Commons Sitting of 20 June 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Education (Scotland) [31]; Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation* [137].
Third Reading—Sites for Places of Worship and Schools* [2], and passed.

IRELAND—MURDER OF MRS. NEIL AT RATHGAR.—QUESTION.
COLONEL TAYLORsaid, he wished to preface his Question with a remark which he should not have thought it necessary to make had the murder been one of an ordinary nature. It was perpetrated in one of the quietest districts of Ireland, immediately adjoining the

1985
capital; indeed, he might say as orderly and civilized a locality as any in this country; and it was not believed by those who had inquired into the matter that the inhabitants of the district had anything to do with the crime. He thought it must be part of that desperate system of crime in which, for some real or imaginary offence, a self-constituted tribunal, sitting at a distance, pronounced sentence, and a wretched assassin was discovered and ordered to commit the murder, he not having, probably, up to that moment ever seen or heard of his victim. Having said thus much to exonerate his county from any imputation, he would now ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether any clue has been obtained in the matter of the late atrocious murder of Mrs. Neil at Rathgar, in the county of Dublin; and, if not, what steps Government is taking to discover the perpetrators of that crime?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that before proceeding to answer the Question he begged to state that he entirely agreed with the right hon. and gallant Member who had put the Question in his prefatory remarks. He did not believe that the county of Dublin had any connection with the horrible crime that had been committed other than its being the place where the unfortunate lady met her death. The Government had taken, and were still taking, all the steps in their power to discover the perpetrator of the crime; but the right hon. Gentleman and the House would see that it was obviously undesirable at the present time to say anything more relative to the matter. He might, however, mention that a man named Terence Walsh was in prison under, the Westmeath Act, on suspicion of being accessory to the murder.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. OSBORNE: Observing, Sir, a Notice placed on the Paper prior to the Whitsun holidays by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), proposing—
    "To bring before the consideration of the House the state of our relations with the Government of the United Sates of America,"
    1986
    I wish to ask him, Whether he intends bringing it forward any time during this Session?
    MR. DISRAELI: It appears to me, Sir, that the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to me has arisen from a misconception of the Notice that I gave some time ago. At the time when I gave that Notice, the two countries, having entered into a Treaty to which they ascribed different interpretations, had commenced negotiations in order to arrive at some similarity of opinion. Those negotiations completely failed; affairs were at a deadlock, and I thought I was but doing my duty in asking the House to consider what were the causes of that failure, and to take such a course as might be of a remedial nature. Before, however, I could bring forward that Motion, to my surprise, and confessedly to the surprise of Her Majesty's Ministers, they found themselves engaged in fresh negotiations with the object of concluding a Treaty which would remove these difficulties. Those negotiations, so far as I am aware, have not concluded—at any rate, we have had no official announcement of their conclusion; and, under these circumstances, I certainly do not deem it consistent with my sense of public duty that I should embarrass a Government conducting negotiations by debates in this House. When we hear—which, probably, we very shortly may—from an official and authentic quarter that those negotiations have terminated, it will be in my power to consider, with the information then before the House, the whole circumstances of the case, and I shall then be able to decide what course it will be my duty to pursue. In that event, however, the only consideration which would influence me would be the public welfare.

ORDNANCE SURVEY—THE 25-INCH SCALE.—QUESTION.
MR. WELBYasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he would state to the House on which of the grounds recently alleged by him, viz. military considerations, importance, enterprise, and the use made of the soil, Flintshire has been selected for survey in preference to Lincolnshire, and Maps of it made on the 25-inch scale which have been recently published by the Ordnance Department?
MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, the main consideration which had influenced the Ordnance Survey Department in selecting Flintshire was that it was a mineral county. It was thought the public interest was best served by selecting counties on which the welfare of the country largely depended and which were the scene of great activity and enterprise. Moreover, a Bill was before the House—the Mines Regulation Bill—which would require the preparation of maps on a large scale. He said this without disparaging the excellence of Lincolnshire, which was eminently an agricultural county.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—THE JUDGMENT AND EVIDENCE.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If arrangements cannot be made to expedite the printing of the evidence in the Galway Election case, so that the same may be in the hands of Members early next week?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in reply, that the Government had no control over the printing of the House, but, having made inquiry, he was indebted to the authorities of the House for the information of what arrangement could be made. He was afraid it would not entirely meet the desire of his hon. Friend; but he must understand that the evidence would occupy more than 1,000 closely printed folio pages in double columns. Moreover, the shorthand notes from which the manuscript had to be transcribed had, unfortunately, been written on both sides of the paper and without any numbering of the questions. Some patience would, therefore, be requisite; but every effort would be used, and the best course would be to produce the volume in separate sections. A considerable section would be in Members' hands within a week from this time, and would probably be followed at similar intervals by at least two sections more.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

  DOMINION OF CANADA.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. GREGORY, understanding from the reports this morning, that the question of the postponement was still before the Arbitrators at Geneva, said he would postpone for a week the Questions he had placed on the Paper.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not been communicated with by the hon. Gentleman, and he was not aware of any reason why the Questions should not be answered at once.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would, in that case, put his Questions, Whether, notwithstanding the postponement of the reference to Arbitration under Article 1 of the Treaty of Washington, he proposes during such postponement to take the necessary steps for carrying out such other Articles of the Treaty as are not directly connected with such reference; whether he contemplates that during such period the acts which may be necessary to carry out such of the Articles as relate to the Dominion of Canada, and on the passing of which the guarantee of this country for £2,500,000 is to be claimed, should be proposed to the Parliament of that Dominion, or whether the execution of such Articles is to remain in abeyance, and whether he regards the stipulations contained in those Articles as dependent upon or connected with the reference to Arbitration provided by Article 1 of the said Treaty, or whether the same are independent provisions and binding upon the parties to such Treaty whether such reference is proceeded with or not?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My answer, Sir, is very simple. The Articles of the Treaty not directly connected with the reference to Arbitration at Geneva, and the execution of the Articles relating to the Dominion of Canada, have no direct connection with any question raised at Geneva. As far as the recommendation of the British Government to the Dominion of Canada is concerned, that is complete. As far as the action of the Canadian Parliament is concerned, that is complete, the Canadian Parliament having, by its own deliberate judgment, accepted for itself the Articles of the Treaty. Nothing further now can be done until on its part the Congress of the United States shall have proceeded to legislate, and, as Congress is now under adjournment and will not meet again until the winter, the hon. Gentleman will see that practically there is no connection—at any rate at the present time—between any question that has been raised at Geneva and the practical postponement of the Articles of the Treaty relating to Canada. It is only after Congress shall have performed its

  1989
  part of the covenant, which it will have to consider upon its meeting again, that any question can arise with regard to the execution of these Articles. It will be at the same period that the Government of this country will have to discharge its engagement to Canada. Upon the completion of the legislation, and upon the taking effect of the entire Treaty in a formal manner, we shall propose to Parliament the guarantee of £2,500,000 which has been conditionally promised. That guarantee is contingent, as it stands in the arrangement, upon the taking effect of the entire Treaty.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman's answer applied solely to the Fisheries question, or whether it applied also to the San Juan Boundary question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My answer did not apply to the San Juan Boundary question, for that has not been treated as part of the matters affecting the Dominion of Canada.
  In reply to Mr. E. TORRENS,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: My hon. Friend travels rather fast. He asks me whether we shall revive the question of damages suffered by the Fenian raids, if the guarantee by abandoned by the Government. But there is no intention whatever on the part of the Government to abandon the guarantee, and I should be very sorry to give any answer which would appear to contemplate that contingency. We are bound in honour to make a proposal in reference to that guarantee at the proper time; and I may also state to my hon. Friend that the claim for damages occasioned by the Fenian raiders, is a question entirely between the Imperial Government at home and the Government of the United States; while the claim of Canada is a claim not exclusively against the United States, inasmuch as it may be held to lie also against the Imperial Government; and the claim as against the Imperial Government is disposed of by the guarantee which we propose to lay before Parliament in due time.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS—THE PERSIAN MISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. EASTWICKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Taylour Thomson has
1990
been appointed to succeed Mr. Alison as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Persia?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the post of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Persia has been offered to Mr. Taylour Thomson; but the Secretary of State has not as yet heard whether that gentleman accepts the post or not.

BRITISH GUIANA—EMIGRATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any steps have been taken upon the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the treatment of Immigrants in British Guiana?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, an Ordinance, embodying the greater part of the recommendations of the Commissioners and consolidating the law relating to emigration, has been drafted, and, having been carefully examined by the Secretary of State, has been sent out to the Colony, with a strong invitation to the Court of Policy to pass it into law without delay. A further Parliamentary Paper, including this draft Ordinance and Correspondence respecting it, and the report of the Commission, is in preparation, and will be presented in a very few days.

NAVY—CHANNEL SQUADRON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LIDDELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that certain ships belonging to the Channel Squadron have been detained in Milford Haven for want of coal; and, when it is expected that the necessary supplies will arrive and so enable the ships so detained to proceed?
  MR. GOSCHEN, said, in reply, that there had been a certain detention of ships of the Channel Squadron at Mil-ford Haven; but the statement which had appeared in The Army and Navy Gazette to the effect that their detention was due to a fault on the part of the Contract and Purchase Department of the Admiralty was totally without foundation. The decision to send these ships to Milford Haven to coal, and that they should proceed thence to Holyhead and

  1991
  Liverpool, was arrived at by himself on the 7th instant, and the information that coal was to be supplied there was given to the Contract and Purchase Department only on the following day. There was no particular hurry as regarded the ships; but there were reasons why the decision as to the destination of the Channel Squadron had not been come to until the last moment. After his decision had been arrived at, the order for the purchase of coal was given on the succeeding Monday; a portion of the coal was delivered on the Tuesday, and the whole of it on Thursday, making about 1,000 tons. Whatever blame there might be in the matter, it would attach to himself and not to the Contract Department. The ships were no longer at Milford Haven, but had arrived at Holy-head.

METROPOLIS—STORAGE OF PETROLEUM.—QUESTION.
COLONEL BERESFORDasked the hon. Member for Colchester, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have any power to prevent the storing of, or to compel the removal of petroleum, in and from any place within the limits of the City of London; whether, in the event of an explosion taking place at any premises where many thousand barrels of petroleum are now said to be stored, there are any precautionary measures which the Board of Works can enforce to save life and property; whether the atmosphere in the locality of petroleum is not more or less largely impregnated with vapour given off from it; what danger from explosion of the vapour of petroleum in mixture with air is to be apprehended; what destruction of life and property must be expected to result from the dense volume of black smoke which would issue from flaming petroleum in store; whether, if it escaped to the Thames, the shipping in the Thames would not be destroyed; and, whether it has been suggested by the Officers of the Board, or of the Fire Brigade Department, that immediate steps should be taken to avert such a calamity?
DR. BREWERsaid, in reply, that the Metropolitan Board of Works had no power to prevent the storing of petroleum to any amount in any wharf or warehouse in the City of London. The
1992
Petroleum Act, 31 & 32 Vict., only applied to the storing of petroleum in places where it might be exposed to a temperature of 100 degrees. The Board could not enforce any measures for the protection of life and property in the event of an explosion or conflagration taking place in premises where barrels of petroleum were stored. The amount stored last week was 45,554 barrels, containing 35 gallons each, but these did not include privately stored petroleum. The head of the Fire Brigade Department wished that steps should be taken to isolate the stores of petroleum, and that a building should be constructed applicable to the storing of all petroleum.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL—SCHOOL-MASTERS.—QUESTION.
DR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Lord Advocate, in the event of the Education (Scotland) Bill becoming law, Whether the Treasury will be entitled, as heretofore, to pay the interest of the capital sum invested under the Act 1 and 2 Vic. c. 87, to the schoolmasters of Parliamentary schools until such time as the charge of their salaries comes upon the rates?
THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, said, he had no hesitation in answering the Question in the affirmative, and if necessary further words should be added to one of the clauses of the Bill in order to make the matter perfectly plain.

PARLIAMENT—COUNTS OUT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to propose for the adoption of the House the following Resolution, which was recommended by the Committee on Public Business, which sat during Session 1871:—
  "That when the House, after a morning Sitting, resumes its Sitting at Nine o'clock, and it appears, on Notice being taken, that forty Members are not present, the House shall suspend Debate and Proceedings until a quarter past Nine o'clock; and Mr. Speaker shall then count the House, and, if forty Members are not then present, the House shall stand adjourned?"
  This Resolution was in accordance with one unanimously passed last Session by the Committee on Public Business, and was brought forward by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Chairman

  1993
  of that Committee, on the 26th of February last. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn the Order for the Adjourned Debate on the Resolution, and since the withdrawal the House, on Tuesday, the 28th of May, was counted out; on the 11th instant, also a Tuesday, only one having intervened, the House was again counted out at 10 minutes past 9; and on the 18th instant, just a week after, when the House resumed at 9 o'clock, another count out took place at three minutes past 9; so that during the past month the House had been counted out on three Tuesdays out of four. Under those circumstances, he begged to submit his Question to the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir, I have no such intention.

ARMY—CONTROL DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government are willing to assent to such a Motion as that which stood on the Paper on Tuesday 18th instant, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Control Department; and, if not, whether any opportunity will be afforded for a discussion on the subject?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Question of the hon. and gallant Member has been on the Paper, in one form or another, the whole Session, but has been postponed by the hon. and gallant Member from time to time. On Tuesday last my right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Storks) and I came down to discuss it, and should have shown what we trusted the House would have considered very good reasons for declining to accede to the proposal. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared, in the present state of Public Business, to apply to my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to set aside other Business for the purpose of giving another opportunity for bringing on this discussion.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTsaid, that Tuesday was the first occasion on which his Notice of Motion for a Royal Commission had been on the Notice Paper. As the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety for
  1994
  a discussion had not even brought him down in time to help to make a House on Tuesday, and as he now declined to assist him ["Order!"]—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to put a Question to the Secretary of State for War with respect to the answer now given by the right hon. Gentleman; but he is not at liberty to debate the matter.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTsaid, he was merely going to add that he would endeavour to find an opportunity for himself, and would therefore put the same Notice on the Notice Paper for to-morrow night on going into Committe of Supply.

ARMY—THE VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORWOODasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the desirability of permitting Volunteers, who on account of business engagements are absent from their own head quarters, to be attached (with the consent of commanding officers) to corps in the neighbourhood in which they may be staying, and under proper vouchers from the adjutant of the corps to which they may be so attached, to be returned, as efficients, in the annual return of the corps to which they belong?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, his attention had been directed to this subject, and in the draft of an Order in Council, to be circulated to-morrow, provision was made to meet the case referred to.

ARMY—FIRST-CAPTAINS IN THE SCIENTIFIC CORPS.—QUESTIONS.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Address to Her Majesty, carried in the other House of Parliament by a majority of three, will prevent or delay the promised advancement of the First Captains of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers to the rank of Field Officers?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Address is directed against an arrangement for which provision has been made by this House. I have not had the opportunity of considering with my Colleagues the Answer which Her Majesty ought to be advised to return to the Address of the

1995
other House. I must therefore request my right hon. and learned Friend to defer his Question until Monday.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.—QUESTION.
THE O'DONOGHUEasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Report of the Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Keogh in the case of the Galway Petition, and which is to be placed upon the Table of the House, is to be the Report as it was originally taken by the shorthand writer, or that Report revised by Mr. Justice Keogh?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. DOWSE)said, he had no official information on this subject beyond that possessed by any other Member of the House, and any knowledge he might have, had been derived not in his official capacity. A communication had been made to him by the printer of the House—who, no doubt, thought he would like to be informed on the subject—to the effect that Mr. Justice Keogh had returned the proofs with the least possible delay, and had substantially done nothing beyond making—to use the printer's own words—"typical amendments."

FRANCE—EMBARKATION OF COMMUNIST PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has been informed that French political prisoners have been placed by the French police on board British steamers and landed in this Country since the publication of the Correspondence between the two Governments relating to this matter, and that so lately as Friday last four prisoners from Dieppe were landed at Newhaven; and, under these circumstances, whether he will state what steps Her Majesty's Government purpose taking to insure the fulfilment of the assurances which have been repeatedly given to Parliament on this subject?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, my hon. Friend showed me a letter about three hours ago from Mr. Knight, the General Manager of the South Eastern Railway, stating that on the 9th instant four Frenchmen, and on the 15th instant six Frenchmen, had been put on board the
1996
English steamer at Dieppe and landed at Newhaven, presumably by the French police. The Secretary of State's attention was at once called to this matter, and a despatch has been this evening sent to Lord Lyons, requesting him to bring this report immediately under the notice of the French Government. As it is stated that some of these men paid their own fares up to London, it is possible that there may have been some mistake in the statement that they had been forcibly deported by the French authorities.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 31.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. William Edward Forster.)
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 31.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th June.]

    VI.—MISCELLANEOUS—INSPECTION—CONSCIENCE CLAUSE—COMPULSION, &C.
    Clause 66 (School boards to provide elementary education for poor children).
    MR. CRAUFURDrose to move, in page 25, line 22, to leave out "school," and insert "parochial," his object being much the same as that of his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith)—namely, to charge the parochial board, and not the school board, with the duty of providing for the education of the children of poor parents. The difficulty that struck him was this—By the clause as it now stood they were either making two classes of paupers, or they were handing over to school boards the decision of a matter which they had no means of determining—namely, the ability of parents to pay for their children's education.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the school board as a body was not so constituted as to be able to decide whether parents could pay or not. Boards of Guardians and the parochial boards in Scotland were much better adapted for doing so. He was aware that the Amendment would stigmatize as paupers such persons as could not afford to pay for the education of their children; but there was no help for that, and the number of such persons would be exceedingly small. In London the School Board hoped that, even when the compulsory system was in force, they would not be led into the payment or remission of school fees

    1997
    to any considerable extent; but this remission should be allowed by Boards of Guardians rather than by school boards. He had placed on the Notice Paper an Amendment to the same effect, and he should support, not the words, but the principle of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. MILLERsaid, he hoped the Lord Advocate would agree to the Amendment. The school board had not the means of inquiring into the circumstances of parents. The parochial board was the pro per authority for satisfying the ratepayers that school fees should be remitted.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsupported the Amendment, though he thought that of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) preferable.
    MR. DIXONdoubted whether there would be any satisfactory solution of the difficulty except by means of free schools. He did not intend, however, to vote for the Amendment, and hoped the Government would adhere to the clause in its present form. Parliament would not solve the religious difficulty by adopting the course now proposed, for there was no difference in principle whether the school fees were paid by the parochial boards or by the school boards, the ratepayers having to provide the funds in both cases. When the Education Act of 1870 was under discussion many hon. Members dwelt with great force on the pauperizing effect of forcing poor parents to claim a remission of school fees, and it was distinctly stated in that Act that the payment of school fees was not to be considered poor relief. His hon. Friend who proposed the Amendment no doubt thought the effect would be the same in both cases; but he did not concur in that view. The class of persons who went before the Poor Law Guardians were known as paupers; but they were now dealing with a class which was quite distinct from the pauper class—with hundreds and thousands of widows, for example, who were struggling energetically against pauperism, and whose great aim it was to avoid any connection whatever with the Poor Law, with persons who had seen better days, and who shrank from the idea of applying to a relieving officer. The question of compulsion was an extremely difficult one, and the greatest tenderness should be
    1998
    shown in carrying it out, and the Amendment would increase the difficulties attending its application. Nothing could be more oppressive than to compel such a deserving class of widows as he had referred to to place themselves in the position of paupers.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsupported the Amendment. Under the new system of school boards a very extensive double machinery was created for the purpose of inquiring into the pecuniary position of parents, and to test their capability of paying school fees for the education of their children. That was a state of things which he believed could not last. There were a set of officers watched by the school boards who delegated their duties to district committees, and was it not, he would ask, highly probable that those committees would take a very lenient view of the pecuniary position of those with whom they would have to deal? His own experience of the London School Board led him to believe that the greatest evils were likely to ensue from having two concurrent bodies administering funds in the same locality.
    DR. LYON PLAYFAIRexpressed himself as being greatly alarmed at the probable operation of the 66th and 67th clauses of the Bill. The 67th clause, in reality, though that might not be the intention of the Lord Advocate, gave an invitation to everyone who considered he would be benefited by the fees to go to the school funds. The result would be the pauperizing of education in Scotland, than which he could conceive no greater evil. He thought the Amendment open to the objections which had been urged by the hon. Member for Westminster, but then its spirit ought, in his opinion, to receive the sanction of the House.
    MR. MELLY, in supporting the Amendment, observed that, in the case of such great towns as Manchester and Liverpool, it had been found a great evil to have two large staffs acting separately in relation to cases of poverty.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, by the existing Poor Law of Scotland, it was the duty of the Poor Law authorities—and it was a duty which was very well per-formed—to provide education for the children of paupers in country parishes, and the same thing had been done to a considerable extent in towns. Undoubtedly, there were cases—they were

    1999
    comparatively few—in which parents who were not paupers could not bear the burden of being compelled to pay school fees, and at the same time losing the benefit of their children's services, and he thought it would be rather hard to compel all such persons to have recourse to the Poor Law; while, on the other hand, if the school board authorized them to send their children to school without paying the fees, the children would have the benefit of education without there being any sense of degradation in the matter, and he apprehended it was most in accordance with the sense of the House that in certain cases compulsion should be carried out without the parents and children being branded as paupers. He had endeavoured to provide that there should be no unnecessary pressure on the rates. The duty was in the first instance put upon the parents to send their children to school; but if they did not perform that first duty they must then go to the school board and explain that they were unable to discharge it on account of poverty. That was the meaning of the 67th clause, and not the least invitation was held out to parents to induce them to receive money when it was not required from the school board. Under all the circumstances he had stated, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. ORR EWINGregretted that the Government did not intend to adopt the Amendment. He thought that what his hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd) said was perfectly true—namely, that the parochial board would have the best means of knowing all the circumstances connected with the child. But then the Lord Advocate said this would only reduce the children to the condition of paupers, and he wished to maintain their independence. The Lord Advocate had pursued rather an inconsistent course, considering that when he (Mr. Orr Ewing) brought forward a Motion to relieve the parents who lived in houses of a low rent from paying for education in Scotland, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said the people of Scotland would willingly pay these rates.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he thought it a great pity the Government did not accept the spirit of his hon. Friend's Amendment. The opinion of the House, as far as he was able to gather, was in favour of accepting the
    2000
    spirit of the Amendment. How was the school board to ascertain who the children were unless they applied to the parochial board? Therefore the Lord Advocate proposed to do by two steps what his hon. Friend proposed to do in one. The fact could not be concealed that there were pauper children whose parents could not supply them with the necessaries of reading, writing, and arithmetic. They all knew that the religious difficulty as regarded the question of payment of fees to denominational schools had been mixed up with the schools boards. The present proposal, however, would place the whole matter on a new platform, and relegate all these difficulties to the parochial boards, and the effect of making the change would be to relieve them from the whole of the odium this subject had brought upon them. He would point out to the Government that a large portion of the Scotch Bill was an experiment. They believed it would work well; but surely the Government were not beyond taking advice from practical men like the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith.) He ventured to suggest that the Government should accept the spirit of the Amendment, and undertake to bring up a clause to give it effect upon the Report.
    MR. M'LARENbelieved that the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) had exhausted the whole argument on the question. If the duty of making inquiries as to who were entitled to be relieved from the payment of fees were placed in the hands of persons unaccustomed to make such inquiries, the effect would necessarily be that persons having no right to be exempted would be excused from payment.
    MR. COLLINSconceived that the adoption of the Amendment would go far to put an end to the religious difficulty, and he hoped that the Government would agree to it.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would not resist what appeared to be the opinion of the House, and he was, therefore, disposed to assent to the substance of the Amendment; but he thought that the object of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) would be more satisfactorily attained by omitting the 66th clause, and adopting in Clause 67 the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for

    2001
    Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), requiring, in case of necessity, application to be made to the parochial board for the payment of the school fees, and directing that board, upon such application being made, to pay out of the poor fund the ordinary and reasonable fees.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause struck out.
    Clause 67 (Parents to provide elementary education for their children).
    MR. M'LARENmoved to make the limits of age of children to be sent to school from 6 to 12, instead of from 5 to 13, as proposed by the Lord Advocate. Five years was too young an age, he contended, for a child to be sent to school.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it would be necessary to make several alterations in the clause, and he promised, therefore, to take up this question on the Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. W. H. SMITHthen moved in line 33, after "therefore," insert—
    "to apply to the parochial board of the parish or burgh in which he resides, and it shall be the duty of the said board to pay out of the poor fund the ordinary and reasonable fees for the elementary education of every such child, or such part of such fees, as the parent shall be unable to pay, in the event of such board being satisfied of the inability of the parent to pay such fees."
    MR. DIXONasked the hon. Member for Westminster whether he meant that the school boards should pay the school fees for the parochial board, or whether the parish authorities of one parish were to pay to those of another?
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he meant that the parochial boards should pay the ordinary fees of the schools to which the children shall be sent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. COLLINSthen moved the addition of the following words:—
    "No such payment shall be made or refused on condition of the child attending any school other than such school as may be selected by the parent."
    The hon. Member said, that the question involved in this Amendment was a wide and important one, and it had already more than once attracted the attention of the House. What he wanted the Committee to do was to say that where a poor person was in that position that he could not pay for the education of his children it should be left to him to de-
    2002
    termine to what school his boy or girl should be sent. He wished to enforce parental responsibility, and he did not see why the same facilities should not be given to the minority in the large towns of Scotland as had been conferred upon the minority in England. In gaols prisoners, and in the Army soldiers, had the privilege of selecting their chaplains; and where there were two schools side by side receiving the support of the Government the children of parents belonging to the minority should have their religious feelings respected.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "but no such payment shall be made or refused on condition of the child attending any school other than such school in receipt of the Parliamentary grant as may be selected by the parent."—(Mr. Collins.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE LORD ADVOCATElooked upon the Amendment as proposing that the Poor Law authorities shall pay for the education of paupers at any school the paupers might select. According to the Amendment, the pauper parents should be at liberty to select any inspected school they chose, and the Poor Law authorities should have no voice in the matter at all. He must dissent altogether from that proposition; and he must also dissent from the Amendment on the Paper by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, to the effect that the parents should have no voice in the matter. Both these extremes were vicious. Hitherto the reasonable wishes of the parents had been respected, and there was every ground for behoving that there would be no difference in the future. If there were two schools equally eligible for the education desiderated, the one desired by the parent on religious or other grounds would commonly be selected. But that the parent should be allowed to dictate to the rating authority to what school the child should be sent, without any reference to convenience, was altogether out of the question. The Government desired to maintain the perfect liberty to reserve to the Poor Law Board to do that which was just and right, and which was in accordance with good feeling, in individual cases as they might arise. He felt he must vote against the Amendment.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, the statement of the Lord Advocate might probably settle the question without going to a division, because it was evidently the desire of the Government that in all these matters the reasonable wishes of the parents should be consulted. They were now opening a new chapter in Poor Law administration by introducing this new provision; but it would not be possible to carry it out unless the wishes of the parents were consulted. He was far from saying that every captious wish could be consulted; but in any case it was clear that the Board of Supervision had laid down a principle which rendered this Amendment unnecessary.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) merely extended the 25th clause of the English Act to Scotland, to which the House could have no objection.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, this was not so; but that, whereas the English Act obliged the school boards to pay the fees when they sent children to a school not their own, this Amendment would oblige the boards to pay for children being educated in a school of the parents' choice, although the board schools might be empty.
    MR. ORR EWINGasked how would it be if a school board sent a child to a school in a parish where there were only secular schools, and where a minority wanted a religious education for their children?
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, it was quite true that evidence had been before the Committee by Roman Catholic clergymen on the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing), but those gentlemen were unable to give one single instance in which the consciences of the Roman Catholic children or their parents had been offended by the action of the parochial board, and therefore the argument of the hon. Member completely broke down.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 178: Majority 12.
    MR. M'LARENmoved, at the end of the clause, to add—
    "Provided, the school board shall pay fees only for the elementary education of such poor children as attend the public schools."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he had already spoken on this Amendment, and that he did not intend further to refer to it.
    MR. CRAUFURDhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
    MR. CANDLISHsuggested that as the view of the House on the subject had been indirectly expressed in the division which had just taken place, the wiser course to adopt would be to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. COLLINSwas in favour of the Amendment being negatived rather than withdrawn.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNmoved to add—"And the provisions of this clause shall apply to the education of blind children."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 68 (Defaulting parents may be proceeded against).
    MR. SCOURFIELDmoved, in page 25, line 39, leave out "it shall be the duty of," and after "board" leave out "to," and insert "may at its discretion." He strongly objected to any increased severity in the penal and compulsory enactments. By the clause as it now stood the Board was authorized to summon any parent, and require from him information and explanation respecting the failure of his duty with regard to the education of his children, and prosecute him before the Sheriff; and on conviction such person was rendered liable to a penalty of £5 or 30 days' imprisonment. He thought it would be a sufficient and more severe punishment to compel the offender to listen to a lecture of one, two, or three hours from a member of the board on the blessings of education.
    MR. J. LOWTHERpointed out the arbitrary character of this preposterous enactment, which provided that it should be the duty of every school board to appoint an officer to ascertain and report to the board what parents, resident within the parish or burgh, had failed and omitted to provide elementary education for their children, and they would be rendered liable to prosecution if they did not satisfy the board that they had not failed in such duty without reason-

    2005
    able excuse. Thus a parent might be summoned before a kind of Inquisition, or Star Chamber, and cross-examined with a view to the institution of legal proceedings against him. This was neither more nor less than the old French system, which had been denounced from time immemorial in this country. The corresponding clause in the English Act was couched in far milder language, and, moreover, he did not believe any proceedings had been taken under it. At all events, he was certain no person had been sent to prison for infringing the English Act, because this was a free country, where every man ought to be at liberty to know as much or as little as he pleased. He protested against cramming information down people's throats with a policeman's staff, and trusted the Committee would eventually assist him in removing this element of compulsion from the Bill.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERremarked that in the present instance his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) had exercised the freedom of which he spoke, and had elected to remain ignorant of the educational requirements of the people of Scotland. If there was one thing they wanted more than another it was this compulsory clause, and he hoped the Government would not be seduced into giving it up by the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. F. S. POWELLdesired to see a universal system of compulsion established both in England and Scotland, as the time had passed when parents should be allowed to bring up their children in ignorance; but, nevertheless, he objected to the present clause because it was unnecessarily inquisitorial and vexatious in its character. However, if the Scotch Members did not object to it, it was not for him as an English Member to interfere.
    MR. COLLINSprotested against the doctrine that if the Scotch people chose to have the clause Englishmen ought not to say anything against it. Every English Member of the House was interested in seeing that no precedent was adopted for Scotland which might afterwards injuriously be applied to this country.
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEthought it strange that a Liberal Government should bring forward so many tyrannical
    2006
    measures. This was about the most tyrannical clause he had ever seen in a Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEurged that they could not compel a person to do anything without coercion; and, having determined that it was necessary, the next question was, what amount was sufficient for the purpose? As to the Amendment now before the Committee, he did not think it should be left at the discretion of the board to act in the matter as they thought fit, and it was not too strong language to use for the purpose to say that it should be their duty to give attention to the point, and to see that children were not left uneducated through the culpable neglect of their parents. The hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) quite misapprehended the effect of the clause, which would inflict no hardship on parents, but was conceived in kindness and tenderness towards them. An opportunity was afforded to the parent by the clause of explaining why he had not sent his child to be educated, and the fiat for his prosecution could only issue upon his failure to attend the request or summons of the board to appear, or, upon his appearing, his failing to give a satisfactory explanation.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the clause, as a penal one, was of interest to England as well as Scotland. Its object was to create a moral feeling, and that could not be done by pains and penalties. He was much surprised to hear the learned Lord Advocate say that the latter part of the clause was drawn in tenderness and kindness. He (Mr. B. Hope) knew that Scotch legal phraseology was very strange to the southern mind; for what was termed to "justify" a man in Scotland, meant in England hanging him. Even taking such differences of terms into consideration, he was not prepared to hear the words tenderness and kindness applied to the clause. If the Committee passed this clause they would make the idea of education odious, and place reading and writing in the category of things which were looked upon as simple tyranny.
    MR. ORR EWINGquoted the Report of Dr. Frazer (Bishop of Manchester) on education in America, to show that, in spite of pains and penalties, a large amount of truancy and absenteeism existed there; and he asked whether this

    2007
    clause could not be amended so as to make it less stringent. If it were passed in its present form no school board could work it. It had better be made less stringent in order that it might be universally carried out.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsuggested the withdrawal of the Amendment, in order that he might raise the whole question of compulsory education at a subsequent stage in an Amendment expunging all the objectionable words of the clause.
    MR. SCOURFIELD, who said his object was to facilitate the operations of the boards, said he had no objection to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ANDERSONmoved, in page 26, line 9, leave out "the board is hereby authorized," and insert "it shall be the duty of the board." He contended that if it was not made compulsory upon the board to summon the parent whose child was not attending school, it would not be done.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the construction he put upon the clause in its present form was, that it would be the duty of the board to inquire into every case of non-attendance, and no doubt this would be done, and it would be too stringent to enact that in every case the parent should be summoned. The Committee should have confidence that the boards would carry out the intention of the Act without directing them at every stage that they must do certain things compulsory.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYthought considerable difficulty would be experienced in some parishes in getting a suitable person to prepare a list of all children not attending school.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEdid not think any such difficulty would be felt, and he agreed with the Lord Advocate that it would be unwise to compel the board to summon the parent in every case.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division, but would rather leave the matter to the discretion of the school boards. In many of the large towns in England legal proceedings had been instituted with the greatest possible benefit, but they were not compulsory. Under the English Act the school boards picked out the worst cases,
    2008
    in which they took proceedings against the parents, and the moral effect of their action in those cases rendered it unnecessary to proceed in the other cases. He thought to compel the boards in Scotland to summon in every case would have an injurious effect upon the working of the Bill.
    MR. KINNAIRDsaid, when he first saw the Amendment he was prepared to support it; but after what had been just said, he did not think it would be wise to draw the string too tight at first.
    MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the clause without the Amendment would only provide for permissive education; whereas the understanding had been that the Bill should give absolute compulsion uniformly. It had been stated that there were 90,000 children in Scotland who received no education. The greater part of that number were probably in Glasgow, and none of them would be sent to school unless stringent compulsory powers were given to the boards.
    MR. GRAHAMremarked that, if the statement just made was correct, it showed that it would render the whole clause inoperative to compel the boards to summon the parents of 90,000 children.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, if there was one thing more than another upon which the Scotch people had determined, it was that—right or wrong—they would make a fair trial of absolute compulsion, and they altogether objected to the permissive compulsion of the clause as it at present stood.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. F. S. POWELLmoved to insert "alleged" before the word "failure" in line 12, in order to modify the language of the clause and make it accord with general usage.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEobjected to directing the board to take proceedings upon a mere allegation.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ORR EWINGmoved, in page 26, line 26, leave out "five," and insert "one." Line 27, leave out "thirty," and insert "three."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought, perhaps, the penalties in the clause were a little too high, and therefore he would consent to reduce the £5 to £2, and the 30 days to 14 days.
    MR. ORR EWINGstill thought the penalties too high.
    MR. CRAUFURDobjected to any reduction. Amongst the mining population many men were receiving between £3 and £4 per week, much of which was squandered in drink, and they would willingly pay a couple of pounds rather than send their children to school.
    MR. M'LARENreminded the Committee that penalties of 40 s. were considered to be sufficient for many serious offences, and asked why a poor man should be made liable to pay a much larger amount for neglecting to comply with this provision.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he should leave it to the Scotch Members to settle amongst themselves what the money penalty should be; but he should certainly take the sense of the Committee on the proposal to imprison. There was no such enactment in the English Bill, and he objected to its introduction into the Scotch Bill.
    MR. FORDYCEwished to ask the Lord Advocate what was to become of these penalties, and also whether the expenses of the Procurator Fiscal were to be defrayed by the board, or considered included in their salaries, as, if the former, he strongly objected to such expenditure being thrown on local rates?
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, the penalty in the English Act was 5s. and costs, and the parent might be summoned again next day; while in this Bill an interval of six months must elapse before a second prosecution could take place; therefore it was necessary the penalty should be higher.
    The words "five pounds" were then struck out, and "forty shillings" inserted.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTthen moved to omit that part of the clause which enacted imprisonment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 26, to leave out the words "or to imprisonment not exceeding thirty days."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'or to imprisonment' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if a man did not pay his fine, he might be sent to prison under the English Act.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he was aware that such was the case; but the proposal in this Bill was that there should be a discretion to fine or imprisonment, and it was that to which he objected. He should not be opposed if the imprisonment was only to follow upon the non-payment of the fine.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 27: Majority 36.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved to strike out 30 days, and insert 14 days.
    MR. CRAUFURDsaid, they were imposing a duty by Act of Parliament, and if those on whom it was imposed failed to perform it, they would commit a misdemeanour which was punishable by the ordinary law of the land by fine and imprisonment. The present clause was really a limitation of the penalty. He did not know why the learned Lord wished to limit the maximum to 14 days; for his part he would rather leave it as it was.
    MR. WHEELHOUSE, on the other hand, would rather fix it at 7 than 14 days.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. C. S. PARKERwished to ask the learned Lord a question with respect to the Bill of last year—which formed a sort of appendix to the Education Act—the Industrial and Reformatory Schools Bill. He wanted to know whether the learned Lord had considered the question, and whether, under this Bill, the school board had sufficient power to spend money in sending criminal children to reformatory schools? In a densely populated city like Glasgow they would be sure to find many children in the streets who were not fit to be sent to the ordinary schools under the school board.
    MR. R. W. DUFFalso inquired what was to be done with the fines levied under this Act?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he had fully considered this Bill with reference to the measure of last year. The Industrial Schools Act already gave power to magistrates to deal with children brought before them, and he thought that this Bill had at present quite as much as it could carry. Therefore, he he did not propose to insert a clause giving the school boards power to send children to a reformatory or industrial

    2011
    schools. With respect to the penalties, there was an express provision that they should go to the Exchequer. The question of the expense of the prosecution was dealt with in the next clause, and it was provided that such expenses as were not recovered from the defaulting persons should be paid by the school board.
    MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, that after the division which had been taken, he would not trouble the Committee to divide against the clause; but he reserved to himself the right of doing so on the Report should he think fit.
    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    MR. M'LARENthought that there was some injustice in making the school boards pay the expenses of prosecutions and not allowing them to receive the fines.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved to add at the end of the clause the words—"All fines recovered under this clause shall be paid into the school fund."
    MR. M'LARENsaid, that although the machinery for recovering the penalties under the Bill was described as summary, it would be somewhat expensive. Taking into consideration the charges for the summons, the witnesses, and the officers, each case would hardly cost less than 30 s. He thought that this being in the nature of a penal Act, the Procurators Fiscal should conduct the prosecutions as part of the duty of their office.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 69 (Method of Procedure) agreed to.
    Clause 70 (Employers of children to act as parents. Parents not exempted from liability).
    DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that, according to the terms of the clause, if an infant entered an infant school at the age of three and remained until six, the employer would be relieved from all responsibility. But it could not be thought that an infant would have received sufficient education in that time. He would therefore propose to insert in page 27, line 7, after "years" "consecutively between the ages of five and thirteen."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHmoved, in line 7, after "years" to leave
    2012
    out "and," and insert "or who having so attended school," his object being to prevent the employer from being relieved from all responsibility if the child could merely read and write. He should be sorry to see the standard of education limited to the arts of reading and writing. Certainly, if a child could not read and write after being at the school for three years, he ought to go back again.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he sympathized very much with the proposal, and was far from saying that the standard of education should be the mere ability to read and write; nor would he exonerate an employer who took a child into his employment merely because he could read and write. At the same time, he pointed out that, in a Bill which created offences and inflicted penalties, it would not do to make the clauses too stringent, and he would point out that, as the clause now stood, it did not absolutely prohibit a person from employing a child who had not been three years at school, and who could not read or write, but it made the master subject to all the liabilities to which a parent was subject, and that was what they were aiming at. The only reason he had for rejecting the Amendment was that it was proposed to render still more stringent a penal clause passed for the establishment of a compulsory system.
    DR. LYON PLAYPAIRthought that precisely the same arguments might be used against the Factory Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. ORR EWINGmoved the omission of the clause, on the ground that if it were retained and acted on it would be impossible to carry out the provisions of the Factory Act. Employers of labour required, in order to avoid the penalties of that Act, to keep two sets of children, whereby the one set, who were at work during the forenoon, were educated during the afternoon; and those who were at school in the forenoon were at work in the afternoon. But employers of labour might be imprisoned under this clause.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that only those manufacturers who were censurably contumacious would be subject to penalties, because the clause provided that such penalties should only attach to masters who continued ignorant children

    2013
    in their employment after notice from the school board.
    MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that a child might come to an employer at eight or nine years of age, and his education might have been neglected up to that time. Was the employer of the child to be punished because the child's education had been neglected for the three preceding years?
    MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, the tendency of recent measures, especially during the present Session, was to subject all mankind to penal legislation. If anybody were called on to portray the advancing civilization of England, it might be fitly conveyed by the representation of a large prison.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 71 (Exemptions).
    MR. GRIEVEmoved the omission, in page 27, of words which provided that a certificate of regular attendance at a public school, or a school subject to inspection, during a period of not less than six months in each of three successive years, shall exempt the parent, and all employers of the child, from any prosecution or other proceeding under this Act. The only proof of education which would exempt an employer would, therefore, be a certificate of ability to read and write, and of a fair knowledge of elementary arithmetic under the hand of one of Her Majesty's Inspectors, or a teacher of a school authorized by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that his object in inserting the words objected to was to meet the case of a very rare occurrence—that of employers employing children who had been at certain schools for three years, but who would not learn to read or write. He was assured that such cases were so very rare that it was not worth while to provide for them, and he would not therefore resist the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKmoved, in line 21, to leave out the words "of ability to read and write and of a fair knowledge of elementary arithmetic," and to insert instead, "instruction according to a standard which may be fixed from time
    2014
    to time by the Education Department." He contended that the provision as it now stood would not secure an education at all, for it would be a mockery to call mere reading, writing, and arithmetic by that name. These three things were merely the foundation upon which an education could be built. He might, no doubt, be told that this was merely a provision exempting the parents of the children from punishment in the event of these things provided for having been learned; but he was afraid that the enactment would give a tone, or rather a want of tone, to the standard of teaching in all schools throughout Scotland. He thought that it would be much better to leave the standard according to which a certificate of ability should be granted to the discretion of the Education Department, so that they could from time to time raise the standard. He feared that the standard of teaching in the English schools was very much influenced for the worse by the necessary standard having been fixed too low, and he hoped that such a system would not be introduced into Scotland, which had been so long and so justly celebrated for the high standard of teaching in her national schools.
    DR. LYON PLAYFAIRremarked that they had already passed a compulsory law for Scotland, and there could be no greater tyranny than to insist upon the attendance of children at school for a certain number of years, and yet only to provide for their being taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. The moment they had compulsion they were bound to have higher education. What his hon. Friend proposed was nothing more than what was in the English Bill, which provided for a definite standard of education, and surely no one could say that reading, writing, and arithmetic was any definition of education. He repeated that it was nothing short of tyranny to connect compulsory attendance with the miserable standard fixed by the clause.
    MR. SCOURFIELDthought that the tyranny would rather be in punishing parents for not having their children educated up to a standard which would be in itself fluctuating and uncertain.
    MR. M'LARENalso opposed the Amendment. He remarked that the Bill was one of pains and penalties, and if those were to be inflicted, it was

    2015
    necessary that the standard should be well known and defined.
    MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHwas surprised at the opposition to the Amendment, when the principle of it was precisely the same as was embodied in the English Act. He must protest against putting into an Act of Parliament a provision that education was to consist of merely reading, writing, and arithmetic. He hoped the Lord Advocate would accept the words proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock).
    THE LORD ADVOCATEobserved that it was not intended by the present clause to define education, the clause only referring to children under 13 years of age, and providing an exemption for parents and employers from liability to prosecution in eases where a certificate was granted that the children could read and write and had a fair knowledge of arithmetic. It would, however, be a serious matter to sanction an impression that by means of penalties children should be compelled to receive the higher class of education. He was as strong an advocate for the higher education as the hon. Member; but he hoped he would not press his Amendment to a division.
    MR. DALGLISHsupposed that it could not enter into the imagination of any one that all children in all districts should be educated up to a point to be fitted to go to the University. All the Committee had to consider was that the child should be so educated that he should become a good member of society afterwards. A certificate that he was educated up to that point was all that could possibly be required, and that was to be able to read and write and to understand a certain amount of arithmetic.
    MR. DIXONsaid, that what was required was that security should be given not for what they should be taught at school, but what they should retain in after life. They found from statistics that children who left school at the ages of 10, 11, and 12, and who only possessed a knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic, in the space of a few years after they had left school entirely forgot what they had learnt, and it was against that that Parliament had to provide, but it could not be obtained by the clause. In Germany the children were all well educated. The Germans retained their education, and the country was pro-
    2016
    gressing at a pace little known in this country. They were our competitors in commerce, as they were the competitors of France in war. They conquered France in war, and they would conquer England in commerce if we did not care more about the education of our people. In Germany children remained at school from 6 to 14 years of age, and it was expected that the child should benefit by the seven years of education, which was the fact, and he attained a point of knowledge that was never gained in our elementary schools. The exemption asked for was a most reasonable one, and if it did not exist in England it ought not to exist in Scotland.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEobjected to the Amendment, for he had long held that in Scotland the means of education were sure to produce their proper effect. He thought the clause somewhat vague, and it certainly acquired amendment. By whom was the certificate of proficiency to be given? Why should it be left to the master of the school? Why not restrict it to an Inspector of schools? He wished the Government would confine the operation of this clause in the same way as it was in the English Act.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthought the Lord Advocate did not quite appreciate the object of the Amendment. He objected to lay down so low a standard for time to come as that no child should be forced to attend school who was merely acquainted with the rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic. He would rather leave the standard to the discretion of the Education Department. The Lord Advocate truly said that reading, writing, and arithmetic did not constitute education. In this he quite agreed; but it followed that if the Lord Advocate was right, this was not a Bill for compulsory education at all. He did not ask to have a higher standard carried out at once; but he wished the power to be taken to raise it whenever it appeared possible to do so. He asked the Committee to carry out the principle advocated by a Royal Commission and a Committee of that House, both of which had carefully inquired into the circumstances of the case.
    DR. LYON PLAYFAIRdid not see why this clause should be so much inferior in value to that in the English Bill. By this clause a definite standard

    2017
    of education was fixed. What did that mean? The Committee of Council had several times changed the standard of education, but here the standard was fixed for all time; whilst the English Bill had the advantage of having occasionally a change of standard as circumstances might demand.
    MR. GLADSTONEadmitted that the authority recommending this Amendment entitled it to the most respectful attention; at the same time, it was not a Scotch authority. The Government, in the matter of compulsion, had been encouraged in this Bill to go very much beyond what had been attempted in the English Act. The English Act provided only for permissive compulsion, thereby leaving it to the judgment of the local authorities to determine if there need be compulsion or not, with the conviction in the minds of the Government that if the law remained as it was a considerable time would probably elapse before compulsion would be universal over England. In Scotland, however, the Government felt they were justified, in a great degree, in laying down immediate compulsory education, because they were encouraged to come up to that point by the sentiments and convictions of the people of Scotland, as expressed by the Representatives of that country. If they were to go by the opinions of those Representatives, they must have a compulsory enactment. His hon. Friend who had just sat down, and who adorned the seat for the University he occupied, was not immediately and directly the expositor of the popular voice of Scotland on this matter, because he spoke in behalf of a learned constituency. The objection taken by his hon. Friend was to the words which gave exemption from compulsion, not only in respect of children who obtained an Inspector's certificate, but also of those who received a certificate granted by any of the teachers of the schools. Upon consideration, the Government were disposed to give up these words, and to limit the power of giving a certificate which would exempt the parent to cases in which the certificate was given by one of the Inspectors. He fully admitted that it was most desirable that the certificate should be a perfectly substantial one. The point, however, on which he joined issue with the one of his hon. Friend was the doctrine that it was better to leave this matter to the discretion of
    2018
    the Department of Education. If they were to stand to the letter of the English law, it would be open to the objection that the Department might fix a lower standard of education, and insist upon it. So far from thinking that leaving this matter to the discretion of an Executive Department was an advantage, he thought it would be exactly the reverse. They were then dealing with the penal portions of the Act. It was not that they wanted to punish parents because their children did not learn a certain quantity at school. They were laying down a certain amount of penal liability for the parents, and it was demanded by justice and policy that the sphere within which parents may be liable should be strictly defined, and not dependent upon the discretion of any Executive Department. It was necessary that they should speak in plain language, and it would not be satisfactory to the people themselves if the reasons why they were exempted were not stated in clear language.
    MR. GORDONconcurred generally in the views just expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, but maintained that the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair) was, directly as well as indirectly, an expositor of the educational views of the people of Scotland. The opinion stated by that hon. Member as to the deteriorating effect which the Bill would have upon the higher branches of education correctly represented the feeling existing in Scotland, even among the humbler classes. It might be impossible to give the higher education to the great mass of the people who attended the schools; but still the good which the schools in Scotland had done towards those of the humbler classes who had shown a capacity to benefit by the higher education had been very great, and it was to be hoped that, whatever measures Parliament adopted, those classes would still continue to receive similar advantages.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE the word "fair" was omitted from line 22, as were also the words "or by any teacher of such school authorized by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors," in line 24.
    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    MR. DIXONopposed the clause after the speech of the Prime Minister, because it was clear, from what the right hon. Gentleman had said, that if that clause was passed for Scotland a similar one must he proposed, probably next year, for England. That clause was a limitation on the compulsory principle of the Bill, and there existed no such limitation in the English Act.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERwas afraid the effect of this clause would be to destroy the effect of Clause 68. As he read the clause, if a child could read, write, and scramble through a little arithmetic, he could not be compelled to go to school.
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, the absence of any provision in this Bill giving power to an Inspector, on a parent bringing his child before him, to grant a certificate that the child could read and write, would render parents in the middle and upper classes liable to prosecution, which, he thought, could not be contemplated by the Government in this measure.
    MR. M'LARENsupported the clause as a valuable one, under whose operation a child might learn more in five years than, without it, he could learn in seven.
    MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, in supporting the proposition of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), said, the difficulty would surely be met by the Lord Advocate bringing up on Report a clause carrying out the principle of the English measure in this matter. The clause was totally different from anything that appeared in the English Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 7: Majority 103.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 72 (Clerks of criminal courts to be furnished with list of defaulting parents).
    MR. GORDONprotested against the clause which provided that a copy of the list of defaulting parents should be furnished to the clerk of every Court of criminal jurisdiction in the district, and that the Court might take the facts set forth in such lists into consideration in pronouncing sentence. This really was carrying compulsion too far, and he thought it would be better to omit the clause altogether.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 50: Majority 25.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 73 (Children bound to attend school).
    MR. GORDONmoved, in page 28, line 6, leave out "secular." If the clause was allowed to remain in its present state there would be a large amount of secular scholars. If a parent objected to having his child instructed in religion, it would not be right to submit the child to such teaching; but he certainly thought the child should not be allowed to withdraw at the time of such teaching unless the parent objected to his remaining.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEcould not agree to the Amendment, because, if carried, it would introduce that which was entirely against the principle of the Bill—namely, the enforcement of religious instruction.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYurged that if the State was to stand in loco parentis it should enforce the parents' desire as to attending religious as well as secular teaching. The learned Lord surely did not, in his zeal for religious liberty, wish the child to judge what intruction it should receive, or to support it in rebellion against parental authority.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the clause did not interfere with the parents' authority. It would apply to children ordered to attend by the board as well as by their parents, and nothing was more likely to injure religious instruction than to make it compulsory.
    MR. CAWLEYasked how, if compulsion injured religious teaching, it could promote secular teaching? No invidious distinction should be drawn between one part of a parent's desire and another. The whole clause was one of an extraordinary character.
    MR. CARNEGIEsaid, that without this clause it would be possible for a parent to say—"I have ordered my child to go to school, and if he chooses to stop in the street I cannot help it; you cannot expect me to look after him." The object of the clause really was to compel the parent to send the child.
    MR. CAWLEYsaid, that was not so; the clause put compulsion on the child and not on the parent. He did not

    2021
    object to compelling a parent to send his child to school; but he objected to pretending to carry out the wishes of the parent when something contrary was intended.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsuggested the omission of the words "during the whole time that the school was open for secular instruction."
    MR. C. DALRYMPLEsaid, this was one of the clauses which showed the zeal of the promoters of the Bill for secular education as compared with religious education. His fear was, that from the treatment religious instruction received, an impression would be produced that it was a matter about which no trouble need be taken. If the word "secular" were omitted, an invidious distinction between secular and religious instruction would be removed.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, it would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill to enforce attendance on religious instruction; but he doubted whether the clause was not too severe, and if the object could be accomplished by the general rules of the school, perhaps the clause could be dispensed with.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that on the passing of the English Act infinite trouble was taken to secure the attendance of children during the whole time a school was open, and if they did not attend the religious instruction other instruction was provided. The importance of this seemed to have been lost sight of in the case of Scotland. Why was the term "secular" used so much in this Bill when it did not occur in the English Act? Was Scotland more anxious for secular teaching than England was two years ago? So far from that, the tone of the public mind was more in favour of religious teaching, a fair balance being held between the different parties. Why on earth should the Bill bear on the face of it a sort of secular mark?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the English Bill provided against a child being master of the situation and absenting himself, under the Conscience Clause, from instruction; but the wording of the Conscience Clause was different from the wording of this, which put compulsion on the parent to send the child to school. It was out of the question that they could by law enforce attendance at the time of religious instruction; and probably, as suggested, the object
    2022
    now sought could be obtained by school regulations, so that the clause might be withdrawn.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, after that statement, he would advise the withdrawal of the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause negatived.
    Clause 74 negatived.
    Clause 75 agreed to.
    Clause 76 (Teachers appointed under the Act not subject to provisions of 9 & 10 Vict., c. ccxxvi.)
    MR. ORR EWINGmoved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it was the almost unanimous wish of the schoolmasters that the question should be dealt with by private legislation next year.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEdeclined to withdraw the clause, because he thought it desirable that it should be distinctly stated that the Act in question did not affect the teachers to be appointed under the Bill; but, at the same time, he had no objection whatever to the subject being dealt with by private legislation next year, nor would the clause throw any obstacle in the way of that being done.
    SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEremarked that private efforts to legislate were not always successful.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 77 (Repeal of Acts at variance with this Act).
    THE LORD ADVOCATEproposed that the first part of the clause only should be agreed to, and promised to bring up a schedule of the Acts repealed on the Report.
    MR. CAMERONobserved, that under one of the Acts proposed to be repealed, the interest of a sum of £24,000 was distributed amongst schoolmasters in certain Highland districts. What, he desired to know, did the Government propose to substitute for that grant, and what was to become of it?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the £24,000 would be absorbed in the general funds of the country; but under the Bill a larger amount of public money would be distributed for educational purposes in the districts referred to, in respect of which the provisions of the

    2023
    Bill were very liberal. Provision would be distinctly made to secure the interest of the £24,000 under the new system, and the incomes of the existing schoolmasters would not be interfered with.
    MR. CRAUFURDwas glad to hear that the Treasury would preserve the fund; but it was already secured by statutory trust, and was the property of the schools. They could not consent to part with it.
    MR. M'LARENmoved in line 35, leave out after "repealed," to "and," in page 29, line 8, and insert—
    "The assessments authorised and required to be imposed and levied by the said recited Acts, or any of them, shall continue to be imposed and levied upon the heritors in all time coming, according to the provisions of the said Acts, and the law as existing prior to the passing of this Act, to the extent and effect of imposing and levying in each parish an assessment which shall produce a sum equal in amount to that which was imposed and levied in such parish during the average of the three years immediately preceding the passing of this Act, and with the same right of relief against their tenants as is provided by the said recited Acts, and that the produce thereof shall be paid over to the said School Boards respectively in all time coming: Provided, that when the general assessment hereby authorised to be imposed in any parish would amount to a larger sum on any heritor and his tenants than the average amount leviable during the three years preceding the passing of this Act, the original assessment hereby continued shall cease and determine, and the new assessment only shall be leviable according to the provisions of this Act."
    By the Act of 1696 the heritors were required to establish a school in every parish, and the maximum stipend was now £70. It could be proved, however, that the rental of many counties had increased more than forty-fold, while the salary of the schoolmaster was only augmented by £6. One third of the whole parishes had to supply, not only the school-houses, but the salaries for the schoolmasters. The rate would be levied on the small holders as well as upon the wealthier classes, but the proportion was not adequately adjusted.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that it was proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh to adopt a system which was a most objectionable one on its merits. As it appeared to him, a double mode of assessment was proposed by the Amendment, and he confessed that it was a most difficult one to understand. He submitted that the plan proposed in the Bill was the right one, and it was
    2024
    a rule that had been followed in all analogous cases—namely, to found the assessment upon the equitable value of the land, and to divide it among the owners and occupiers who were to pay the rate.
    MR. CARNEGIEthought the Lord Advocate had misapprehended the intention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who did not wish that there should be a double payment, but that the sum now paid on the assessment, whichever was highest, should be paid. With the principle of this he agreed, although he objected to the wording of the Amendment.
    MR. CRAUFURDhoped his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on his Amendment.
    MR. ANDERSONremarked that under the Bill as it at present stood there would be, in some parishes, a considerable transfer of burdens from the rich to the poor, and the object of the Amendment was to prevent that transfer. If, therefore, his hon. Friend should divide he would vote with him.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. CAMERONmoved, in line 35, to insert the following amendment:—
    "Provided that in addition to the Parliamentary grant a sum of money equal in amount to the sum now appropriated to any school established under the said recited Act of the First and Second Victoria, chapter eighty-seven, shall be paid by the Scotch Education Department to the School Board of each parish in which such school may be situated."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had consulted on the subject with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had great pleasure in saying that there was no objection to the proposition contained in the Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, he (the Lord Advocate) would bring up a clause on the Report which would embody the same proposition.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNwished to know whether under the Bill the position of a sub-tenant would be respected, and whether such a sub-tenant would be held liable for rates. If so, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring up a clause on the Report to protect such tenants during the currency of their existing leases.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was nothing in the Bill which interfered with existing contracts, which would remain when this Bill came into operation just as they were at present.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 78 agreed to.
    Postponed Clauses.
    Clause 2 (Expenses of Scotch Education Department) negatived; whereupon—
    THE LORD ADVOCATErose to explain that it had been negatived by mistake; when—
    LORD GARLIESrose to Order. He wished to know what clause the Committee were now upon?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the clause had been negatived, and he did not think it was competent for him to put it again.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was some misapprehension about the matter. The clause was a matter-of-course clause, which must be passed.
    MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it was better that things should be done in a regular way, and as the clause had been negatived by mistake it would be easy enough to re-commit the Bill in order to re-insert it, and that course would have to be adopted.
    Clause 3 (Department may employ officers in Scotland).
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 89: Majority 41.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved to insert a new clause providing that the expenses of the Scotch Education Department should be defrayed by the Lords of the Treasury out of moneys to be voted by Parliament.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHconsidered this to be a most extraordinary proceeding. The Committee had negatived Clause 2 of the Bill, providing that—
    "The salaries of the officers and servants of the Scotch Education Department shall be fixed with the consent of the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury, and shall, together with the whole expenses of the said Department, be defrayed out of moneys voted by Parliament;"
    and now another clause was proposed,
    2026
    to all intents and purposes in the same terms. He appealed to the Chairman to know whether such a course was in accordance with the Rules of the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that this is substantially the same clause as Clause 2; but there are certain modifications in it which, if the Committee had been so disposed, would have enabled it to be taken. However, if I am bound to give a strict ruling, I must say that, in consideration of the circumstances under which Clause 2 was negatived, this clause should be proposed on re-committal.
    COLONEL WILSON-PATTENconcurred that the clause could only be considered on the third reading, or on re-committal, and suggested that it should be withdrawn.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    New Clause (Appointment of organising Commissioners in Scotland to act for three years,)—(The Lord Advocate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. GORDONsaid, the Committee were entitled to be informed as to the character and position of the persons who were to exercise the powers of Commissioners. Not the slightest information had been given as to the persons whom it was proposed to appoint Commissioners. That was an unusual proceeding. He hoped that the Committee would adopt the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper. A code applicable to England would not be suitable to the parochial schools in Scotland, and therefore he was anxious that the preparation of the Scotch code should be intrusted to persons who were acquainted with the Scotch system. In 1869 the Vice-President of the Committee of Council repudiated the idea of Scotch education being placed under the Privy Council, because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it would be impossible to work two different systems under the same roof. He wanted to know upon what grounds had the Government changed the views to which they gave expression in 1869?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 79: Majority 53.
    MR. ELLICEmoved an Amendment to insert after the word "years," in line 3, the words "and if they see fit at the expiry of that period to extend it for five years."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Government did not make any objection to the Amendment; but he should be exceedingly disappointed if the labours of the Commission, so far as carrying the Act into operation was concerned, were not completed within three years.
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD GARLIESmoved that the Chairman report Progress, as the proceedings of the Committee appeared to be in a state of confusion, and no one seemed to know what was the clause under consideration.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the Motion, in the hope that the Bill would pass through Committee that night.
    MR. NEWDEGATEthought the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Garlies) was perfectly feasible, as Members should have time to consider the new clause.
    MR. BOUVERIEthought it was a most unreasonable demand to make on the part of the noble Lord (Lord Garlies), as it would necessitate another day's sitting.
    LORD GARLIESsaid, if the House wished it he would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion withdrawn.
    MR. GORDONsaid, that before the Committee came to the next Amendment he wished to know from the Vice-President of the Privy Council, whether they were to receive any information as to the character and position of the parties likely to occupy the position of Commissioners?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Commission would be a most important one, and the Government felt the responsibility of acting in accordance with the opinion of Parliament as to the persons to be appointed.
    MR. C. DALRYMPLEalso wished to obtain some information as to the composition of the Commission, and, looking to the manner in which the Paper had been loaded with Amendments by hon. Members on the opposite side which had been departed from, he could not conceive but that some information had been given to them as to the
    2028
    composition of the Board of which the Committee was not aware.
    MR. BOUVERIEthought it only reasonable that before the Bill was passed the names of some of those who were to be appointed Commissioners should be made known.
    MR. ANDERSONhoped that nothing like a clerical Commission would be appointed, as the people of Scotland would object to any gentlemen being appointed who held a prominent place in any religious sect.
    MR. M'LARENwished to know the amount of salary which it was proposed to give the Commissioners?
    DR. LYON PLAYFAIRremarked that there was a difference between the Commission which would be appointed under the Bill and that which was proposed in 1869. He had no doubt the members of the Commission would be selected with great care; but what the people of Scotland wanted to know was, what was to be the real nature of the Scotch Education Department? He would add that he did not think it would be right to disqualify a man who had devoted himself to education from being a Commissioner simply because he happened to be a clergyman.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsuggested that there would be nothing unprecedented in naming the Commissioners, inasmuch as they had been named in the case of the Irish Church Act.
    MR. COLLINSexpressed a hope that the Commissioners would be named before the Bill passed into a law.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that on certain occasions—such as the passing of the Irish Church Act which had just been mentioned—when great legislative powers were intrusted to certain gentlemen, it might be a very proper thing to invite the assistance of Parliament in their selection, inasmuch as they would have to exercise powers more or less analogous to those possessed by Parliament itself. In the present instance, however, the principle on which the House had hitherto proceeded was that the executory portion of the Bill should be intrusted to the Executive Government. Was it, therefore, he would ask, desirable, or in conformity with usage, to call on the Government under those circumstances to indicate the individuals who were to be employed in the execution of the Act? The result of naming

    2029
    the Commissioners would be to lighten the responsibility of the Government, and to transfer a portion of the responsibility to the shoulders of Parliament. He hoped the Scotch Education Department would be a reality; but if it was to be a reality, it must be intrusted with the choice of the Commissioners who were to exercise authority under it. The Government desired to stand on their own responsibility, and, in choosing the Commissioners, they would make their choice so as to give the fullest effect to the spirit of the Act.
    MR. BIRLEYthought that the names of the gentlemen to constitute the Board of Education might be inserted in the Bill.
    SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, it was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to promise that Commissioners would be chosen to carry out the spirit of the Act; but the fact was that the whole Bill was subversive of the traditions of Scotch education. Unless the Government were to-morrow prepared to give the name of the Commissioners, he would move that the debate be now adjourned. His confident belief was that the Bill had been drawn by men who had no religious impressions. He protested against the whole Bill, because he considered that the trail of the serpent was on every clause.
    MR. GORDONsaid, the course pursued by the Government now was different to that of 1869. They were then told that the Royal Commissioners would be named in the Act; but the views of the Government had since changed upon the subject.
    MR. C. DALRYMPLEasked when the House would have the opportunity of challenging the appointment of the Commissioners?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that obviously new charges must be inserted in the Estimates for the Council Office, which would almost force on the House of Commons the power of challenging the appointments.
    MR. NEWDEGATEasked if the names of the Commissioners would appear on the Estimates.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the names of such persons, as a rule, were
    2030
    not printed in the Estimates; but it would be competent for any hon. Member to challenge the propriety of the appointments.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedules A and B agreed to.
    On Schedule C,
    SIR JOHN OGILVYmoved, in page 31, line 26, leave out "Dundee High School."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the Amendment. The Dundee High School was inserted to insure that it be carried on as a high school.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; re-committed in respect of a New Clause (Expenses of Scotch Education Department), for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS COMMISSION BILL.

  RIGHTS OF PRIVATE MEMBERS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEmoved that the Bill be placed on the Paper for Tuesday at 2 o'clock, in order to raise the question whether Members, not being Members of the Government, should not have precedence at 2 o'clock on Tuesdays as at 4, and to-morrow he intended asking Mr. Speaker his opinion on the point.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for reading the Bill a second time To-morrow be postponed till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock."
  MR. AYRTONthought that, as the question was a novel one, the better way would be to postpone the Bill till Monday next, because it involved the principle whether private Members could fix a Bill equally with the Government for a Morning Sitting.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 13: Majority 10.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.