Practices Bill, making this Act permanent, will come on for discussion, and I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will bring it forward some day in the present month.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I beg to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that he should add to his Motion that there should be also printed the Case that was laid before the Court of Common Pleas, and upon which that Court delivered judgment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): The Case that was laid before the Court of Common Pleas is already before the House, and I have no objection to its being included in my Motion.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: In reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare, when we come to consider what we shall have to do before many days elapse—the further order of Business after the disposal of the Scotch Education Bill and the Mines Regulation Bill, I will bear in mind what has happened to-night in reference to the Galway Election Petition, and we will make the best arrangements we can in reference to it.
  SIR JOHN GRAY: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland speaks of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, does he mean the shorthand writer's notes, or another document purporting to be the Judgment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): I mean the shorthand writer's notes.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Copy of the Shorthand Writer's Notes of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh on the Trial of the Galway County Election Petition [No. 241]:
  Also the Minutes of the Evidence taken at the Trial of the said Election Petition, and the Appendix thereto [No. 241], be printed.—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—LUDLOW SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
MR. DIXONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is aware that the children attending the public elementary school of the parish of Ludlow were taken by the master to church at eleven o'clock in the morning on Holy Thursday; and whether this proceeding was not in violation of section 7 of the Elementary Education Act?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have made inquiries into the facts of the case, and I find that some of the children attending the National School in Ludlow, and also that some of the children attending the elementary school, did, accompanied by the master, attend in church on the morning of Ascension Day. I find also that has been the general practice in that school, and also that the fullest opportunities were given to children not to attend in church whose parents did not wish them to attend. I find also that the day is not counted as one of the days for which money is given under the Code. It is counted as one of the holidays. Under these circumstances, I do not think the proceeding in question was a violation of the Elementary Education Act.

COLONIES—CROWN LANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. MACFIEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he is cognisant of any negotiations having for their object surrender of the proprietary or the other rights of the Crown over waste lands in Natal; and, if so, whether he will inform the House what is the extent of these lands, and whether their present and prospective value has been estimated, and what is the number of the British population to whom they would be transferred; what conditions,

1683
favourable to immigration, would be made as to the application of the revenue accruing from sales and leases of these lands; the same with regard to Western Australia; whether there is not a probability that responsible Government will be immediately established in Western Australia, and in this event what course Her Majesty's Government will take with respect to the control and disposal of the Crown lands there; and, what is the extent of the waste lands that after such transferences would remain under control of the Crown in any part of the Empire?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, there are, in round numbers, about 3,000,000 acres of Crown lands in Natal. The negotiations relative to the projected railways in that colony comprise a proposal to transfer a large portion of these lands to the railway company. That has always been found one of the best ways of encouraging enterprize, of developing the resources of a colony, and promoting an increase of white settlers. The same has been done to a limited extent in Western Australia in the case of two companies within the last three years. The area of Crown lands is very extensive—upwards of 600,000,000 acres, of which about 1,500,000 acres have been alienated since the establishment of the colony in 1829. There is no probability of responsible Government being immediately established in Western Australia; and until there is such a probability, the hon. Member will hardly expect me to explain the course which Her Majesty's Government would take in such a contingency. The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's Question—namely, what is the extent of the waste lands that after such transference would remain under the control of the Crown in any part of the Empire, could only be answered by reference to the different colonies, involving a delay of many months before the information could be obtained with any approach to accuracy. The extent of these lands, however, is very large.

INDIAN LABOURERS IN THE MAURITIUS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GILPINasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a day labourer (Indian) in the mountains is obliged to pay one pound for a licence to earn his living as a labourer; and,
  1684
  whether a sugar planter is subject to any licence on entering upon his business?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: It is quite true, Sir, that under existing regulations the old immigrants in Mauritius—that is, those immigrants whose indentures have expired—are required to hold a licence, for which they pay £1 per annum. This is to insure identification and to check vagrancy. It is also true that sugar planters are not subject to any licence, being easily identified and not likely to become vagrants. I may, however, remind my hon. Friend that the whole subject of the condition of the Indian immigrants in Mauritius is now under the consideration of a Royal Commission, and that this point, with others, cannot fail to receive their special attention.

LAND RETURNS—THE "NEW DOMESDAY BOOK."—QUESTION.
MR. WREN-HOSKYNSasked, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table of the House before the close of this Session, the Land Returns moved for elsewhere, and promised in this House, under the title of the "New Domesday Book;" and, whether those Returns will distinguish all the land held in mortmain by corporate owners, viz., Ecclesiastical, Charitable, Collegiate, Municipal, and belonging to Hospitals and Chartered Companies?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, in reply, that the Returns in question were being prepared upon information contained in the valuation lists, corrected as far as possible by the knowledge and information obtained by the clerks of the different unions, and as far as possible the Returns would distinguish all the land held in mortmain by ecclesiastical, charitable, collegiate and municipal corporations, and belonging also to hospitals and chartered companies.

POST OFFICE—IRISH MAILS—MILFORD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GILPINasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the advantages of Milford as a Foreign and South Irish Mail Packet Station, and to the saving of time that would accrue to the cities of London, Manchester, Birmingham, and the Midland

  1685
  districts by the delivery thereat and despatch of mails there from?
  MR. MONSELL, in reply, said, the subject of Irish mails had been frequently considered by that House. With regard to foreign mails, the steam packet companies ordinarily selected their own ports, and in doing so they were chiefly guided by commercial considerations. With regard to the Irish mail, the hon. Member must be aware that considering the distance between Milford and Waterford, and the comparative slowness of the steamers that ran from Milford to Waterford, there would be a loss of time even to the most southern parts of Ireland in sending mails by the Milford route. If the improvements which he understood were now being made at Fishguard, and by which a shorter route from England to Ireland might be made than by Holy-head, then no doubt the circumstances of the case would be altogether altered, and the Post Office would re-consider the subject.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS—TREASURY REVISION OF COSTS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHARTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is prepared to state the alternative scheme to be adopted in lieu of the former system of taxation by the Treasury of the costs in criminal prosecutions; and, if not, when he will do so?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that the Government had considered how best to give effect to the promise which was made by them on the withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), and had come to the conclusion that that might be done by the introduction of Amendments in the Public Prosecutors Bill, which would be before the House on Wednesday next. The effect of those Amendments would be to relieve counties and boroughs of the statutory obligations to which they were now subject in regard to costs in criminal prosecutions; and they would be laid on the Table in time for their consideration before the Bill was proceeded with, but not before Monday.

CRIMINAL LAW—COLLUMPTON MAGISTRATES—CASE OF JOHN WEBBER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What is the result of the inquiry he has made into the conduct of the magistrates sitting in petty-sessions at Collumpton on Monday June 3rd, in the case of John Webber, a farm labourer?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he had received explanations from the magistrates on this subject. In the first place, he might observe that the decision itself at which they arrived had reference to one of the most difficult questions with which magistrates had to deal—namely, what is and what is not a contract, and for what time was that contract made; and he was bound to say that, after reading the explanations, the decision was honestly arrived at, whether it was a correct decision or not. With regard to the scene that followed, the chairman of the magistrates denied, in warm terms, the accuracy of the statement made by the person who had described the scene. No doubt the conduct of the magistrates, if correctly represented by that person, could not be defended; but as the accuracy of the statement was disputed the course to be pursued, in case of further action being taken, was to make distinct charges to the Lord Chancellor, who was the officer deputed by law to deal with such matters.

METROPOLIS—CHELSEA TOLL BRIDGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEEKasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the financial position of the Government toll bridge at Chelsea has improved or otherwise during the past two years; whether any of the land surrounding Battersea Park has within such period been sold; and, when the freedom from toll anticipated and intended to be provided for by the Act of 1858 may be expected?
  MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, the balance of the debt charged on Chelsea Bridge up to 1870 was £101,604, and he was happy to inform the hon. Member that in March, 1872, it was reduced to £92,000. From that fact, and from the accounts which had been laid on the Table of the House, the hon. Member

  1687
  would be able to form his own conclusions as to when the debt would be entirely liquidated. With regard to the land around Battersea Park, three-quarters of an acre had been sold during the period named in the Question for the sum of £3,250.

RAILWAYS—COMMUNICATION WITH GUARDS—THE CORD SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HINDE PALMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the recent Report of Captain Tyler as to the failure on one of the leading lines of Railway of the cord communication between passengers and guards; and, whether he intends to take any steps for ascertaining the best and most certain system of communication which can be used, in compliance with the 22nd section of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, that since the receipt of Captain Tyler's Report this subject had been considered by the Board of Trade, and the opinions of the Inspectors of Railways taken upon it. It appeared, on the whole, that the cord system had, to a great extent, proved a failure, and that among the many remedies suggested an electric system of communication was most likely to prove successful. His hon. and learned Friend was not quite accurate as to the functions of the Board of Trade. They had no power of initiative, either with regard to devising or prescribing any particular system of communication. What they could do was to withdraw the provisional approval which was given to the cord communication now in use on the Railways, and to call upon the Companies to substitute some better arrangement, and propose it for the approval of the Board of Trade. That was the course he meant to take.

SUEZ CANAL—INCREASE OF DUES— NET AND GROSS TONNAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORWOODasked the Presided of the Board of Trade, Whether hit attention has been directed to a notification of the Suez Canal Company, that on and after the 1st July next, the toll
  1688
  of ten francs per ton now levied on the net tonnage (or cargo capacity) of steamers will be charged on the gross tonnage; and, whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken as to the power of the Company, consistently with the terms of its Concession, to levy dues on that portion of the tonnage of a merchant steam vessel occupied by its machinery and fuel?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had not been taken on this subject, and he was not sure whether the Government would think it right to take their opinion as to the effect of the terms of a concession made by a Foreign Government to a Foreign Company. But with regard to the facts of the case, he had reason to believe, from information he had obtained at the Foreign Office, that the notification referred to had been given by the Suez Canal Company. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had taken steps at his request to secure full information on the subject from our Ambassador at Constantinople.
  MR. NORWOODinquired, whether it was true that the Italian Government had taken diplomatic action in the matter?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Board of Trade had not received any information of the kind from the Foreign Office.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT—DIGEST OF SANITARY LAWS.—QUESTION.
SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has completed the digest or code of existing Sanitary Laws for the use of the Local Authorities which he referred to as being in progress two months since; and, if so, whether he would give Members of this House the benefit of the information which it contains by laying such digest upon the Table of the House previous to going into Committee on the Public Health Bill?
MR. STANSFELD, in reply, said, the digest to which the hon. Member referred, and which was in course of preparation, was in the nature of a popular digest, and the hon. Gentleman might remember he called it a vade mecum of sanitary law. The object which he had in

1689
view was, that when the Public Health Bill became law the local sanitary authorities and their officers might have in their possession in an easy, intelligible, and popular form some kind of digest of existing sanitary Acts as affected by the Public Health Act. He had never, therefore, contemplated completing that digest until the Public Health Bill should have passed both Houses of Parliament. With regard to the second Question, no more complete digest of existing sanitary laws could be had than that contained in the Report of the Commissioners, which had been laid on the Table of the House.
SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, the Report contained 167 pages of printed matter, and therefore could not be said to afford the precise digest which would be useful to hon. Members.

ORDNANCE SURVEY—LINCOLNSHIRE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WELBYasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, How soon a new Ordnance Survey of Lincolnshire may be expected to be published, and on what scale or scales the maps will be drawn?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that, according to the new principle by which the surveyors were to be guided, counties of the greatest importance would be first selected; but the selection would be qualified by a regard to the requirements of the War Office. At that rate Lincolnshire would probably be surveyed in the course of the next 10 years.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT— ELECTION OF SCHOOL BOARDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he proposes to introduce, in the present Session, a Bill to regulate the elections for School Boards; and, if so, whether such Bill will contain any provisions for the purpose of limiting the frequency of contests in parishes where the proposition to establish a School Board has been rejected?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he hoped to be allowed very shortly to introduce a Bill regulating the election of school boards. What its provisions would be he could not state to the House
  1690
  until the Bill was brought forward; but he might explain that a provision already existed which prevented the ratepayers or town council from renewing the consideration of the propriety of establishing a school board within 12 months of the rejection of a similar proposition. He thought that provision adequate.

SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM—NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, Whether he is able to inform the House how soon the new buildings at South Kensington for the reception of the Natural History Collections of the British Museum are likely to be commenced?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that he regretted there had been considerable delay in commencing the construction of the new buildings at South Kensington for the reception of the Natural History Collections of the British Museum. The architect's sketch plans were sent in during May of last year, and certain questions arose with regard to them which occupied some time to consider; and the further plans were not ready until a much later date than was anticipated. When they were ready tenders had to be invited for the work, and the examination of plans and specifications took up considerable time. Difficulties had also arisen in consequence of the introduction into the building of terra cotta, which required particular precautions. He hoped that in the course of two months some competent contractor would be entrusted with the work.

LIQUOR LAWS IN THE COLONIES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When he will be prepared to lay upon the Table the Returns stating the different Laws in force in our various Colonies for restricting or prohibiting the Liquor Traffic, and the results of such Laws?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in reply, said, he had received answers from most if not all the colonies respecting the different laws in force there for restricting or prohibiting the liquor traffic, and stating the results of such laws. There had been some accidental

  1691
  delay in the production of the Papers, which would be presented to the House very shortly.

NAVY—CAPTAINS OF MARINES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he proposes to advance to the rank of Major the senior Captains of Marines, as is now about to be done in the corresponding seniority corps—viz., the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, he understood the proposal with regard to the Army to be to advance certain captains who had more important duties to perform than other captains to the rank of major, and not on account of the number of years of their seniority. That distinction, however, did not exist in the Admiralty. With regard to the senior captains of Marines, he would not say that the question was absolutely settled, for it was still under consideration; but he would be sorry to raise expectations that might afterwards not be realized.

ARMY—MARTINI-HENRY RIFLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has authorized Mr. Andrews, a carpenter and pattern maker in the arsenal at Woolwich, to proceed to Constantinople in order to practise with the Martini-Henry rifle, and thus to induce the Turkish Government to adopt it; whether Mr. Andrews is still in the public service; whether he goes to Constantinople at the cost of the nation; and for how long a time he has received leave to absent himself from his duties at Woolwich?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the Secretary of State has not authorized Mr. Andrews to proceed to Constantinople. The facts of the case are as follows:—On the 7th of May Mr. Andrews, a carpenter employed in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, received leave of absence, on his private affairs, from the head of his department for one month, without pay. He has not yet returned. Mr. Andrews is still a carpenter in the Royal Arsenal, and he has not gone abroad at the cost of the public. This morning a letter was received from the
  1692
  agent of Mr. Martini, dated at Constantinople, the 4th of June, applying for an extension of the leave of absence of Mr. Andrews, who, I may observe, is one of the best rifle shots in England. Until this letter was received, the superintendent of the Royal Laboratory, the head of his department, was not aware that Mr. Andrews was at Constantinople, nor out of England, nor in any way employed by Mr. Martini.

ARMY—SCIENTIFIC CORPS—PROMOTION IN THE ARTILLERY AND ENGINEERS.—QUESTION.
MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for War, What number of First Captains of Artillery and Engineers would be promoted to be Regimental Majors under the proposed new Warrant; what numbers of them are borne in the British and Indian establishments respectively; what increase of regimental pay and allowances would it give in each case; what will be the increase in the Army Estimates for the numbers so promoted; what will be the increased cost to the Indian Government; and, does he propose to provide for the cost falling in the present financial year by a Supplementary Estimate?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the number of first-captains of artillery who will be promoted to be Regimental Majors under the proposed new Warrant will be, on the Imperial establishment, 155; on the Indian establishment, 128—making 283. The number of captains of Royal Engineers will be, on the Imperial establishment, 72; on the Indian establishment, 67—total, 139. When the new battalions are completed in the Engineers there will be 16 more, making a total of 155. Some of these, however, already hold brevet rank. The increase of regimental pay and allowances will be to the Royal Horse Artillery, 4s. 4d. a-day; to the Field and Garrison Artillery, 4s. 8d.; and to the Royal Engineers, 6s.; such officers as require forage also receiving forage allowance. The increase in the Army Estimates for the numbers thus promoted will be for the Royal Artillery, £13,084; for the Royal Engineers, £7,600—making £20,684. I am not precisely informed what the charge to India will be; but before the

1693
plan was adopted communication was held with the India Office as to the mode of payment, in order to avoid the great additional expense under the Indian contract system. Provision has already been made for the cost in this country in the Estimates of the present financial year, and no Supplemental Vote will be required.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. THE SAN JUAN ARBITRATION. CANADIAN CLAIMS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CORRANCE: Perhaps, under the present extraordinary circumstances, the Prime Minister will, without the formality of a Notice, give an answer to the following Question with regard to the negotiations as to the Island of San Juan. I wish to know—first, having reference to the telegraphic despatch from Berlin which has appeared in this day's papers—Whether Her Majesty's Government can give any information as to the unexpected or sudden presentation on the 10th instant by our Ambassador at Berlin of the British Answer respecting the St. Juan difficulty referred to the Arbitration of the Emperor of Germany; and, secondly, whether, in pursuance of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman on Monday last, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, pending further negotiations, to proceed with any reference of the Canadian Claims or Questions on the basis laid down by the Washington Commission?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that Notice of a Question is not insisted upon as a mere formality—it is necessary in order that Ministers may be able to inform themselves on the subject of the Question and so give an answer with perfect accuracy. I am in a condition to say simply this—that we have no official information—neither I nor the Foreign Office—with regard to the paragraph in the paper about a supposed unexpected or sudden presentation of a document by the British Ambassador relating to the Arbitration at Berlin on the Island of San Juan; there has been no suspension, so far as we know or are concerned, of any proceedings which are now going on at Berlin under the Treaty. That, I
  1694
  think, is a complete answer to that Question of my hon. Friend. I have now to address a Question on my own account to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) as to a Notice standing on the Paper in his name for to-morrow, which discusses the general system of diplomatic negotiations, and affirms the desirableness that all treaty engagements should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament before being ratified, with a view to the cognizance by Parliament of negotiations before they are brought to a conclusion. To-morrow will not be a convenient day for bringing forward this subject. My hon. Friend kindly acceded to a request on a former occasion that he would postpone his Motion on general grounds; and there is now a specific ground for a further postponement, because Papers which will be laid on the Table to-morrow and will be in the hands of Members on Monday will, I think, throw some light—not directly, but still some real light—on the subject of his Motion.
  MR. RYLANDS: I must express my regret that, for the second time, I have been asked to postpone my Motion, which, I think, is one of very considerable interest, and which it certainly appears to me derives very considerable illustration from recent events. And I regret it all the more, because I fear that, the Session being so far advanced, I shall probably not have another opportunity this year of bringing my Motion forward. However, under the circumstances stated by the right hon. Gentleman, and as I do not wish in any way to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, I agree to postpone the Motion.
  MR. CORRANCE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question. ["Order!"]
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government a Question of which I have given him private Notice—and I regret that that Notice should have been so short; but the incidents affecting the subject to which the Question relates change so rapidly, while they are of such great public interest, that it is exceedingly difficult to anticipate the course of events. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can inform the House whether the statements which have appeared

  1695
  in the public journals to the effect that Mr. Fish has declined to concur in the application for the adjournment of the Arbitration at Geneva and that the American Ministers have dispersed from Washington, are correct? I also wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to assure the House that, in accordance with the Letter of Lord Granville, no application for adjournment will be made except on the joint application of the two Governments?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I presume the Question of the hon. Baronet refers to the statement in one of the newspapers of to-day—I believe in The Daily News—which purports to be from their New York correspondent. That statement, as reported, is in reality an abridgment from the last communication which has passed from Lord Granville to General Schenck, the Minister of the United States. But, without saying more than that on its general tenour, I would observe that there is an important error in the latter portion of the statement—in, I think, the last line but two—and that error consists in the omission of the word "not." As hon. Gentlemen will see, that error has a very important bearing on the meaning of the communication. Having said that, I will now say more specifically with respect to the Question of the hon. Gentleman—as to the concurrence of the American Government in any application for an adjournment—it is true the American Government have declined to be a party to a joint application for adjournment. And in stating that I do not think I should be doing justice to the American Government—though there is a certain amount of inconvenience in referring to Papers which are not yet on the Table—if I did not add that they have likewise pointed out the reasons for declining to be a party to any such application. That reason is that the American Government has had for its object from the first—though they have consented to deviate from their line of action on certain conditions—nothing in the world but the bringing before the Arbitrators everything there is now in the Cases. Consequently, it appears to them that they are not the parties to put any obstacle by any action of their own in the way of proceeding before the Arbitrators by a joint application. With respect to
  1696
  the American Ministers having dispersed from Washington, I have nothing to say, because I am not aware that we have received any information except with regard to Mr. Fish. What I understand with regard to Mr. Fish is, that Mr. Fish's health—I am afraid it has not profited by these negotiations, although he does not enjoy the sanitary advantages which we possess of sitting eight or nine hours a day in a Legislative Assembly—has suffered considerably, and it is, I believe, true, that he has retired from Washington to his country house. As to the latter part of the Question, I will only say that I think it must have arisen out of the error in the newspaper to which I have already referred. There is no statement in the Letter of Lord Granville to the effect that no application to the Arbitrators for ah adjournment should be made except as a joint application. I am, of course, giving no information in the matter beyond stating that the report does not in this respect give a correct representation of what has actually occurred.
  MR. OTWAY: I wish to ask a Question of the Prime Minister, the nature of which I have intimated to him. The subject has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Corrance); but my Question differs from his, inasmuch as it relates to an answer which the right hon. Gentleman has already given in this House. The House is aware that the Treaty of Washington refers to other matters besides the so-called Alabama Claims—namely, the Canadian Fisheries, the San Juan Boundary, and the claims to be made before the Commission lately sitting at Washington. An hon. Member opposite—I think the hon. Member for Sussex—asked the Prime Minister the other day whether, supposing the Arbitration at Geneva were to come to an end, the other three questions, connected as they are with the Treaty of Washington, would come to an end also? The right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, said, in reply, that, in his opinion, those questions would not necessarily fall with the failure of the Arbitration at Geneva. Now, Sir, I wish to call the attention of the House, very briefly, to this answer in relation to this very grave matter. In the 35th Protocol of the 3rd of May, after setting forth the history of the San Juan difficulty, and, after referring

  1697
  to the fact that the United States had on so many occasions refused to submit this question for Arbitration, it is stated that the Commissioners of the United States consented that it should be referred for Arbitration under the following circumstances—"Should the other questions in the Treaty be satisfactorily adjusted." Under these circumstances, and reminding the House of the conditions under which the joint occupation of San Juan is now held, and that the United States Government have declared that they would permit that joint occupation only until the question should have been settled diplomatically, I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied, supposing the Arbitration at Geneva to come to an end on the 15th—and there can be no doubt in the mind of any man that on the 15th it will come to nought. ["Order!"] If my hon. Friend (Mr. Melly), who is so enthusiastic, will restrain his enthusiasm for a moment he will find that I am perfectly in Order. He has not been very long in the House and is probably not well acquainted with the Rules of Order. Supposing, I say, the Arbitration to come to nought on the 15th, I should like to know from my right hon. Friend, whether he is of opinion that the San Juan Boundary Convention can be maintained; and especially whether he has entered, or is about to enter, into negotiations with the Government of the United States on this subject.
  VISCOUNT BURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I wish to put to him a further Question. We have learnt from the same sources of information as that from which my hon. Friend (Mr. Corrance) derived his intelligence, that if an adjournment is agreed to by the two Governments on the 15th, Lord Granville intends to lay before the Arbitrators the Argument on which he relies, and to accompany it with a document in the nature of a protest to save British rights in regard to the Indirect Claims. We have been told that Mr. Fish has stated in answer that any such document presented to the Arbitrators would be repelled with considerable indignation—and, in fact, would be considered by the American Government as completely putting an end to all negotiations. The question under those circumstances which I wish to ask my right hon. Friend is, whether this in-
  1698
  formation is correct—that the presentation of such a document as Lord Granville intends to hand in will put an end to all negotiations; and, if so, in what way Lord Granville proposes to save British rights, supposing an adjournment of the Arbitration to be agreed upon?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The answer which I gave the other night, and the more specific answer which was given by my noble Friend Lord Granville in the other House, was to the effect that the statement which appeared in the public Press on Tuesday last was substantially correct with respect to the document to which it referred. My noble Friend has no doubt read the papers which have since appeared, and has seen that in the course of the correspondence that document has passed away, and does not exist at this moment for any practical purpose. Another document of a subsequent date has proceeded from the British Government; and, therefore, it would be quite vain for me to go back to the discussion of the prior document, on which no practical issue at present depends—though I think that when the Papers come before the House it may form a most proper subject for any opinion or any judgment which hon. Members may deem fit to pass upon it. That is my answer to my noble Friend (Viscount Bury). As to the Question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Otway) I am bound to say he has propounded a most important matter. It is a question inter apices juris, to use a legal expression; but the answer which he supposes me to have given on a former occasion is one which in point of fact I never gave, for I have never been asked to pronounce any opinion in public on the point which he raises. The opinion which I gave the other day referred to a matter totally distinct, and my hon. Friend must, I think, have been misled by some accidental misreport of the words which fell from me on that occasion. I can easily understand how in the case of complicated questions, such as these on which discussions suddenly arise, and are hastily conducted in this House, misapprehensions of this kind may arise. The point presented to me in a distinct manner on a former day was this—whether, according to the belief and judgment of the Government, an adjournment of the proceedings at Geneva would have the result of inter-

  1699
  cepting the fulfilment of the Treaty in its other and distinct provisions—separable from those involved in the proceedings at Geneva. To that I replied, with some confidence, that, in our judgment, it would produce no such effect. We do not presume to give an authoritative opinion on International Law with regard to hypothetical cases, but our judgment and interpretation is that all the other provisions whatsoever of the Treaty may go forward just as if no such adjournment occurred. That was the purport of the answer which I gave on a former day, I may now add casually that by no proceeding, so far as we are concerned in connection with any portion of the Treaty, nor, so far as we are aware, by any proceeding taken by others, has anything been suspended because of the difficulties which have arisen on that portion of the Case which relates to the Alabama. I think that, under the circumstances, Questions so very large and important as those embraced in the remarks of my hon. Friend ought not to be made by me the subject of immediate reply. I may say, perhaps, that the Government have an opinion on the subject; but my hon. Friend will see that I have not given the answer, or anything akin to the answer, which has suggested his Question. That, I hope, will remove from his mind any belief that there is any occasion for that question. But I am quite aware of the purport of the passages to which he has referred with respect to the arbitration in the case of San Juan, and those passages were in my mind when I gave the answer on a former day with regard to the view which we take of those portions of the Treaty, other than those connected with the Alabama Claims.
  MR. OTWAY: If I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman in any way I regret it. I do not wish to anticipate any statement which the right hon. Gentleman may make at another period; but there is one part of my Question which he has not replied to, and that is, Whether any negotiations or communications have been entered on with the Government of the United States in reference to the San Juan question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think I have stated already that we have no information at all corresponding with the statement which recently appeared in the
  1700
  newspapers. We have no information with regard to anything special having occurred.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 31.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. William Edward Forster.)
COMMITTEE. Progress 11 th June.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 31.]

  V. TEACHERS.
  Clause 52 (Teachers in office before the passing of the Act. Teachers appointed after passing of Act).
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEmoved in page 20, line 6, to omit the words "and every such appointment shall be during the pleasure of the School Board." He contended that under the Bill as it stood the tenure of the schoolmaster would be very precarious, and it was highly desirable to place him, as regarded his position, in a more stable and satisfactory position. The example of the parochial boards told in the same direction. He thought the Committee presided over by his hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd) had acted wisely in recommending that Inspectors of poor should be independent of the local boards, and he trusted the House would adopt his Amendment, and protect the teachers in a similar manner.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, he did not think that the Lord Advocate properly appreciated the necessity and expediency of securing schoolmasters, once appointed to their situations, against dismissal on light grounds; and he should therefore like the right hon. and learned Lord to make clearer his views upon the subject. How had the House and the Government dealt with analogous matters of even less importance? Take the case of the Inspectors of poor referred to by his hon. Friend: they were appointed by the parochial boards, but when once installed into office they could not be dismissed except by permission of the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh. The same rule ought to apply to the schoolmaster. By what machinery it should be done, it was not for him to say—that lay rather with those in charge of the Bill. He fully shared in the distrust felt by his hon. Friend (Sir Edward Colebrooke) of the working of the local boards with respect to these

  1701
  appointments. In all probability, candidates would come forward and underbid each other. Other influences would also be at work, and he really believed, if no check was put upon the capricious dismissal of schoolmasters, it would result in injustice to the schoolmasters themselves, and injury to the progress of education. The popular election of schoolmaster was part of the Bill, and the experiment, however doubtful, must now be tried; but he hoped the Lord Advocate would take the question of the power of dismissal into consideration, and place that power in the hands of some body removed from local influences, and who might be relied upon to give independent and impartial judgments on all cases brought before them.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he quite approved of the principle laid down by the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Ellice), that they should judge this matter by analogous cases; but he thought the analogous cases were strongly against the arguments which had been adduced. Take the case of banking establishments: there was not a clerk in those establishments who was not dismissible by the manager; but when good men were got there was always a desire to keep them. The same rule applied to railways, municipal officials, and partnerships. Take Heriot's Hospital—there the teachers were all appointed at the pleasure of the governors, and not one of them had ever been dismissed. By analogy, there could be no doubt that the people, having a direct interest in the schools, would take care to appoint good teachers, and having once obtained them, they would endeavour to retain their services. His experience showed that it more frequently happened that schoolmasters turned away scholars and parents, than that the latter dispensed with the schoolmasters. He approved of the clause as it stood.
  MR. ORR EWINGreminded the hon. Member for Edinburgh that the classes of persons to whom he had referred were not under a board of management elected by £4 constituencies, but were under boards of directors elected by shareholders, who generally selected men of position. They should remember, also, that it required considerable attainments to be a schoolmaster, and that that was a Bill for establishing a national system of education. If a clerk failed in one
  1702
  bank he could go to another, and if he failed in all he could go into a mercantile house—clerks could fill a variety of offices, but a schoolmaster had only one department; and if he should lose his position from the caprice of a school board, he would be ruined for life, for he was not likely to be employed by another board. Why should the Scotch people abandon the good system they had hitherto maintained? To give to local boards the power of electing a schoolmaster for a year, or to turn him off whenever they thought proper—not for any fault of his own, but because he belonged to the United Presbyterians or to the Free Church, or, what was more likely, because he belonged to the Established Church, the injury to the schoolmaster would be also an injury to the education of the country. He therefore supported the Amendment.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it appeared to be forgotten that an odd vote at an election of managers might make all the difference in the treatment of the schoolmaster, and whether a man should be turned out or not. What was required was a check against arbitrary and capricious power. He believed there was no axiom more true than that which said that all power was sure to be abused; and to that he would add, that the more insignificant the body that exercised the power, and the less it was subject to public opinion and to freedom of discussion, the more likely would it be to abuse such power as it possessed. He would suggest to the Lord Advocate to retain this proposal that the appointment of schoolmasters should be at the pleasure of the local boards, but to insert a provision making the approval of the Education Board necessary to the dismissal of a schoolmaster by any school board. Such power was at present vested in the central department in reference to the discharge of Poor Law officers in England, and in practice the system had been found to work well and fairly to all parties. The existing schoolmasters were equally worth regarding. Taking them all round, a more efficient set of men could not be found, and their present tenure was almost freehold. A schoolmaster's whole energies were wanted for the instruction of the children under his care, and his mind should not be turned to think how to secure his election under a new board, or how to

  1703
  prevent his dismissal if he too severely chastised a boy in his school. Moreover, in many of the country districts in Scotland the whole power under this Bill would pass into the hands of the laird or the great landed proprietor. He therefore considered the Amendment touched one of the most important points in the whole Bill, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would see his way to accepting it.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That no principal teacher shall be dismissed without the consent of the Scotch Education Department."—(Mr. Bouverie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that part of the Bill had received the most careful and anxious consideration from the Government. It was impossible to doubt that there would be advantages in giving a schoolmaster a life-tenure of his office; but it was just as impossible to doubt that there were corresponding disadvantages—and in Scotland he thought the disadvantages would largely preponderate. Indeed, there were many cases in which the rule of life-tenure had acted prejudicially in parishes in Scotland. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), who brought forward this Amendment, did not seem to approve of life-tenure any more than he (the Lord Advocate) did, but had only suggested that dismissal should not be at the pleasure of the local board. After the best consideration which the Government had been able to give to the matter, they had not been able to see any satisfactory means between the two extremes of holding office during pleasure and conferring a freehold. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, indeed, had suggested that there should be some check against the arbitrary or capricious exercise of power on the part of school boards, and that expedient had occurred to him (the Lord Advocate), but his right hon. Friend the Vice President (Mr. W. E. Forster) had convinced him that a Government Department could not satisfactorily interfere between a school board and its teachers. They must hold the school board responsible for the due conduct of their schools, for the appointment of
  1704
  proper teachers, and for not retaining teachers in whom they had no confidence, and they could not, consistently with the interests of the public service, interfere to compel a school board to retain teachers in whom they had ceased to have confidence. He did not think it likely that these boards would act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. His apprehensions were rather in a contrary direction. It was the custom of boards not to act harshly towards individuals, or to mar their prospects in this world. Experience showed that they rather shrank from performing their duty in cases where it was clear they ought to dismiss an unprofitable servant, and that the public service was apt to suffer from an unfit person being retained rather than that a fit person should be improperly dismissed. On the whole, he thought the interests of education would best be promoted by the boards being left without interference from without. They could hardly be held responsible if the teachers were to be independent of them, while to give the masters a right to appeal would hardly tend to the smooth working of the system. The other eases which had been referred to be thought were hardly analogous. He could not see any means of complying with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and must equally oppose the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, he trusted that the Lord Advocate would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock. All that he wanted was that, upon the master's dismissal by the board, he should have the power of appeal to the Education Department—and if the Education Department were not going to undertake any such duties, he wished to know what the board was for?
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that his views and those of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock were identical, and therefore he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of the proposition of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEsaid, it was curious to observe how the English Bill was quoted as a precedent in some cases, and was pronounced to be wholly inappropriate in others. The Lord Advocate said that there was no such modification introduced in the English Act

  1705
  as that now before the Committee; but it should be recollected that in England there was not a universal system of school boards as was proposed for Scotland, and also that some discrimination was used as to the places which were fit to elect school boards; while in Scotland school boards were to be universal, and in many cases they would be elected where suitable materials were wanting. He thought of all evils, one only excepted, this supreme power of the local boards over the schoolmasters was likely to be the greatest, and he (Mr. C. Dalrymple) could not help feeling the want of a Board of Education in Scotland, because the power of appeal might then be given to a central Board sitting in Edinburgh. He felt that some security should be given that these local boards should not act in an arbitrary manner, because, if they did so, the independence of the schoolmaster would be sacrificed.
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member, for he thought that if any appeal was granted at all, it should be to the Privy Council, and not to a Board sitting in Edinburgh. The Committee, however, had not only to consider the interests of the schoolmaster, but also of the children who were taught. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) had very justly remarked that peculiar qualifications were necessary for a schoolmaster, of which aptness for teaching was one. If, however, the power of dismissal was taken away from the local board, a man might be appointed a schoolmaster who, although very clever, might have no aptitude for teaching. The result would be that the board and the schoolmaster would always be fighting against each other. If there was to be any injustice done, he would sooner that it was done to the schoolmaster than to the children.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to point out that by previous Acts the office of schoolmaster, except in parochial schools, was to be held at pleasure; and he thought it an omission in the present Bill that a clause was not introduced providing that a recalcitrant schoolmaster should be removed at the will of the school board. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that as far as he knew, all experience was in favour of some check against the use of arbitrary power; he was, therefore, anxious to secure fair treatment for the schoolmasters by the local boards. All that had been said about the English boards did not hit the point, and he should look with terror on a proposal to give school boards in rural districts in England this power, for it would simply amount to handing the schoolmaster over to the squire and the parson. With a view, then, to gain the desired end, he would move to insert at the end of the clause the following words—
  "Provided no schoolmaster can be dismissed except with the sanction of the Scotch Education Department."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought, in the interests of education, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was perfectly right in the course he had taken on this occasion. The question was whether it was advantageous to education that there should be an appeal in these cases from the local boards to any other body; and from the experience he had gained both from the working of the English Education Act and from a study of education, he could not but decide that it was not, advantageous—because, in the first place, they made the local boards responsible, which they could not be if they had not the power to elect and dismiss their own officers; and, in the second place, because it was most important that the master should feel that his position depended upon his merits as shown by results. The result of the passing of the Amendment would be that in every single case where the schoolmaster incurred danger of dismissal he would appeal to the central Board; and they could not make themselves a judge in the matter without incurring great expense, because an inquiry would have to be made, and without interfering in such a manner as no local body would endure. If the Amendment was passed for the protection of the schoolmaster, a power would have to be given to the central Board for the protection of the children, and they would have to be empowered to insist on the dismissal of a schoolmaster where they thought it necessary. In fact, such an arrangement would entirely do away with the responsibility of the local

  1707
  board, which was the main principle of the Bill. It seemed absurd that they could not place the same confidence in the Scotch people with reference to education as they had reposed in the people of England.
  MR. GORDONsaid, that the whole tenor of this Bill was not to leave a single shred of the old Scotch system in existence, but to put the educational system of Scotland on the same platform as the English system. By the Act of 1870 they placed in the hands of school boards the appointment of schoolmasters, and they continued the principle applicable to denominational schools—namely, that the schoolmasters would hold their office at the discretion of the managers. But what was the experience of the working of that Act of 1870? Was not the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), a month or two ago, opposed by the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, on the ground that they had not yet had experience of the working of that Act? He ventured to say that there had been no opportunity of trying it, for a month ago only about 200 or 300 school boards had been constituted—so that there had not been time to speak as to the experience of the working of the school boards. But in Scotland they had long had the working of the system of fixity of tenure, which he admitted was perhaps carried too far, inasmuch as there was a difficulty in removing the incompetent or inefficient schoolmaster. It was not, however, necessary that that difficulty should be continued. On the contrary, he had himself given Notice of a new clause repealing the Parochial Schoolmasters' Act of 1861, and giving the Board of Education ample power to get rid of an incompetent or inefficient teacher. There were attached to the schools of Scotland a large number of intelligent teachers who had studied at the Scotch Universities, and they had a very efficient class of teachers coming forward and offering themselves for schools. In 1872, when the question of an Education Bill was under consideration, he (Mr. Gordon) was in communication with the teachers, and from one and all of them he had this representation made—that if they were left to the mercy of local boards, there would not be that ample supply of good teachers which had been the cause and reason of
  1708
  the excellence of the Scotch schools, because just as the schoolmaster was, so would be the schools. He submitted, therefore, that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock was a right proposition. But the Vice President of the Committee of Council said they were putting too much upon the Scotch Department of Privy Council. But they did not want to have the powers vested in the Privy Council of regulating such matters as this. They were quite willing to leave in the hands of the Privy Council the administration of money voted by Parliament, but they wanted a Scotch Board to regulate these things, because it was felt that the Privy Council would be unwilling to undertake such duties as this. That was just one of the great difficulties they had in accepting an English Board of Management as regarded the schools; and the right hon. Gentleman himself, in 1869, when arguing for the appointment of a Board in Scotland, said it would be extremely inconvenient to administer two systems in the same office. He thought they would find it so, and that the Scotch schools would be brought down to the level of the simple elementary education which prevailed in England, so that they would get a very much inferior education to what they now had.
  MR. FORDYCEsaid, he thanked the Lord Advocate for having refused to accept these Amendments. He (Mr. Fordyce) had had a little experience in the management of schools in Aberdeenshire, where the present system had reached its highest perfection, and if they wanted an Education Bill there at all, it was only to assist them in getting rid of inefficient parish schoolmasters. It had been found that men who became parish schoolmasters, after a certain time became inefficient, and it was impossible to get rid of them. There could not be a greater curse to the community than that state of things.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) argued that the English Act was no analogy in this case, because under that Bill there were only school boards in populous places, where they would work well, and not in the less educated country parishes; but the right hon. Gentleman did not confine

  1709
  his Amendment to the rural districts, but would punish those large populous places, and lower their status, by depriving them of their control over the teachers for the sake of a few country boards which, he thought, would not be sufficiently educated to elect proper teachers. That was a mere suppositious case, too, for they had no reason to believe that there would be any such difficulty about local boards; indeed, he believed the best men in the parish would be elected, He did not share in that sympathy for the teachers which so many hon. Members professed, for it did not appear to him to be needed. He thought the demand for schoolmasters would be so extended by the Bill that the schoolmasters would have command of the field.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTthought the Committee had already made a great mistake in not having a Scotch Education Department, which would manage this business in Scotland. It would be most unwise to commit the arbitrary power of dismissal to an elected body like the school board, and he did not think the board was a body which would obtain the confidence of the teachers themselves. If the Amendment were pressed to a division, he should vote on it.
  MR. ELLICEsuggested an alternative Amendment, providing that the dismissal of a schoolmaster should be reported to the Education Department, and confirmed by them after being reported upon by the Inspectors.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 84: Majority 42.
  MR. M'LARENmoved, to add to the end of the clause the words—
  "Provided, That it shall not be lawful for any teacher of a public school, appointed after the passing of this Act, to accept of any other office or perform any other duties for which he shall receive a salary or other emoluments, unless the consent of the School Board shall have been previously given by a minute duly entered in their minute-book, and agreed to at a meeting of the Board specially called for that purpose, of which due notice has been given; and all School Boards shall have regard to this restriction in fixing the salaries to be paid to all teachers of public schools who may be appointed after the passing of this Act."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he should have no objection to the Amendment, provided the latter part of it was omitted.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, they had been told over and over again while discussing this Bill that they ought to follow the English Bill. Now, he failed to discover any such enactment as this in the English Act, and he wished to know why the teachers of Scotland were to be put in a worse position than those of England.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, this was not a theoretic proposition, and the absolute necessity for some such clause had been shown by long practical experience in Scotland. He knew cases where schoolmasters had also been poor-rate collectors, inspectors, agents, &c. His object by proposing this clause was to make the teacher dependent upon his profession and love that profession.
  MR. ORR-EWINGasked what was the use of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh? The local boards would be the best judges of what was best in this matter.
  MR. M'LAGANthought the Amendment was quite superfluous, because the whole power in the matter lay in the hands of the board.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the clause did not forbid the schoolmasters altogether from taking employment, but it would place in the hands of the school boards the supreme control in the matter, so that they would grant permission to the master to accept other employment only in exceptional circumstances—for instance, they probably would not object to masters teaching heritors' children or other duties which did not interfere with their regular work.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEremarked that the hon. Member for Edinburgh said his object was to make teachers love their profession, and his plan was to prevent them eking out the scanty income which the school boards would allow them. He should oppose the Amendment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEadmitted that masters ought not to accept other appointments without the consent of the board, but thought the Amendment scarcely necessary. He suggested the omission from it of the words "or perform any other duties."
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he would accept the alterations proposed by the Lord Advocate.
  Words struck out.
  Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  MR. M'LAGANmoved to add at end of clause—
  "Provided always, That the amounts of annual Parliamentary grants received in respect of any school in any parish or burgh shall be paid in full to the teachers of such school in such proportions as the school boards may determine."
  He moved the Amendment to give hon. Members from Scotland an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the question. It had been decided that the masters should not get the fees earned by them, and that there should not be either maximum or minimum salaries fixed, and therefore he thought there was a great force of justice in giving the masters the Parliamentary grants.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the Amendment, on the ground that the question raised in it had been already amply discussed and substantially decided.
  MR. ORR EWINGdisputed the statement that there had been any decision, nor had the question been fully discussed. At present, grants went direct to teachers, and he did not see why the boards should be made the medium of giving these grants. It might be an economical mode of administration, but he did not think it would be an advantageous one. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. MACFIEsupported the Amendment, which he thought would be a stimulus to the energies of the teachers.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 53 agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Examinations of teachers).
  MR. GORDONmoved, at end of clause, to insert—
  "Provided that for three years after the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for the Scotch Education Department to grant certificates of competency without examination to teachers holding office in existing schools, who are upwards of 35 years of age, according to such conditions as may from time to time be fixed by the Department."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed this Amendment, on the ground that this was a matter for the Code.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 55 (Certificates) agreed to.
  Clause 56 (University degrees, &c.)
  MR. GORDONmoved, in page 20, line 38, to leave out from the beginning to "candidate," inline 42, and insert—
  "Within six months after the passing of this Act there shall be constituted a Board for granting special certificates of competency to teach the higher branches in public schools; this Board shall consist of seven members, of whom one shall be nominated by the University Court of each of the four Scottish Universities, one by the Educational Institute of Scotland, and the remaining two by the Scotch Education Department; the members of the Board shall hold office for three years, and shall be eligible for re-election; and this Board shall have power, subject to the approval of the said Department, to draw up regulations for the examination of candidates, to establish two or more grades of certificate, and to conduct such examinations at such times and places as may be approved of by the said Department; and it any candidate shall produce evidence that he has passed satisfactorily in any subject or subjects a public University examination."
  The University which he represented felt strongly on this matter, for this Bill was not like the English Act—a measure simply relating to elementary education. The standard of qualification was becoming lower every year, and had been adjusted to meet the bare requirements of the Code. He thought that the standard which had hitherto been maintained in Scotland should be continued, and that it should not be left to local boards to fix the standard of education in the higher branches. He submitted that his scheme would answer the purpose he proposed.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthought the Amendment only applicable to higher-class public schools.
  MR. GORDONsaid, he meant to apply only to those which professed to teach the higher subjects.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the Amendment would then apply to all public schools in which any other than elementary instruction was given. In that view it was wholly inconsistent with the clauses which had already been passed by the Committee. By those clauses a complete Code has been provided. It had not been found necessary to have such a board in England, and why should there be one in Scotland?

  1713
  It was impossible for the Government to assent to the Amendment.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsupported the Amendment as practically a retention of the existing system, teachers being now examined by University examiners, and the Treasury meeting the cost of this. There was a comparatively low general standard, though higher than that of the Privy Council, but if the electors wished higher subjects to be taught the candidate was examined therein. Local boards would not be trusted by the Bill to examine elementary teachers, and à fortiori, they ought not to be entrusted with the examination of teachers of the highest secondary instruction.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 56: Majority 15.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 57 (Removal of teachers appointed before passing of Act).
  MR. M'LAGANmoved, in line 15, page 21, after "inspectors," to insert—
  "Acting for the district in which the school is situated, and concurred in, after a separate inspection, by another of Her Majesty's inspectors appointed by the Board of Education, on the application of the schoolmaster, provided he shall make such application within fourteen days after intimation to him of the certificate of approval by the inspector of the district."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 58 (Retiring allowances).
  MR. GORDONmoved an Amendment defining 15 years as the minimum of service entitling to a pension, and two-thirds of the salary and emoluments as the maximum of pension.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEpointed out that, in common with all extraordinary charges, the retiring allowances of teachers must be paid exclusively out of the local rates, and it was therefore a matter in which the ratepayers of Scotland were particularly interested. He quite agreed that it was for the public advantage that teachers should be allowed to resign; but the best persons to decide on its advisability in particular cases were the elected representatives of the ratepayers. He objected to the Amendment as making it compulsory upon the boards in every instance to pay a fixed retiring
  1714
  allowance, whereas the option should be left to the ratepayers.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEsupported the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. M'LAGANmoved an Amendment allowing a teacher appointed at least 25 years before the passing of the Act to retire on two-thirds of his salary.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not assent to giving such a right to teachers. In many, and perhaps most cases, it would be a wise and kindly act for school boards to allow aged teachers to retire on a moderate allowance; but the clause as it stood allowed them to do so. He objected to making it a statutory obligation upon the ratepayers to provide one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 59 (Higher class public schools.—Burgh).
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRproposed an Amendment providing that a University degree with practice in teaching should be essential as a qualification for the office of principal teacher in such schools, or that the examinations to be passed shall be such as may be determined by the Scotch Education Department.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that with every disposition to favourably consider any Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend, he could not accede to the present proposal. The belief that the school boards had no power in determining the qualification of teachers in the lower class schools, whilst the power was given to them in respect of the higher schools, was not correct. The Scotch Education Department would fix the standard up to which, at least, the teachers must come in order to entitle them to receive the Government grant; but the boards could themselves fix a higher standard in the elementary schools if they desired. The higher class schools did not participate in the Government grant at all, and they might be safely left their present management. The examiners to be provided for the teachers of these schools by the school boards must be professors in a Scotch University, or teachers of distinction in a higher class public school. It was not thought advisable that the Privy

  1715
  Council should interfere with schools which did not participate in the Parliamentary grant.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRthought what the Lord Advocate said was scarcely correct, and that little favourable consideration was given to the Amendments which were proposed. By Clause 54, the Scotch Education Department was to fix the standard for the elementary schools, yet the standard for the higher schools—the Etons and Harrows of Scotland—was to be left to the school boards. ["No, no!"] That was his reading of the Bill, and was the reading of everyone else whom he had consulted. He should like to know whether this Scotch Education Department, which they had inserted in the Bill, was a reality or a myth? If it was a reality, surely it would do something to keep up the character of the education of Scotland, and would grant this small boon. At all events, unless they found that this Scotch Department was something more than the Government thought it was, in his opinion it would be better to strike it out of the Bill altogether.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had looked at this Amendment with every disposition to adopt it if possible, but could not do so, because it introduced a new principle. Hitherto the Education Department had confined itself to fixing the standard for elementary schools, but if this Amendment were adopted, it would mean that they should be responsible for the standard of higher education. He was not now, however, prepared to go to that extent, though be did not say a time might not come when they might consider it advisable to do so not only in Scotland, but in England as well.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that all the Amendment asked was, that the Legislature should take the same precautions as regarded the higher and middle class education of Scotland that it proposed in the Bill to do for the lower class.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he was afraid the effect of the Amendment would be to do that which would prove detrimental to the interests of higher education; for it would introduce the new principle of the Department interfering with those schools, to which they did not contribute.
  MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, it seemed to him that the time had come when they must demand some explanation from Her Majesty's Government. It did not seem that the language of the Vice President of the Council was consistent with that of the Lord Advocate's, for in introducing the Bill, the Lord Advocate spoke of it as having the great merit of dealing with the higher education, of Scotland, and that recommended the measure very favourably in Scotland; but they now heard the Vice President of the Council declare that his Department was so steeped in the lower education, that he declined to take any responsibility as to the higher education. If that was to be so, it was a question whether they had not better leave the high class schools out of the Bill altogether, rather than deal with them in this unsatisfactory manner.
  MR. DALGLISHtrusted the Committee would leave this question entirely in the hands of the school boards. So far as he was acquainted with education in Glasgow, it appeared to him that probably within a very short time the dead languages might be obliged to give way to the living, and German and French become more important than Latin and Greek.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GRAHAMmoved, in page 22, line 17, after "provision," to insert—
  "But any person who at the time of the passing of this Act, being a master in a higher class school, as specified in Schedule (C), is a member of council of any of the Universities of Scotland shall be deemed to be the holder of a certificate of competency for the office of teacher in any of the said higher class schools."
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. GORDONmoved to omit subsection 4.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the Amendment, on the ground that the sub-section was a most useful one, as it provided that in certain cases the school boards might encourage higher education by relieving the teachers from the necessity of descending to the drudgery of teaching the lowest elements of knowledge, and otherwise to provide sufficient school accommodation for elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic. He had to remind the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. C. S.

  1717
  Parker), in answer to his appeal, that both in moving for leave to introduce the Bill, and in moving its second reading, he had expressed his regret that he could not give any pecuniary aid to higher class schools.
  Amendment negatived.
  ME. M'LARENmoved the omission of sub-section 5, which provides with respect to higher class public or burgh schools that the fees to be paid shall be fixed from time to time, but at intervals of not less than three years, by the principal and the ordinary teachers, with the approval of the school board, and if they do not agree that their difference shall be referred to a person or persons to be named by the Lord Advocate, whose decision shall be final for three years. He said these schools were intended for the lower middle class, who ought not to be left at the mercy of the teachers in the matter of fees, particularly as part of the cost of the education was defrayed by endowment. Moreover, he could not see why the Lord Advocate should have power to interfere in the school arrangements, when the Government did not intend to give any money to the higher public schools.
  Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 41, to leave out from the words "The fees to be paid," to the words "three years," in page 23, line 5.—(Mr. M'Laren.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was a suspicion that town councils had been disposed to fix the fees too low; and, as a matter of fact, the fees were remarkably low. It was, therefore, not unreasonable that teachers should have a voice in the matter, because their interests were identified with those of the public. With respect to the interference of the Lord Advocate in school arrangements, all he would do was to appoint a referee in the event of the teachers and the boards not being able to come to an arrangement about the amount of fees, and, for himself, he should be glad if the matter could be referred to any other authority.
  MR. M'LARENreplied that it had been said local boards would do everything that was right and proper, and
  1718
  that there could be no better tribunal; but, when a practical test was applied, it was said they could not be trusted, and that the teachers must have an equal voice with them.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 120: Majority 46.
  MR. BOUVERIEproposed to add words which would give power to the Loan Commissioners to advance money to improve public school houses.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that this question rather concerned the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the Education Department. He would not object to the insertion of the words, but it was possible they might have to reconsider them on the Report.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 60 (Higher class public schools.—Parish) agreed to.
  Clause 61 (Funds) agreed to.

  VI. MISCELLANEOUS—INSPECTION—CONSCIENCE CLAUSE—COMPULSION, &C.
  Clause 62 (Evidence of Orders, &c. of Education Department) agreed to.
  Clause 63 (Inspection) agreed to.
  Clause 64 (Parliamentary grant).
  MR. TREVELYAN, in moving in page 24, line 22, after "situated," to insert—
  "But to the extent only of two-thirds of the grant which would be made to a public school according to the rates and under the conditions aforesaid,"
  said, that Scotland was not at present under the Revised Code, but under the system by which money was given in augmentation of the salaries of schoolmasters and in aid of pupil-teachers. Under that System, Scotland now obtained £100,000 a-year; but as soon as the Bill should become law, Scotland would be brought under the Revised Code, and would get a large increase from the purse of the nation. When the Prime Minister announced, with regard to the English Bill, that an increase would be made in the Parliamentary grant, the ground of that increase was stated to be in order that denominational schools should not

  1719
  suffer by competition with the school board schools, but what he (Mr. Trevelyan) wished to see with regard to Scotland was, that while the denominational schools should not be placed in a worse position than that in which they were now, this Bill should not be made the means of bettering their position. Unless some such Amendment as this were agreed to, the Established Church in Scotland would be placed in a very cruel position; for at that moment the parish schools of Scotland were virtually the schools of the Established Church, and they would be placed under school boards, who would be able to turn them into anything they choose—even secular schools—and the Established Church would be placed in a position inferior to that of the Free Church. Moreover, there was no such necessity for giving this grant in Scotland as there was in England, for in England the grant materially aided the passing of the Bill; but the present Bill had been all but passed already, without any such step being taken. He would also point out the fact that the denominationalists in Scotland did not ask for the gift which the right hon. Gentleman seemed inclined to force upon them; but they might depend upon it, that if it were given the taste for such things would assuredly grow. He did not, however, ask for the discontinuance of the grant, but simply that it should not be increased, and he believed that his Amendment would greatly conduce to the good working of the measure.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 24, line 22, after the word "situated," to insert the words "but to the extent only of two thirds of the grant which would be made to a public school, according to the rates and under the conditions aforesaid."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. COLLINSsaid, the hon. Member had truly remarked that this was the backbone of the Bill; but he was asking the Committee now to reverse the decision they had come to on the Bill of 1870. He therefore hoped that the Committee would not consent to do for Scotland what they had declined to do for England. Mr. Lyulph Stanley, the late defeated candidate for Oldham, a distinguished member of the Birmingham League, having gone down there against
  1720
  the principle of denominational education, returned from that place quite favourable to that principle. After his three or four days' experience of Lancashire he had come to the opinion that it was not desirable to discourage denominational schools. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs, by his Amendment, did not propose to abolish those denominational schools, but he was taking the dirty course of trying to starve them by degrees.
  MR. DICKINSONthought that there ought to be one national system for every part of the United Kingdom, whereas the Government, by their measures, had succeeded in establishing three, each entirely distinct and separate from the other. It appeared to him that those schools, to be national, should have one system which would meet the requirements of all classes. He should therefore, support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he felt sure the Amendment was proposed in no unfriendly spirit, and he should have no hesitation in accepting it if he believed it would conduce to the good working of the Bill. He was as much in favour as his hon. Friend of the system of national as distinct from denominational education; and the object of the Bill was to establish a national system in complete harmony with the feelings of the people of Scotland—an object which, notwithstanding many wild words, he felt satisfied it would effect. It provided that aid should be given—
  "To all schools which, in the opinion of the Scotch Education Department, efficiently contributed to the education of the parish or borough in which they were situated;"
  and if the schools, whether of Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, or any of the other denominations in Scotland, satisfied that requirement by providing a good and sound secular education, why, he should like to know, should they not share in the public money voted by Parliament for the purpose of promoting that education under the conditions under which alone they could obtain that money—namely, by submitting to inspection and to all the restraints of a Conscience Clause securing that the schools should be open to children of all denominations? Believing that the Amendment would not conduce to the

  1721
  good working of the Bill, he felt it his duty to oppose it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 273: Majority 193.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved to report Progress.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and that the Amendment which stood in his name, and which was a corollary of the question just decided, would be agreed to.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COLLINSmoved to insert in page 24, after line 22, the following words:—
  "Provided that such conditions shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is or is not provided by a school board."
  MR. M'LARENobjected to the Amendment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthereupon moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

COURT OF CHANCERY (FUNDS) BILL.
(Mr. Baxter, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. William Henry Gladstone.)
COURT OF CHANCERY (FUNDS) BILL.

  [BILL 43.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
  COLONEL FRENCHmoved the re-committal of the Bill, as far as regarded Clause 21, his object being to leave out from the clause the proposal that the Accountant General should retire on two-thirds of his salary, and restore the clause to its original shape, allowing him to retire on his full salary.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed, in respect of Clause 21,"—(Colonel French,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DICKINSONsupported the clause as it stood, contending that the proposed
  1722
  retiring allowance of two-thirds was ample.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that originally the Bill provided that the Accountant General should retire on his full salary, which he thought was a proper provision; and he believed it would have been maintained if the hon. Member who had just sat down had not taken the House by surprise on the former occasion, when he moved the Amendment that was now embodied in the Bill. Under the circumstances of the case he (Mr. Crawford) should support the claim of the present Accountant General, to retire on full pay. Every holder of that office had held it during his life, and therefore he thought the one who at present held it was entitled to what he claimed, and not two-thirds of his salary, as was proposed to be given to him.
  MR. HUNTsaid, it was much more pleasant to argue in favour of giving a gentleman his full salary than in the opposite sense, but that duty compelled him to take the latter course in the present instance. If the Accountant General had a statutory right to get his full salary, of course it was open to him to take it under the statute, but on that point he should like to have the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. If Mr. Russell was not entitled to his full salary under the statute, then he, for one, objected to his being treated with exceptional favour.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he did not agree with what had been just said. The salary was composed of three parts—£900 a-year as Accountant General, £600 a-year as Master in Chancery, and an allowance of £2,700 in lieu of brokerage on Chancery funds. The other Masters, when their offices were abolished, received as an allowance their full salary. If the brokerage had not been commuted, about the year 1852, this officer would for several years past have received £5,000 or £6,000 a year more than he had. The principal officers of the Court of Bankruptcy, when their offices were abolished in 1869, received their full salary as a pension, and he thought the only way to obtain the consent of the holders of such offices was to deal liberally with them in order to obtain their consent to the desired reform. He hoped, therefore, the House would reconsider its decision.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that speaking without reference to the gentleman in question, with whom he was entirely unacquainted, he did not think it would be wise in such cases as the present, seeing that the Government were actually going to make profits out of the funds in question, to deal otherwise with the Accountant General than in the most liberal way. He pointed out that the Commissioners in Bankruptcy in Ireland had, in 1867, received their full salaries, and that the Accountant General virtually held his office on the understanding that he was to hold it for life.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill as it stood did deal liberally with the officer in question, and remarked that the taxpayers must also be considered in the matter.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped that if the Government gave way in this instance the case would not be drawn into a precedent; and suggested that the clause should be so drawn as to convey no statutory right, but so as to leave the responsibility of fixing the amount of pension with the Treasury. This had been the course pursued, after much controversy, in the case of the Commissioners and other officers of the old Court of Bankruptcy.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he trusted that the House would think it consistent with its duty virtually to comply with the Motion now made, as he was perfectly satisfied that by so doing it would act in the direction of the public interest. There was no doubt that the Government were pledged to the Accountant General to do what they could for him, and that if they now insisted upon carrying the Motion, it would have the effect of preventing reforms. They must judge of this matter by the whole of the circumstances. This gentleman had held the office 33 years; he was Master in Chancery, and belonged to a generation now passed away, who were accustomed to receive much larger retiring pensions. All the other Masters in Chancery had retired on full pay, and the Accountant General virtually held the office for his life, and he might reasonably expect to be treated in the same way. All the circumstances taken together entitled him to retire on full salary. In the case of the officers in Bankruptcy, the Lord Chancellor had to
  1724
  state whether in his opinion they should retire on full pay, and he was quite willing to place this matter on the same footing.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 140: Majority 86.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill re-committed; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 21 (Pension to present Accountant General).
  Clause amended as follows:—
  "The person who at the passing of this Act is the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery shall, after the commencement of this Act, receive during his life, by way of retiring pension, such amount as the Lord Chancellor shall, with the approval of the Commissioners of the Treasury, deem proper under the special circumstances of the case, provided that such amount shall not exceed the present salary and emoluments of the said office."
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; Amendments made; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

CUSTODY OF INFANTS BILL— [BILL 93.]
(Mr. William Fowler, Mr. Andrew Johnston, Mr. Mundella.)
CUSTODY OF INFANTS BILL— [BILL 93.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. William Fowler.)
  Debate arising.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.