Commons Sitting of 9 July 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS III.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—first Reading—Chelsea Bridge* [249].
First Reading—Canada Copyright * [246]; Salmon Fishery Act Provisional Order (Taw and Torridge) * [247].
Committee—Report—Entail Amendment (Scotland) * [212–248]; Pharmacy (re-comm.) [215]*
Third Reading—Pacific Islanders Protection * [182], and passed.
Withdrawn—Petty Sessions Courts (Ireland) * [138].

COMMERCIAL GAS BILL (by Order.)

  CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. SAMUDA,in moving that the Bill be now taken into consideration, said, that, though he had just heard that this Bill was not to be opposed, he thought it desirable to make a short statement to the House on the subject. The Commercial Gas Company had been in existence for upwards of 20 years, and had faithfully carried out its pledges in respect of supplying gas to an important and still-growing district of the metropolis. The Company now required means for extending its works and mains, and had come to Parliament for the necessary powers. The present Bill was not opposed on the part of the public in

  1235
  the neighbourhood, who had, in fact, petitioned in favour of it. The opposition came from certain amalgamated Companies, mainly the Chartered and Imperial, which sought to prevent the acceptance of the terms on which the Company was willing to supply their gas. This Bill and the Metropolitan Gas Bill were referred to a Select Committee, not constituted in the ordinary way, but which was known as a hybrid Committee. That Committee passed the Preamble of the Metropolitan Gas Bill, and then they took the present Bill into consideration, and came to the conclusion that it was right this Bill should be allowed to go on. The Commercial Company had accepted terms more liberal in the interests of the public than any other he was acquainted with. They limited their charge to 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet for gas of 16 candle illuminating power, and agreed that whenever it should be necessary to increase the rate beyond 3s. 9d., for every penny increase they would reduce the dividend 5s. per cent from the maximum dividend. The Committee accordingly thought the Company should have the opposite advantage, and that whenever they should be able to reduce the price, they should be allowed to increase their dividend proportionately. The opposing Companies had increased their price to 5s. per 1,000 feet in 1873 and 1874—a charge very much beyond the price charged by the Commercial and Ratcliffe Companies, whose price at the time never exceeded 3s. 9d. and 4s., and the truth was that the Chartered and other large Companies did not like to see small Companies working economically and selling at the low rate proposed. The Commercial Gas Company had loyally carried out all its promises and engagements, and he declared he could not see why any external influence should be brought to bear in that House to upset a decision arrived at in the way he had described. He would move the consideration of the Bill.
  MR. GOLDNEY,in seconding the Motion, said, that the subject to which the Bill related was one of great importance to the metropolitan public, and a move in the right direction; because, although when such a question was brought forward in the House anyone asking in the Lobby what was going on there was told—"only a squabble about
  1236
  gas," such a squabble related immediately to the expenditure of no less than £3,000,000 sterling a-year. He had given great attention to the subject, having sat on the Committee of 1867 under Lord Cardwell, and studied it carefully in all its bearings. The Metropolitan Board of Works and the Corporation of London had, he believed, done their best in the interests of the community for the gas and water supply of the metropolis. He thought the Bill ought to be allowed to pass.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Samuda.)
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he had no intention to oppose the Bill, or to enter into the discussion of the various questions raised by it, which would be more satisfactorily dealt with "elsewhere." He only wished to guard the House against assuming that the statements of its supporters could not be controverted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was glad to find that the Bill was not opposed; but, as Chairman of the Committee on the subject, he appealed to the Government to do their utmost to give an opportunity for the public Bill, which had been before the Committee, to be discussed. If the Government had done so much in reference to it, it ought, he thought, to have done more. The rule as to half-past 12 o'clock ought not to be allowed to interfere in such a case with the full discussion of the Bill. In his opinion, too, a hybrid Bill of that sort ought not to be sent to a Committee at all.
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, the other Gas Companies did not intend to oppose the Bill, for if the Commercial Company could work miracles or chose to commit suicide they were quite willing to let them do so.
  MR. BIRLEY,as a Member of the Select Committee upon the Bill, expressed his gratification at finding that it was not to be opposed; and joined in the appeal of the right hon. Member for Bradford that the Government would give facilities for the consideration of the general question.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Standing Orders 224 and 248 suspended.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY ARBITRATION BILL. [Lords.] (by Order.)

  CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS,in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "now taken into Consideration," in order to add the words "re-committed," said, that by the Act of 1872 an arbitrator, who must be a retired Judge, was appointed, but after the lapse of three years and the expenditure of a large amount of money everything remained practically undecided. By the Act of 1872 the late Lord Westbury was appointed the first arbitrator to the Society under the liquidation, and upon his death the late Master of the Bolls, Lord Romilly, was appointed arbitrator. On the death of Lord Romilly, again, there was a temporary appointment of Lord Justice James as arbitrator. These various appointments had led to contrariety of decisions as between one arbitrator and another, and even by the same arbitrator; for whereas the decisions of the late Lord Westbury were, as a rule, in favour of creditors of the Society, in those of the late Lord Romilly, that noble and learned Lord ultimately separated himself from the line taken by his predecessors, and decided substantially in favour of the shareholders of the Company. In this way nothing was really decided, and every person who had under decision paid or received money might find himself put in the wrong by the decision of the arbitrator who was now to come into power. The Bill under consideration proposed two great changes. In the first place, instead of requiring that the arbitrator should be of judicial rank, it enabled the Lord Chancellor, without exhausting the list of those qualified under the Act of 1872 to act as arbitrators, to appoint a person who had been simply a barrister of 15 years' standing. It also gave certain powers of appeal, and he complained that the appeal given lay not on legal grounds but from one unfettered discretion to another unfettered discretion. But the most remarkable thing was, that neither
  1238
  the promoters nor the opponents of the Bill gave any evidence in favour of its provisions as now settled upon this subject of unfettered discretion; and yet the Committee on the Bill had, without any evidence, settled it in the way he had described. In his opinion, the reason of that was that the Committee were affected by some of the statements not made in evidence. He had in his hand a letter from a distinguished ex-Judge, formerly a Member of that House, stating his willingness to act as arbitrator. If those who had charge of the Bill would allow it to be postponed, he would give the Notice required by the Standing Orders he proposed to move, and that would allow the matter to be considered next Wednesday, so that there would be no unnecessary delay. If not, he hoped he should find many hon. Members to go into the Lobby with him, and to vote for its re-committal. The question involved in the European and the affiliated Companies affected thousands of persons and hundreds of thousands of pounds, and it was thought by the Legislature that there ought to be a speedy and effective way of getting rid of such troubles and litigation, that the arbitration should be placed in the hands of a Judge of first-class reputation; yet it was now proposed to give it into the hands of a barrister of 15 years' standing, with the power of appeal. Under those circumstances, he moved that the Bill should be re-committed.
  MR. STACPOOLEseconded the Motion, observing that he was sure the people of Ireland would not be satisfied with having as arbitrator a barrister of 15 years' standing, and that the name of the arbitrator ought to be in the Bill and not left to the whim of any man.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now taken into Consideration," in order to add the word "recommitted,"—(Mr. Charles Lewis,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'now taken into Consideration' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLE,in opposition to the Motion, observed that the House was placed in a very difficult position in this matter, and that his hon. Friend's objection in regard to the appointment of a barrister of 15 years'

  1239
  standing as arbitrator went to the root of the matter. Still, the objection ought to have been taken on the second reading. That was not done, and the parties who came before the Committee had not urged the objection before they declared the Preamble proved. The Committee had therefore to decide according to the evidence produced. Even if passed, the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be perfectly useless. By the original a past Judge of great eminence (Lord Westbury) was appointed with absolute discretionary power. He was succeeded by Lord Romilly, and on his decease Lord Penzance was appointed, all of them having the same absolute discretion. He wished to say that the Lord Chancellor had tried to get a person of similar position to Lord West-bury and Lord Romilly, and failed, and under those altered circumstances this Bill had been introduced, which proposed to give a barrister of 15 years' standing, appointed as umpire by the Lord Chancellor, when there was a difference of opinion between two arbitrators, the same discretionary powers, but with an appeal from his decision to two of the Judges. Even now, if the Lord Chancellor should find such a person, the Bill would allow of his appointment. The Bill did not admit of a general appeal, but only of an appeal when one arbitrator differed from another, or when the same arbitrator differed from himself. What was wanted was that one uniform system should be established. As Chairman of the Committee, he denied that it was in any way influenced by the statement of counsel, and desired to say that he did not believe that any Committee could have shown greater interest or a stronger desire to do justice to all the parties concerned, and in the absence of any contention to the contrary, they decided upon the plan contained in the Bill to which his hon. Friend had so strongly objected. For one, he should certainly vote against the Amendment, as he considered that it would, in fact, necessitate either the appointment of a new Committee, or a reference to the former Committee, by which all the points had been fully considered. Both courses would be very objectionable.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under a misapprehension as to the effect
  1240
  of the Bill. According to its terms, the person appointed arbitrator must at the time of his appointment be a barrister of 15 years' standing, and it was consequently not competent to the Lord Chancellor to appoint an ex-Judge.
  MR. GOSCHENpointed out that the words in the Bill were "the Lord Chancellor may," not shall, appoint a barrister of not less than 15 years' standing, and that parties might appeal to any two past Judges. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee in the objections he had taken to the Amendment, and hoped the House would support him in it.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that, having been called upon to take some part in this matter, and having been the mover of the Select Committee, he would venture to state his views as to the result of their deliberation. He felt that no time had been wasted by this discussion, because he hoped that it would result in this being the last occasion on which Parliament would sanction the taking away matters of this kind from the ordinary Courts, and creating these special tribunals. In this case there was, in his judgment, a bargain between Parliament and the classes of persons interested in the European Insurance Company, under which, in consideration of waiving their right to the decision of the Courts, they got a speedy judgment without appeal, and, if necessary, without being bound by strict legal rules. The Bill, as brought in, not only subjected these suitors to an appeal, but actually removed that discretionary power in the arbitrator which was so essential an element in the original Act; and that seemed so grave an objection that he had thought it his duty to intervene and to secure a full consideration of the Bill. The House acceded to his proposal for the appointment of a large Select Committee, and nothing could exceed the care and attention which that Committee bestowed on this most difficult question. No doubt the inability of the Lord Chancellor to find a competent arbitrator imposed a formidable task on the Committee. They had, however, considered and altered the Bill, and, rejecting what seemed to be its fundamental vice, had retained the discretionary power upon the faith of which the tribunal was originally constituted.

  1241
  He did not like the idea of an appeal in connection with arbitration; but he would bow to the decision of the Committee, thinking it would be dangerous to ask the House to re-consider the matter, and to interfere with the discretion of those who had much better opportunities for making themselves acquainted with the subject than the House could possibly have. They had dealt with the question of the arbitrator after hearing the parties, and as the Appeal Court could still exercise the discretionary power originally conferred, it seemed to him that the objection on the ground of alteration of jurisprudence had been removed from the Bill. He advised the House not to accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) would not press his proposal, particularly after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Jackson), who was the first to take an active part in bringing the question, in the first instance, before the House; and it was to the hon. and learned Member that they were mainly indebted for the searching investigation which had taken place. That investigation had been conducted by a Committee whose authority was equal to any ever appointed by the House, and he thought that the House should pause before setting aside the decision of the Committee, merely at the suggestion of a private Member.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the question was one of the greatest importance, considering the magnitude of the transactions involved, and the proceedings ought to be carried out in the best possible manner. Speaking on behalf of a large number of policy-holders in the European office in Ireland, he thought their wish ought to be complied with, that a person holding the highest judicial position should be appointed as arbitrator. Under the present Bill it was provided that a barrister of not less than 15 years' standing should be appointed arbitrator, and therefore it was possible to select a man who might be totally inexperienced in dealing with such questions as would come before him, in which were involved hundreds of thousands of pounds. He should therefore support the re-committal of the Bill.
  MR. MELDONalso supported the proposition of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and remarked that evidence was laid before the Committee that an ex-Judge of great eminence was willing to act as arbitrator.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he would not press his Amendment to a division, being satisfied with the discussion that had taken place.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  Standing Orders 224 and 248 suspended.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1854—SURVEY OF PASSENGER SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will state to the House under what section, if any, of the Merchant Shipping Acts a passenger steamer is allowed to be surveyed by only one surveyor, as stated by him in answer to a recent question asked in this House; and, whether experience has shown that an efficient survey of a passenger steamer's hull and machinery can be made during the usually short time she remains in port, by one surveyor, however competent?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,in reply, said, he could only repeat an Answer he had given to a former Question. Under the 305th section of the Act of 1854 surveyors were appointed. Under the 309th section passenger ships were surveyed by a shipwright and an engineer surveyor. In the case of iron vessels, the engineer surveyor was the iron shipwright surveyor. If one person was both an engineer surveyor and a shipwright surveyor, the object was then best attained by his making both surveys. The 307th section imposed on the Board of Trade the discretion of regulating the mode of survey. Experience had shown that a very efficient survey of a passenger steamer's hull and machinery could be made by one surveyor in the time which was called "short" in the Question, but which was ample in practice. If any surveyor was pressed for time, in a special case, he had always another to help him.

THE HERNE BAY FISHERY ACT, 1864.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEMBERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Walpole, one of the Inspectors acting under the provisions of "The Herne Bay Fishery Act, 1864," and to the Report of the Board of Trade, signed by Mr. Farrer, and dated February 1875; and, whether, inasmuch as the Herne Bay Company has not adopted the course recommended by the Report of the Inspector, it is the intention of the Board to take any and what steps to restore the fishing grounds occupied by the Company, under the powers of the Act of 1864, to the public?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, my attention has, of course, been called to a Report moved for and presented by myself. An official Report was made by Mr. Walpole, then an Inspector of Fisheries under the Home Office. It proposed a settlement of the question which could not be carried out, as it was not within the terms of the old Act. I have introduced, and Parliament has passed, six weeks ago, a new Act, under which, on a memorial being received an official inspection and report, now for the first time under the Board of Trade, may be made and acted upon.

THE CAPE COLONY—ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY.—QUESTION.
MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the atention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the proposed annexation by the Cape Parliament of certain territories between the Cape Colony and Natal; and, if so, whether they are able to give the House any assurance that the native tribes have given their consent to such annexation?
MR. LOWTHER,in reply, said, the attention of the Government had been directed to the matters referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question. The conditions of the proposed annexation had been freely consented to by Adam Kok and those principally concerned with him in the government of the country, and were to be submitted by him to his people for their ratification, which was expected to be given by a very large
1244
majority. Beyond this no official information had been received, but there seemed no reason to doubt that the native tribes concerned would have been consulted and would have given their assent to a formal and complete annexation to the Cape Government.

SEA FISHERIES ACT, 1868—POOLE HARBOUR FISHERY.—QUESTION.
MR. DODDSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the following Documents, namely:—Application to the Board of Trade of Mr. George Augustus Frederick Cavendish Bentinck, of Brownsea, Dorset, M.P., for the grant of a several Oyster and Mussel Fishery in a portion of Poole Harbour, in the county of Dorset; Draught Order of the Board of Trade with reference thereto; and Report of Mr. Spencer Walpole, one of the Inspectors of Salmon Fisheries, which is now under the consideration of the Board of Trade; and, whether he will defer making any order until such documents have been presented to the House, and circulated amongst Members?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, Parliament, by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, empowers the Board of Trade to make Provisional Orders in matters relating to oyster fisheries; but no Order, of course, is of any validity until confirmed by Act of Parliament. There is, therefore, no necessity for the Board of Trade to defer consideration of this application or action, because when the confirming Bill is brought in—which cannot be done this Session—there will be ample opportunity for hon. Members or others interested to state their views. As soon as the Board have come to a decision on the application, I shall offer no objection to any Motion that may be made for the production of the Inspector's Report. The other documents mentioned are merely formal.

PUBLIC HEALTH—POLLUTED WELLS AT HUCKNALL TORKARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the President of the Local Government Board-If his attention has been directed to the report of the Hucknall Torkard Board, which appeared in "The Mansfield and North Notts Advertiser" of the 2nd

  1245
  instant, and in which it is reported Mr. William Calladine made the following statement:—
  "That 200 inhabitants of Hucknall found their supply of water from muddy streams, 250 more were dependent on wells which did not afford a sufficient supply, and 100 more on wells contaminated and impure and unfit for use; that after every storm there was a great pollution of wells from the surface drainage, and this state of matters if it did not create disease, at least did much to propagate it and make it more malignant;"
  and, whether, if such a statement be really correct, if the Local Government Board cannot compel the Board to take immediate steps to supply pure water to the district?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, he had read the Report referred to, and as it appeared to have been made by the Chairman of the Sanitary Committee at Hucknall it was to be presumed that he would be the individual who had the power to rectify the scandals to which the hon. Gentleman called attention. The case, however, came under the notice of the Local Government Board towards the close of last year, in consequence of a Report from the medical officer for the district concerned, and the local authority was then informed that it was their duty to provide a proper supply of water. It appeared that shortly afterwards the neighbouring districts joined with the authorities of Hucknall with the view of providing themselves with water, and in the month of March last the combined districts instructed an eminent engineer to report on the subject. This Report was laid before the authorities a month ago, and considering that the works would involve an expenditure of between £50,000 and £60,000, he did not think that any complaint on the score of undue delay could be attributed to the local authorities. If they should decline hereafter to provide any works, it would be competent for the Local Government Board, on complaint being made, to issue an Order requiring them to furnish such supply; and in the event of disobedience to that Order, which there was no reason to anticipate, the Board would be able to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel the execution of the order.

CHINESE LEGATIONS IN EUROPE—MR. MARGARY.—QUESTION.
MR. EATONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any advice has been received from our Minister at Peking as to the decision of the Chinese Government to establish Legations and Consulates in Europe; and, if the Mission appointed to inquire into the death of Mr. Margary has left Peking?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, no official information has reached the Foreign Office on the first subject of the Question of the hon. Member; but it might, perhaps, be accounted for by the fact that Mr. Wade, our Minister at Peking, had not been there for some time when he wrote the last received Despatch. Perhaps we may hear from him before long. The Mission appointed to inquire into the death of Mr. Margary has not yet left Peking, and the reason is the weather is extremely hot, and it is thought undesirable it should leave until the cold weather commences.

SOUTH AFRICA—CONFERENCE OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. MILLSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any replies have been received to the Despatch addressed by Lord Carnarvon, through the Governor of the Cape Colony, on the 4th of May last, to the Presidents of the Trans-Vaal Republic and the Orange Free State, and the Governments of Natal and Grigna Land West, respecting a proposed Conference of Delegates from the Colonies and States of South Africa; and, whether there would be any objection to lay such replies when received upon the Table of the House?
  MR. LOWTHER,in reply, said, no answers had as yet been received. Papers on the subject would be presented in due course, but the Correspondence was wholly incomplete, and it was at present obviously impossible to make any definite promise on the subject.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS—DULWICH COLLEGE.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether Petitions have been presented to the Committee

1247
of Council on Education from Ratepayers of Camberwell, Saint Saviour's Southwark, and Saint Luke's Middlesex, praying that the Dulwich College Scheme may be laid before Parliament; and, when the Scheme will be laid upon the Table of the House?
VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the Petitions referred to by the hon. Gentleman have been presented, but the scheme cannot be laid upon the Table until the legal difficulties connected with the signatures of the late Endowed Schools Commissioners and the present Charity Commissioners recently raised by the Exeter case has been settled.

PRIVILEGE—CARDINAL MANNING.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) a Question of which he had given him private Notice, and which might hereafter involve a short discussion on a question of Privilege. He wished to ask him, Whether he was not mistaken in attributing to his Eminence Cardinal Manning the words contained in the Question which the hon. Member for Peterborough put to the Prime Minister on the previous day—namely, that it was the mission of the Roman Catholic Church in England to "bend or break the Imperial power of England into submission to the Papacy?"
  MR. WHALLEY,in reply, said, he had only heard of the Question since he entered the House; but he thought he was in a position to give the hon. Member a satisfactory answer. The words of his Question yesterday were—
  "That Cardinal Manning said that they (the Jesuits) were the leaders of the great Catholic mission in this country, and that the object of that Mission was to break and bond the Imperial power of England into submission to the Papacy."
  The hon. Member at once challenged him, and, speaking from recollection, he replied that these words were published in The Tablet, of July 20, 1872. He found that was so on the authority of the "Monthly Letter of the Protestant Alliance." [Laughter.] He was not himself a member of the Protestant Alliance, but many Members of that House belonged to that body, and he had never heard any statement of theirs successfully called in question. The
  1248
  authority he had quoted seemed to suggest some amusement, and if the hon. Member was not satisfied he would afford him a further opportunity of verifying it from the organ of the Protestant Alliance. These were the words—
  "Writing of the Jesuits, who, as Cardinal Manning stated, were now at the head of the great Catholic mission in this land."—[Tablet, July 20, 1872.]
  As to the other words he quoted, they were somewhat abbreviated from a similar extract from a reported speech of Cardinal Manning; but the House, if they would allow him to read it, would judge whether it was fairly given. He said—
  "We have to subjugate and subdue, to conquer and rule, an Imperial race. We have to deal with a will that reigns throughout the world as the will of old Rome once reigned. We have to bend and break a will which nations and kingdoms have found inflexible and invincible. Were heresy conquered in England, it would be conquered throughout the world: all its lines meet here; and therefore in England the Church must be gathered in her strength."
  That was the best justification he could offer, and it appeared to him to be sufficient. If, however, the hon. Member desired any further information and would put his Question on the Paper, he would endeavour to satisfy him.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, it would be observed that the ground on which he trespassed on the attention of the House was, that the statement made yesterday by the hon. Member, which he believed was not founded in fact, he was now convinced was inaccurate. He anticipated that the hon. Member would rely—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that any debate on the Question would be out of Order. The hon. Member had put a Question, and he had received an Answer. If he had anything further to say, he might possibly, by the indulgence of the House, be heard, but there could be no debate.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, there was no hon. Member of the House more anxious to obey the authority of the Chair or to be guided by the feeling of the House than himself. He merely wished to read the language actually employed by Cardinal Manning, and to show that the extract, on the authority of the Protestant Alliance now read by

  1249
  the hon. Member was equally garbled with the words he attributed yesterday to Cardinal Manning. The occasion on which Cardinal Manning used the words was a meeting in 1859, of the Provincial Council of Westminster, at which the Cardinal delivered a sermon that had no reference to the Jesuits, but which referred to the strictly spiritual missions of the Catholic Church generally to bend to the reception of the truth the will of the English race. He was addressing the English Catholic Bishops, and he said—
  "And, lastly, it is good for us to be here in England. It is yours, right rev. Fathers, to subjugate and to subdue, to bend and to break, the will of an Imperial race "——
  ["Hear, hear!"]—he hoped hon. Members would wait until the sentence had been entirely read before they expressed an opinion on it—
  "To bend and to break the will of an Imperial race, the will which, as the will of Rome of old, rules over nations and peoples, invincible and inflexible. You have to rear the House of Wisdom, which was fallen, and to do this you have now, as the Apostles then, to gather from the Spiritual quarry the stones which shall build up the House of God. You have to call the legionaries and the tribunes, the patricians and the people of a conquering race, and to subdue, change, transform, transfigure them, one by one, to the likeness of the Son of God."
  He wanted to point out that these words did not bear the meaning which was given to them by the hon. Member; but——["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the House had given the hon. Member an opportunity of correcting the quotation, and he submitted that any further debate would be out of Order.
  MR. WHALLEY: May I be permitted to——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would be entirely out of Order. The Question is, that the Clerk do now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

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

CONSULAR CHAPLAINS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HEYGATE,in rising to call attention to the Report from the Select Committee (July 1874)—
  1250
  "Appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the withdrawal of the allowances granted to Consular Chaplains under the provisions of the Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 87; "
  and to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House, the withdrawal of Government Grants in aid of the maintenance of Consular Chaplains under the provisions of the Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 87, is uncalled for and inexpedient, and should be re-considered by Her Majesty's Government,"
  said, that the grants to Consular Chaplains amounted for many years past, and in 1873, to about £7,000 a-year. In 1874 they were reduced to £4,500, and in this year the sum asked for in the Estimates was only £2,250. Although he was favourable to economy in the public expenditure, he submitted that the reduction in the Vote was inexpedient and unnecessary. Formerly, the Chaplains whose ministrations were principally required for a fluctuating population of British seamen were paid out of dues upon British merchandize. In 1825 an Act was brought in by Mr. Huskisson, which placed the Consular Chaplaincies on a more satisfactory basis. The tonnage dues were abolished, and in their place were substituted allowances which were settled by the Foreign Secretary, and partly based upon local efforts, as in the Education Vote. Thus 42 Chaplains, churches, and burial grounds were subsidized at a cost to the country of7 a little over £200 a-year each. It was fondly hoped by the hon. Members who supported Her Majesty's Government that there would be a re-consideration of this question, especially as the withdrawal of these grants was an uncalled for and spontaneous action on the part of Lord Granville. No hon. Members of the House had asked him to take that course, nor had a single objection been made to the vote by any section of politicians. By that withdrawal he simply carried out his own view. When the present Government came into office, a deputation waited upon Lord Derby on this subject; but great was the disappointment of that deputation. The only thing they gained was a promise that a Committee should consider the circumstances attending the withdrawal of these grants. The Committee sat and considered two grievances in relation to the question—first, the hardships of the individual Chaplains; second, the loss sustained by the communities

  1251
  interested in their maintenance. He had no desire now to refer to the former; but, as regarded the latter grievance, the evidence given before the Committee was all one way, and the Report of the Committee was another way. Seventeen places at which these Chaplains had been appointed had sent expostulations to the Government against the withdrawal of these grants. It was proved beyond question that the services of these Chaplains were useful to all denominations, and that being so, he would ask what was the opinion of the House and the country with regard to providing spiritual assistance in these cases. The opinion of the House had been clearly expressed in the case of the Arctic Expedition. It was stated that there was considerable difficulty in providing sufficient room for Chaplains; but the necessity of sending out two Chaplains was so strongly enforced on the Government that they were under the necessity of doing so. He did not say the cases were exactly analogous, but certainly there was a strong family resemblance between them, and beyond that it must be remembered that great difficulty would attend the withdrawal of the grants. Earl Granville's Circular alleged that the increased wealth of our merchants abroad showed it was unnecessary to continue these Treasury allowances; but he could combat that statement by extracts from the evidence adduced before the Committee, and which proved that at Hamburg, Trieste, Lisbon, Oporto, and other ports, the English communities were more numerous and less wealthy than at any period since the passing of the Act relating to the appointment of Consular Chaplains. The money value of these grants was certainly small, and unless an important principle had been involved, he would not have asked the House to re-consider the subject. Silence might, however, have been interpreted as an approval of the autocratic act of the Government. Such a policy was to be expected from those who avowed their contempt for religious ministrations of any kind, or who thought that the State had no concern in these matters. It might be excusable under pressure from opponents. But the present Government owed their position to the profession of principles which were quite opposed to Disestablishment, whether on a
  1252
  large or a small scale, and their conduct on this question was much regretted by their best friends. He still hoped, however, that at the eleventh hour, they would re-consider the withdrawal of the allowance, especially as such withdrawal had occurred without the sanction of the House; and, in order to give them the opportunity, he would move the Resolution.
  COLONEL ALEXANDER: Sir, as a Member of the Select Committee, appointed last year, to consider the question of Consular Chaplaincies, I shall be glad if the House will allow me to make a few observations in seconding the Resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate). I will not enter into the legal point involved in the question, which was, I believe, decided by the late Law Officers of the Crown, who ruled—that Her Majesty's Government possessed the power, at any moment, of severing the connection hitherto subsisting between Consular Chaplains and the Crown. Moreover, this was made sufficiently clear by the speech of Mr. Huskisson in 1825, who, in proposing what he termed a change in the system of our Consular Establishments in foreign ports, said—
  "As an encouragement to the British merchants residing at or resorting to those ports to provide the means of performing the important duties of religion, I shall propose in the Bill to give a power to the Government to advance a sum equal to the amount of any subscription which may he so raised, either for erecting a place of worship, providing a burial ground, or allotting a suitable salary to a chaplain in any foreign port where a British Consul may reside."
  Sir, I am quite ready to admit that the words—"give a power to the Government," in the passage I have quoted, conclusively prove that it will be competent for it, at any moment, to renounce this power. The sole question, therefore, as it appears to me for our consideration, is under what circumstances Government renounced this power, and whether it acted wisely in such renunciation? I will assume that the late as well as the present Government agree in opinion with the administration of which Mr. Huskisson was a distinguished ornament, that it is right for the British merchants and residents at Consular ports "to provide the means of performing the important duties of religion;" and I can, therefore, only

  1253
  suppose that the reason why the late Government withdrew, and the present Government concurred in the withdrawal of this subsidy termed by Mr. Huskisson "an encouragement" for such provision, was because, in their opinion, no such encouragement was needed. At any rate this was the ostensible reason, but behind there was, I imagine, another operating still more powerfully—the desire to economize £9,000 in the annual expenditure of the country. This I am entitled to infer from the circumstance that Lord Granville, in his Circular of July, 1873, to the Consuls, announcing the approaching withdrawal of the grant to Chaplains, said—
  "That the Estimates were under his consideration with the view of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons."
  Well, Sir, I turned to the Report of the Select Committee on the Consular Service, which sat in 1872, of which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was Chairman, and I found there a most flourishing account of the finance of the Consular Service. The total net charge was only £135,000, and the Committee said—
  "These Estimates exhibit a reduction of. £5,000 as compared with those of the previous year, which, again, were lower by £7,300 than those of the year 1869–70."
  And by a tabular statement appended to the Report—
  "It appears that the extra receipts in aid of the Consular expenditure have exhibited a steady increase during the past four years."
  Well, Sir, the Committee having made this satisfactory statement, proceeded to put the very natural question—"These things being so, why, it may be asked, should change be thought necessary?" and they answered by saying—
  "That universal complaint of insufficient pay would alone prepare the Government for the necessity of looking about for some means of retrenchment to set off against increased cost of salaries."
  The Committee, in short, saw the absurdity, in the face of constantly increasing receipts and diminishing expenditure, of proposing any reduction in the Estimates without giving some reason, and they found one in the not uncommon complaint of insufficient pay. But even so, the Committee did not propose to effect these economies at the expense of Consular Chaplains. They recommended reductions in the Consular
  1254
  Court and establishments at Constantinople, and generally the suppression of what they termed redundant posts. They advocated the consolidation of Consulates in some places, but from the beginning to the end of their Report not one word did they say about Chaplains, or the £9,000 required for their support. Moreover, not a single question was put by any Member of this large and important Committee to the witnesses relative to Consular Chaplains and their stipends. I was about to close the book when two ominous little paragraphs in a Memorandum, put in by one of the witnesses, caught my eye. This Memorandum inserted in the Appendix was handed in by Major Crossman, Royal Engineers, sent out to arrange generally, not for the construction of churches, but of Consular barracks in China and Japan. Speaking of Kew-keang, Major Crossman said—
  "I cannot refrain from pointing out the great expense incurred hero by Her Majesty's Government in giving half the cost of building a church for the benefit, as it now turns out, of about seven people, for those in the Chinese Service can bring no claim to the boon. At the time the money was given there were only 15. Government still pays half the Chaplain's salary—£200, I think. It is done under Act of Parliament 6 Geo. IV., c. 87; but I might venture to suggest that some revision of the Act might now be made."
  And then after remarking that before any money is granted there should be some certainty as to the number of the congregation, he concludes—
  "It is hard that a taxpayer in England should have to pay the means required to secure the spiritual welfare of half-a-dozen tea-tasters on the banks of the Yangtze."
  Doubtless, this cynical remark must have suggested to Her Majesty's late Government the opportunity of effecting an annual saving at the expense of the spiritual welfare of the people thus contemptuously termed tea-tasters. But, in point of fact, I do not believe that the Government ever contributed to the building of a church for seven or even 15 people. Churches at Consular ports were built not so much for a stationary as for a migratory population frequenting those ports. I mean seamen—and I am confirmed in this impression by some interesting letters lately published, written by a lady, whose husband was employed in China. Speaking of Foochow, this lady says—

  1255
  "The Seaman's Chapel was built, as its name denotes, specially for the benefit of sailors, of whom there are a great many here in summer, when the harbour is crowded with a perfect fleet of magnificent clippers, waiting to carry home their freight of tea."
  And three months from that time, the same lady wrote—
  "We have for some time been in a most benighted state as regards service in the church. It was given up in consequence of the withdrawal of the Government grant having so materially reduced the income of the Consular Chaplain; he has returned to England, and no one has been yet found to take his place."
  Then the lady described the surprise of the native population, mentioned the circumstance that American missionaries had re-opened the English Church, and concluded by saying that, during what she termed "the clerical famine," "they had occasionally gone for service on board the man-of-war lying in the harbour." But it is said there are many churches in the interior of France, Germany, and other countries which receive no support from Government grants. Quite true. But, in all these cases, the churches, excepting the sums contributed by certain societies, are maintained by residents for residents, while in the Consular ports, by withdrawing the grants to Chaplains, you virtually compel the residents to make spiritual provision for the sailors and others touching at those ports. It is difficult to form a conception of the arduous nature of the duties of Chaplains stationed at South American ports. "We had it in evidence that one of them, independently of his work in hospital, which, although trying, nevertheless, had its consolations the Chaplain was obliged to trudge along a hot dusty road to his terrible cemetery duties, burying sometimes as many as eight corpses in one day, and no fewer than 257 in one year. Even the relations were afraid to attend, and oftener than not the Chaplain rejoiced at their absence. Sir, I ask the House is it fair, is it right, to expect merchants at foreign ports to find an educated gentleman to perform this work without any assistance from Her Majesty's Government? It is true that, in consequence of the Report of the Committee which sat last year, the present Administration has made exceptions at certain South American ports, and are thus far entitled to our gratitude; but I maintain that other exceptions should have been made, Mr. Wylde,
  1256
  who has been 37 years Superintendent of the Consular Service at the Foreign Office, who has visited most of the Consular Ports, and who probably knows more about this question than any other man now living, says—
  "I would not have recommended the sweeping measure which has been adopted. I should have disestablished some of the Chaplaincies. I should have dealt with each case on its own merits; if you make exceptions in one or two cases, I do not see why you should not make exceptions in others."
  Sir, if the House will permit me, I will mention two places where, in my humble judgment, exceptions should have been made, but which, nevertheless, were not made—I mean Oporto and Hamburgh, to which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) has alluded. These two places are types of many others which might be placed in the same category. There is yet one other plea, and that by no means the weakest, which may be urged in favour of keeping Chaplains at Consular Ports under Government control. A Chaplain, partially supported by Government, may be required to give his attendance to seamen, whereas one maintained by the residents will naturally restrict his ministrations to them. Sir, I will not dwell on the cases of individual hardship abundantly proved before the Committee, of clergymen who had given up some livings, others the prospect of livings, to devote themselves to work in pestiferous climates, paying at the same time large sums to insurance offices for the privilege of living, and possibly of dying there—hardships, in many instances, aggravated by an almost unparalleled series of blunders on the part of the Treasury, who calculated the pensions to be awarded—first, on one basis, and then on another; who drew up schemes of retirement, which, even to so experienced a hand as Mr. Wylde, were totally incomprehensible, for he says—
  "To toll the truth, the matter is in so incomplete a state, that we have asked the Treasury to draw up their own notice."
  The fact is there was an uncontrollable desire not for economy, but for cheeseparing, and so the fiat went forth, not as Mr. Wylde would have proposed, to re-arrange the Chaplaincies, but to disestablish them altogether. Never mind the dying and the dead in South American

  1257
  Ports, let the dead bury their dead—only make or rather save money "Recté si possis, si non, quocumque modo." Well, Sir, we may have saved £9,000 a-year, but have we not saved it, as has been well said, at the cost of ceasing to afford to all witnesses an example of the best side of our national character? In the words of the Bishop of Gibraltar—
  "It is not only the existence of Chaplaincies which is at stake, but our name as a Christian people."
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the withdrawal of Government Grants in aid of the maintenance of Consular Chaplains under the provisions of the Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 87, is uncalled for and inexpedient, and should be reconsidered by Her Majesty's Government,"—(Mr. Heygate,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the surprise, grief, and mortification with which quiet, thoughtful people of all parties, and of all views as to religious matters received Earl Granville's startling announcement two years ago that these grants were to be withdrawn, was only equalled by that which was felt when the present Government—in a spirit which he (Mr. Beresford Hope) could qualify by no milder term than indifference—announced that this Act of their Predecessors was unreformable and irrefragable. There had been no public call for the change; there was, on the contrary, a great deal of disappointment and disgust when it came out that our high national character for religion and generous consideration had thereby been paltered with. He did not hear that even the Liberation Society passed a vote of thanks to the late Foreign Secretary. It was a passing craze of the Foreign Office of that day; but the scheme was practically only on paper when the present Ministry came into office, for the Chaplains were mostly still at their posts serving out their remaining terms. No doubt a formal policy had to be overtly reversed, and certain formalities would have to be gone through; but, in the meantime, the Chaplains were in their year of grace, and no inconvenience would have been inflicted on anyone by restoring, or rather by maintaining, the old system. In its defence he felt almost ashamed to urge that the principle was plainly obvious that a
  1258
  nation which had entered into such great commercial engagements in all parts of the world, and for the benefit of whose merchant seamen the House had during the present Session spent so many weary hours of debate, had special duties also to those seamen and those officials who were engaged in carrying on that commerce. They were told last evening that "England was still mistress of the seas"—a sentiment that produced a refreshing cheer—and this was the kindness she showed to her sea children when they were from home. There was another thing which made the matter more amazing. No doubt one of the great reasons which created that dissatisfaction throughout the country was the disestablishment proclivities of the Party which supported the late Government—a Government which had itself taken so gigantic a first step in that direction—and the fear lest it should be applied to the Church of England. The constituencies at the hustings, with no uncertain voice, had said "No!" to that policy as proposed to be applied to England. In the manner which this little pilot balloon had been started only a trifling £9,000 was at stake. The straw was thrown up to try the wind, and we had the mortification to see the present Ministry floating it with their breath. The very small-ness of this experiment in home disestablishment ought to make the House jealous of the principle lying behind it. What, then, was the lesson of the General Election, and what would the Government lose by giving a promise to re-consider this grievance? It had come in strong by the help of Churchmen, and one of its first actions was to make itself an accomplice after the fact in this vexatious spoliation. Let them dare to be consistent to their principles, and true to the country which gave them their mission, by disregarding the adverse criticisms of the other side of the House. Let them try a division on the point, and he had no doubt what would be the verdict of the House of Commons. If, however, this were lost, the time would soon come when they would have to abandon a great deal more. He, however, had no fear of so unfortunate a result. The sum at stake was a miserable £9,000, but in refusing to confiscate this pittance, small in its aggregate, but one the beneficent influence of which was widely felt, they would be setting the seal to the declaration

  1259
  of the country, that a national recognition of religion was right, and that in the Church of England that recognition was made in a shape alike scriptural, practical, tolerant, and popular.
  MR. HANKEYdenied that any religious considerations—High Church, Low Church, or no Church—had anything to do with this change. It arose entirely from the fact that these grants were very greatly abused. In many places the British residents had availed themselves of the Consular Acts to establish a church to be paid out of these grants, while they were able enough to maintain it from their own funds. It was in consequence of frequent complaints on this score that the Committee had been appointed; and the people of this country naturally objected to be taxed for the support of such establishments.
  MR. W. C. CARTWRIGHTsaid, the question which the House had to consider was as to how far the action of the Executive Government with reference to a particular Act of Parliament was in conformity with that Act, and how far in violation of it. He considered it somewhat remarkable that, after a close examination and much discussion in Committee, if there was any difference of opinion all opposition was withdrawn, and the Report was signed by the Chairman as an unanimous Report. Such a Report surely deserved some consideration. It was adopted unanimously after evidence had been given by witnesses, every one of whom had been summoned by the Chairman himself; and, so far from being antagonistic to the evidence taken, it was founded upon that evidence. The witnesses examined were all admitted to be most competent men, and he (Mr. Cartwright) denied that their evidence was all against disestablishment and that the Report was contrary to the evidence. He would only refer to two—Mr. Wylde, the head of the Consular Department, and a gentleman who had been a Consular Chaplain abroad for 47 years. Mr. Wylde was asked whether in his experience of the Foreign Office, which extended over 40 years, he had known of any instance of the abolition of Consular Chaplaincies or the reduction of their salaries by the Foreign Office, and his reply was that within the last 10 or 15 years the grants had been withdrawn from several places. He was asked as to the terms on which these
  1260
  Chaplaincies were abolished, and his answer was—"We simply withdrew the contribution, and let the matter rest with the congregation." He was asked, did the Chaplain in such a case receive any pension? The reply was—"Most certainly not." The other witness to whom he alluded was the representative of an abolished Chaplaincy, and his case was one which was supposed to constitute the grievance into which the Committee had to inquire. The gentleman in question, the Rev. Mr. White, on being asked whether, if the salary were withdrawn, the chaplaincy would be abolished, replied—"No; it never would be abolished." The Committee investigated the whole subject most carefully, and in their Report they stated there were places that were exceptionally circumstanced, and that those places should be dealt with exceptionally. He did not attach much weight to the lugubrious vaticinations that had been indulged in as to what might happen among the hot plains and the swamps of South America, if these grants for Chaplaincies were withdrawn, and in the case of Alexandria he was informed upon the best authority that the English residents were now better provided with spiritual aid than before, and that the church was so prosperous that the Chaplain had refused a large pecuniary gift because they had got so much money that he did not know what to do with it.
  MR. D. R. ONSLOWsaid, it was in consequence of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informing the Committee that more would be done for the Consular Chaplains if the Committee were unanimous in their opinion, that the Report was drawn up in its present mild form. His hon. Friend might recollect that there were on that Committee some who wished to mark strongly their disapproval of the Circular issued by Lord Granville, and to embody their views in the Report itself; and he might also recollect that it was only at his earnest solicitations that these objections were eventually withdrawn. It was hardly fair, then, now to cast in their teeth the unanimity of that Report. If the Committee had had its own way there would have been more done for them than it seemed had actually been the case. It had been said that some of the grants had been misapplied, but he, as a Member of the

  1261
  Committee, had not heard any evidence to that effect of a satisfactory character. He had been one of a deputation to Lord Derby on the subject, and he quite felt the force of the remark that it was difficult for a Government to reverse the policy of their Predecessors; but he thought there were strong reasons why those grants should be given, and which especially ought to weigh with all who professed to be Christians. That was that a country where an Established Church existed should do something, however small, for its Consular Chaplains abroad. There was no reason for their withdrawal. He should be sorry to see any division on the question, but if the House divided upon the Motion he should vote in support of it. He knew these Chaplains were doing a great deal of good, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would see his way to restore these grants, at least to some extent, and that next year instead of the sum asked to be voted standing at £2,250 it would be considerably enlarged.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he had not charged abuse; he had only spoken of grants being received where the congregation consisted of very few persons.
  MR. KINNAIRDhaving been a Member of the Committee upon the subject, and seeing the Government in a difficulty, deprecated the remarks of the hon. Member who had last spoken, remarking that he had threatened the Government with excommunication if they acted contrary to his own opinion. He assured the Government that he (Mr. Kinnaird) would heartily support the policy which had been most successful, and he instanced Paris as a city having far more church accommodation since the abolition of the Chaplaincies. In that city, there were now three English churches and Wes-leyan, Baptist, and other voluntary congregations.
  MR. BOURKEthought that if the matter were looked at calmly, the House would arrive at the conclusion unanimously come to by the Committee and adopted by the late Government. The Committee was carefully selected, and was strong in hon. Members who were warmly in favour of the principle of maintaining Chaplains. The Report of the Committee was therefore accepted as a settlement of the question, and he
  1262
  trusted that unprejudiced Members would now arrive at the same conclusion. The question was first raised in 1869, when inquiry was instituted, a reduction was made in the Consular Chaplaincies of China, and grants were withdrawn without anything being said against the measure. It had since been felt that the principle which had guided two Governments was a just one. The paragraph in Lord Granville's despatch which had been quoted, was one which, when candidly looked at, must be concurred in; but if an adverse view were taken of that paragraph, that fact would commit us to establish Consular Agencies all over the world. That paragraph stated that it certainly could not be incumbent upon the Government to subsidize churches where British residents were settled in large numbers, nor to maintain a Church establishment at a great commercial port, when it could be done with little effort by the resident merchants. That was a principle which Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to controvert, and which the House of Commons would not disagree with. He should be very glad if what he was about to say could give any great amount of comfort to those with whom the hon. Members behind him sympathized so much. They were, no doubt, most excellent and worthy men, and they had done great service among English subjects in foreign countries. As the case, however, had been put by hon. Members—he was not alluding to his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate)—it might be supposed that these Chaplains were turned out of their Chaplaincies, and had become paupers. That, however, was not the case; because, in addition to the pensions given to them in every case, they would still be supported in the different localities by the voluntary contributions of those who, as the Government thought, certainly had the right to support them. He should like to call the attention of the House to the evidence of a great authority on the other side. Mr. White was called to prove that these grants ought to be continued, but he disproved everything that he was called to establish, and proved the exact opposite. Being asked whether the English residents in Oporto were not sufficiently numerous and wealthy to maintain a Chaplain, and whether the Chaplaincy

  1263
  would be abolished if the grant were withdrawn?—he said it would not, and that it would never be abolished. Mr. White was then asked whether there were not a sufficient number of persons interested in the trade of Oporto to support a Chaplain. He replied that there were gentlemen at home making large fortunes in Oporto and elsewhere, and if each would only subscribe a very small sum they could support any number of Chaplains that were necessary to the establishment. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) could not be serious when he placed this question on the ground of Disestablishment. If the action of the Government on this subject had the smallest similarity to Disestablishment, he (Mr. Bourke) should be the last person to support it. The establishment of Consular Chaplaincies had not the slightest similarity to the Establishment of the Church of England, or the Church of Scotland. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) that each case must be treated on its own individual merits, and in that view, the Committee went minutely into the case of each Chaplaincy. As an opinion had been attributed to him by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) which he never expressed, he wished to explain that what he did say was, that he thought it desirable that the Report of the Committee should be unanimous, because, if so, it would be accepted by the House and the country as a final settlement of the question. He still held that opinion, and he trusted that the House would support the Committee in their decision. The Government had made a considerable change in the Chaplaincies of South America. In the case of Pernambuco, the Chaplaincy had been re-established. The Chaplain had returned to this country, but another person had been sent out. The cases of Bahia and St. Thomas had also been specially treated. There was a great deal of English shipping in the Danish Islands, and as there were many English sailors at St. Thomas, the Government thought that a case had been made out for keeping up the Chaplaincy there. The Government would retain a right to act upon their discretion, and there was nothing to prevent them from re-establishing a Consular Chaplain in any of the places from which the allowances
  1264
  had been withdrawn. He trusted, however, that the Government would be supported in adhering to the unanimous recommendation of the Committee. They did not adhere to that recommendation simply because their Predecessors had formed the same opinion; but, unless a strong case were made out, the Government were of opinion that the principles laid down by the late Government, and acted upon by the Foreign Office, ought still to be the rule of the Consular Service. He could not assent to the Motion.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF,having been Chairman of the Committee, wished to make a few remarks. He did not complain so much of Lord Granville or hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought the policy they advocated in abolishing the Chaplaincies was only in consonance and harmony with their other acts; but he did complain that a Conservative Government should carry out that policy, and that a Minister should rise from the Treasury Bench to court the cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite against his own Friends. He had had much experience at the Foreign Office in the department relating to Consular Chaplains, and he had also had occasion to visit places abroad where he had seen the merits of the institution. The abolition of the Chaplaincies took place before he had the honour of a seat in the House, and he felt the hopelessness of outside agitation, but as soon as he had obtained that honour he asked the Question of the Government on the subject, and he was strongly advised from Governmental quarters to have the matter represented to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office. He therefore recommended those who objected to the withdrawal of these allowances to represent their case to Lord Derby. Accordingly, one of the most important and influential deputations that ever waited on a Minister went to the Foreign Office. It included 50 or 60 Members of Parliament, representing both Universities, the City of London, and many counties and large towns, and they represented to Lord Derby the necessity of reversing the decision of Lord Granville. Lord Derby, however, met the deputation in anything but a conciliatory spirit. If they had waited on Lord Granville, they would scarcely have been worse treated. The noble Lord told them that

  1265
  the Government could not alter a course which had been adopted deliberately, and the reversion of which would not be consistent with the temper of the House of Commons. For his own part he did not know where the noble Lord got his information from. He was surprised and astonished to hear such a declaration from a Member of a Conservative Government that commanded large majorities. The fact was, however, that it was five years since the noble Lord had sat in that House, and that during the time he held a seat in it there had never been a Conservative majority. He confessed that when 50 Members of that House, holding influential positions, went to the Foreign Office, he was astonished at this declaration on the part of a Conservative Minister after the General Election that had just been held. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had laid great stress upon the Report of the Committee being unanimous. But why was it unanimous? The hon. Gentleman was far too good an official not to take his tone from his Chief, and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs took the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite the whole time, and turned round upon those who supported a Conservative Government. When he saw this, he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) felt then that their case was hopeless—that there was nothing to do but throw up the sponge and adopt the principle of Sauve qui peut. He adopted the advice of the hon. Gentleman, fearing that if the Report of the Committee were not unanimous, it would have no weight with the House or the country. He accepted the Report as the minimum of what he felt was wanted; but it was a wretched alternative. What he wanted was the contents of the Report which he himself had drawn up. To that he adhered, and that he hoped to obtain. He admitted that hon. Gentlemen opposite had acted in a spirit of great conciliation; but he denied that the conduct of the Government was in accordance with the feeling of the country, or the pledges given by Conservative candidates on the hustings, and he would not be satisfied unless the Government reconsidered the matter. He should certainly vote in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend if the House divided, for he maintained that those who were brought into power by the assistance of
  1266
  the Church ought to do something for the Church.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he would not enter into the general question, but he would say that it ought to be pointed out that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was the Chairman of the Select Committee, and the Report, which was the basis of that adopted, was drawn up by the hon. Member himself. [SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg your pardon, not the basis at all.] He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would frankly own he had never looked at the draft Report; but on looking at the one put into his hands, he found, at all events, that it contained the principal paragraphs of the draft Report submitted by the Chairman of the Select Committee. In that draft Report the Chairman went into cases of hardship, and then laid down the principle that considerable hardship would be inflicted both on communities and on individuals unless some modifications were introduced into the decision come to by Lord Granville, and that the exemptions in the Circular of Lord Granville should be considerably extended and enlarged. That was what he called the basis and principle of the Report, and he held that the House were fairly entitled to look upon such a Report of the Committee as being intended to be a settlement of the question. The hon. Gentleman said that the Committee were not treated fairly. For his part, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that the Committee had not treated the House fairly, if their Report was to be read in the sense which the hon. Gentleman had put upon it. Instead of "throwing up the sponge," the hon. Gentleman, as Chairman, ought to have taken the opinion of the Committee and got the majority to approve of his Report. When action had already been taken, it was difficult to reverse that action. He could only repeat what had been said by his hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke), that the principle of the Report appeared to be that the different cases should be looked into, and where cases of hardship were discovered, they should be dealt with. Upon that principle the Government were prepared to act, and if a necessity was shown for further exemptions, they should be made.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTthought it would be wise not to press the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) to a division. He would not enter into the question how the Committee came to their decision. He understood that they recommended that it should be open to the Government to re-open the question where cases of hardship were pointed out, and he was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately state that the Government would act on that recommendation, and that such cases should have their favourable consideration. He therefore strongly recommended his hon. Friend not to divide.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTadded his appeal to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) not to press his Motion to a division. But he hoped the Government would take a proper view of this question, and continue to provide spiritual ministrations in those places abroad where the English laity were unable to pay the salaries of Chaplains. If Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to promise that they would deal in that spirit with this subject, he would advise his hon. Friend to insist on a division. What was felt so strongly was not so much the hardships of individual Chaplains, but the injury and neglect which Her Majesty's Government had appeared to sanction with regard to the spiritual wants of British residents abroad.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, that after the conciliatory speech which had been made on the part of the Government, and the promise that the matter would be considered, he would withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"]
  Amendment negatived.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND)—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GRANT DUFF,in rising to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland), said: I have been anxious, Sir, to bring on, before the Scotch Members left town in any numbers, a conversation about the recent Report of the Royal Commission
  1268
  on our Scotch Hospitals and Endowed Schools, with a view to ascertain how far the recommendations of the Commissioners are approved, and I should like also to learn from the Government whether we may hope next year for any legislation in the direction of the Commissioners' recommendations. This Royal Commission was appointed in 1872, and its duties were to inquire into all endowments in Scotland applied or applicable to education, with the exception of those which were reported upon by the Commissioners appointed under the Universities Act of 1858. It found that the endowments into which it had to inquire amounted to £195,000 a-year—a small sum if we compare it with the vast figures of English endowments, but still a sum which, wisely used, is capable of conferring great benefits upon a comparatively small country. Of this sum, something less than £80,000 a-year belongs to the great schools known as hospitals—hospital being used with us in the same sense as it is used in England when people speak of Christ's Hospital. Something over £42,000 are endowments in connection with elementary schools; something over £16,000 are endowments attached to secondary schools; something over £17,000 are endowments not appropriated to any particular institution; something over £18,000 is the amount applicable to education belonging to certain endowments, partly charitable and partly educational; while £22,000 are endowments given to the Universities since 1808. All University endowments given previous to that year were, it must be understood, reported upon by the Commission appointed under the Universities Act of 1858. First, then, I will say a word or two about the hospitals. For many years a feeling has been growing up in Scotland that the revenues of these institutions are not doing nearly as much good to the country as they might, and various attempts have been made to put them, or some of them, on a better footing. More especially in the year 1868 and 1869 a great step forward was made when the powerful body known as the Edinburgh Merchant Company commenced, under the presidency of Mr. James Duncan, and carried through very serious reforms. I will not detail the various proceedings in this House and out of it in connection with these and

  1269
  other reforms, which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission. Suffice it to say that it became clear in 1872 that public opinion in Scotland as to hospital management had quite outgrown the powers of self-reform vested by law in these institutions. New legislation became necessary, and this Commission was appointed with a view to inquire what reforms were wanted, and what kind of legislation was required, not only as to hospitals, but as to other educational endowments in Scotland. The recommendations of the Commissioners with regard to hospitals generally are very shortly these—They advise that the children, instead of living a sort of half-prison life within the hospital walls, should be as far as possible boarded out in families; that in many cases they should attend the public elementary schools; while in others children from outside should attend the hospital schools. They advise that the numbers of charity foundations should be reduced, seeing that education in Scotland is now so much more accessible than it used to be. They advise that, in some cases, the charity should be assisted by requiring the persons interested in the children to contribute something to their maintenance, and they think that some of the places on the foundations should be thrown open to competition by boys who have completed a course-of instruction in elementary schools. If these suggestions be adopted, the Commissioners conceive that the resultant changes will introduce into the hospitals a far healthier and happier tone; that they will benefit the districts in the immediate neighbourhood of the hospitals; that they will aid the charitable designs of their founders by getting from without contributions in aid of those charitable designs; that they will stimulate education generally, and build a ladder by which clever boys in the elementary schools of the country may rise to have the benefits of secondary and higher education. These are the chief general recommendations with regard to the hospitals. I myself entirely approve of them, and should like to hear from others that they do so too. There are a variety of other recommendations with regard to the special wants of particular hospitals, as to the character of which it would be unreasonable to ask the Government or private Members to give opinions to-night; but
  1270
  there is one with regard to Heriot's Hospital so important, and, as it seems to me, so excellent, that I must call attention to it. After pointing out that the children of petty tradesmen and skilled artizan form the greater part of the foundationers at Heriot's Hospital, the Commissioners go on to show that the skilled artizan in various foreign countries is—thanks to his greater facilities for getting a good education—leaving his British brother far behind; and they proceed to say—
  "We have alluded to the schools of Prussia and Switzerland as the most famous. But indeed there is scarcely a considerable State on the Continent which does not contain schools more especially adapted than the ordinary schools to the practical wants of these pupils, who have hereafter to gain a livelihood in connection with the leading industries of the country. Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, Sweden, and France are all provided with such schools. There appears to he hardly any institution of the kind in the United Kingdom. We are of opinion that Heriot's foundation offers an opportunity for establishing a school somewhat after the model of the Realschulen—one in which the basis of education shall he mathematical and practical to the same degree that in our ordinary secondary schools the basis is classical. Indeed we should be disposed to recommend the exclusion of classics, believing that where a classical education is given it is apt, as being the more fashionable, to oust or starve the modern instruction that ought to be given alongside of it. Some degree of acquaintance with Latin, however, would seem to be necessary. But we don't think it necessary to lay down any detailed plan for the course of instruction. It is enough to say that we think it desirable to give to mathematics, modern languages, drawing, and the sciences bearing upon manufactures, or so much of them as could he taught to lads, the greatest prominence in school curriculum. The details of organization should he left to an executive body co-operative with the governors or to the governors themselves, assisted by the best special opinions on the subject which the country can afford. We cannot doubt that scientific men and those who have made education in its various forms their study, and have considered and observed the working of technical and commercial schools abroad, would give their best assistance to carry out the proposal. So large an experiment must necessarily be expensive, for models and laboratories will be required—consequently it is to a wealthy foundation that we would assign the honour of carrying it out. While making these recommendations, we would deprecate any attempt to confine the educational curriculum to scientific subjects to the exclusion of literature; but we would suggest that successful competitors for places on the foundation who desire a purely classical training should he sent to the High School of Edinburgh."
  It appears to me that the Commissioners have in these words made a proposal of

  1271
  real national importance, and one which deserves the strongest support that Parliament and the Government of the day, to whatever Party it may belong, can give it. I believe that the danger to which they call attention is as far as possible from being an imaginary one. We must look to our commercial laurels in every part of the world; but I believe that if we are wise now—wise enough to take that step here recommended, and other cognate steps—we shall keep for many a long year to come industrially and commercially the first place in the world. I come now to the endowments in connection with elementary schools. The leading idea which governs the proposals of the Commissioners with regard to these is, that Parliament having now stepped in to make elementary education in Scotland nearly universal, these endowments should be applied, except in very peculiar cases, not to giving mere elementary instruction, but to provide a somewhat higher instruction for the sort of persons whom the original givers of the endowments meant to benefit. The exceptions would be in favour of very necessitous parents, and in favour of parishes where the school-rate exceeds 3d. in the pound. It is unnecessary to go more particularly into the recommendations of the Commissioners under this head, with which those who accept their leading idea will, I think, generally agree. To that leading idea I give my entire adhesion. In Scotland our elementary education has long been good, and is rapidly becoming, under the influence of recent legislation, all that we could desire. Our secondary education, on the other hand, is very, very far from good. It is so bad, or rather there is so very little of it, that, considering the great improvement that is taking place in English secondary education, Scotchmen will really be placed at a serious disadvantage in the battle of life if it is not speedily and greatly improved. The present dearth of good secondary schools in Scotland acts unfavourably, chiefly in two ways. First, by depriving clever but necessitous boys who have passed with credit through an elementary school of the chance of getting a thorough training for industrial or commercial life; and, secondly, by lowering the standard of the Universities, and so keeping down the whole of the higher education of the country.
  1272
  We have, as everyone knows, a number of professors in Scotland of very high, and some of European reputation; but having got them, we too often waste their power by making them lecture to youths who ought to have gone through a long drill, and passed a matriculation examination, before they came into personal contact with these distinguished men. There are only 50 schools which can possibly be called secondary schools in the whole of Scotland which possess any endowment whatever, and their whole endowment consists of a little more than £14,000 a-year, or, if we add the bursaries connecting these secondary schools with the University, a little more than £16,000 a-year. The result of this miserable state of things is that the Universities cannot even venture to have an entrance examination. In answer to the question—
  "Should you think it desirable to restore the entrance examination, if the other Universities would unite in doing it?"
  Professor Shairp, of St. Andrews, says—
  "I should think so, if something were done for the secondary schools first; but I think the secondary education throughout Scotland must be enlarged and improved before that would be desirable."
  Principal Sir Alexander Grant says—
  "There is no entrance examination as yet. The argument against that has always been that the schools are not fit for it. The low state of the secondary schools of the country provents the Universities from introducing an entrance examination without inflicting a great hardship on the boys in many parts of the country."
  It would be easy to multiply opinions on this subject, for the extreme inconvenience of the existing position of affairs has been noticed by almost everyone who has given any attention to the subject. The recommendations of the Commissioners towards remedying these evils seem to me judicious. They advise that the school boards should ex animo carry out the spirit of the Act of 1872, by relieving the higher class elementary schools of their elementary teachers, and providing for it elsewhere. They advise that the unseemly competition between teachers at the same schools, of which we have seen more than enough, should be brought to an end by fees being paid into a common fund under the management of the school board in each burgh, and they advise that a general examination of the higher class elementary, hereafter to be the secondary schools, should

  1273
  be organized. They do not fail, however, to draw attention to another cause of the inefficiency of our secondary education. They say—
  "The Act does not provide any remedy for the evil which lies at the root of the chief defects of the secondary school system of Scotland—namely, the want of endowment. Powers were given to the school hoards to pay examiners out of the rates, and it may he—hut this point is doubtful—to defray the repairs of the buildings. Without additional funds no effective improvement of the higher class schools of Scotland is possible, and the requirements of the country cannot be met. Provision of the amplest kind has been made by law for elementary instruction. By means of rates, Parliamentary grants, and fees, elementary schools have been, or are in the course of being, established and supported throughout Scotland. The Universities are aided from year to year with Imperial money. Large sums have been raised of late years both in Glasgow and in Edinburgh for the University buildings in these two towns, and these sums have been supplemented by building grants from the National Exchequer; and scholarships and fellowships have been established in connection with the Universities by the liberality of enlightened benefactors. But, while the elementary schools and the Universities are thus fostered by the State and enriched by individuals, the secondary schools, which ought to fill the gap between these institutions, are left to starve. Parliament has not granted them any aid, and private benefactors, who deal liberally with the Universities, forget the source that supplies the objects of their liberality."
  Is this want of endowment to be perpetual? I hope not. May we not trust the time is coming when very rich men—and even in Scotland there are now some very rich men—will try to make for themselves a position in the world, by conferring in their lifetime great benefits upon their countrymen to which shall attach no ecclesiastical, or what is commonly called charitable character? Surely, there are at this moment many rich men in Great Britain extremely anxious and laudably anxious to make for themselves social positions, and not seeing their way to do so, who could do so in a year if they only turned their ambition into the channel of becoming great citizens, by using the overflow of their wealth for great national purposes. They have to face, on the paths on which they now strive to rise, the competition of many others over whom their vast wealth gives them no special advantage. On this path, however, they would and could, in the nature of things, have no competitors. Many hon. Members, I dare say, remember the story of Herodes Atticus, who spent so much of his life in
  1274
  adorning Greece with magnificent works. Why should not his example be followed mutatis mutandis in this age of ours? If there are any such persons in Scotland, here is a field ready for them. By the expenditure of a much smaller sum than was lately given in Scotland for an ecclesiastical purpose, the whole of our secondary education could be put on a proper footing; while a sum not larger than the one I have alluded to would make our Universities all they ought to be, and enable Scotland to compete educationally on equal terms with any country in the world. But to return to the Commissioners' Report. Secondary schools being established on a proper footing, the next step should be to connect the elementary schools with the secondary schools by a system of bursaries, which should help deserving boys to step from the elementary to the secondary schools, should partially support them at the secondary schools, and be then met by the existing bursary system, which, properly re-organized and reinforced, is capable of conferring even greater benefits than it has done hitherto. Turning to the next head, that of general endowments, I am glad to see that the Commission have given most well-merited praise to the management of the Dick Bequest, a fund set apart for augmenting the salaries of schoolmasters in Aberdeen, Banff, and Moray. I suppose very few sums of money ever bequeathed for a public purpose have done so much good and so little harm. A curious contrast to it is presented by the Burnett Trust. A gentleman residing in Aberdeen left, late in the last century, the income of a portion of his property to be accumulated for 40 years in the hands of trustees, and then to be paid over to the author of the best and second-best essay on the existence and attributes of the Deity, considered under certain aspects defined by the will. This was all well as long as the amount was moderate, but in 1894 the amount divisible between two fortunate essayists will be about £10,000, which is clearly beyond all reason, and I think I may say with confidence that I and all my fellow-trustees, of whom the hon. Baronet the Member for Perthshire (Sir William Stirling-Maxwell) is one, will be very glad if Parliament steps in to point out a better method of employing a very large part of the money. With regard

  1275
  to the endowments, which are partly charitable in the common sense and partly educational, the general effect of the recommendations of the Commissioners is in favour of an accurate demarcation, by Parliamentary authority, of the funds applicable to each purpose, and in favour of applying to educational purposes all those funds which from a change of circumstances can no longer be usefully employed in charitable purposes of the common kind. With regard to University endowments, the Commissioners think that bursaries in the patronage of public bodies should be thrown open to competition; that bursaries in the gift of private individuals under £10 of annual value should be combined so as to form bursaries sufficiently large to be of some practical use, and should then be thrown open to competition; while with reference to bursaries still retained in private hands, or otherwise not thrown open to competition, they consider that the Universities should be empowered to submit the presentees to an examination. If they pass that examination, and show themselves sufficiently advanced not to keep back the teaching of the University, they should enjoy their presentation bursaries; but if not, the bursaries should lapse for that term only, and be thrown open to competition. Any one who has had much experience in the working of our Scotch Universities will, I am sure, agree with me in thinking that these recommendations do not go at all too far, and I believe public opinion in Scotland will very fully support them. Personally, I think there is much to be said for the view of those among the Commissioners who wish to do away with all presentation bursaries; but if the reforms to which all the Commissioners have agreed become law, enough will probably have been done for the time. As public opinion in these matters matures, one patron of a presentation bursary after another will throw open his bursary to competition, until at last they will all disappear. In old times they had their uses, but when our schools are made what they ought to be—a real ladder to learning, a ladder up which all boys of superior merit can rise by superior merit through a system of scholarships—the use of them will entirely pass away. The Universities would probably aid their disappearance more
  1276
  quickly if they adopted the suggestion of the Commissioners to exclude bursaries not gained by competition from a place in the calendar, and to substitute the word scholarship for the word bursary in describing all bursaries gained by competition. There are a variety of other recommendations, such as that the trustees of endowments should be relieved from restrictions in favour of particular names, and that restrictions in favour of founders kin should be limited in duration by statute; that all endowed educational institutions should be inspected under the authority of the Education Department or the Universities; that the accounts should be annually audited, and a balance-sheet published; that there should be a public register of all educational endowments; that power should be given to modify the constitution of trusts, due importance being attached both to local and general interests; that powers should be given to combine small trusts, and to transfer them to school boards with the consent of trustees, and so forth. Nearly all these last-mentioned recommendations have been discussed again and again in connection with English foundations, and there are few which have not been accepted by all who take any interest in these matters from a national point of view. Such is, in brief outline, the scheme of the Commissioners for the reform of our endowed educational institutions. I have seldom had the good fortune to read any public document with which I so entirely and cordially agreed. The Commission contained prominent persons belonging to both political parties. It took an immense deal of evidence, and on every page of its Report there is proof of a studious desire to be moderate and practical, to recommend not what might be absolutely or theoretically best, but what was best under the conditions of Scotland in the year 1875. I shall be glad if, at a later period of the evening, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate is able to say that Her Majesty's Government proposes next year to deal with this very important question in the spirit of the Commissioners' recommendations, which they suggest should be carried into effect by the usual machinery of a Parliamentary Committee appointed under an Act,
  MR. M'LAREN: The House, Sir, certainly cannot complain of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff); he has stated the substance of the Report of the Commissioners with great fairness and perspicuity, and I have not a word to say against any remark he made in describing it. I do not think any one would have done it better than he did; but the hon. Gentleman failed to throw any new light on the subject. He merely recapitulated the statements in the Report, and said he approved of them. He did not bring forward any new facts to show that the Report was wise and true, and he did not begin at the beginning of the inquiry. What occasioned it? As very few Members here know why the Commission was appointed, it might be well to state the facts. In 1869 the then Lord Advocate (Mr. Moncreiff) carried a Bill to enable charitable institutions in Scotland to extend their powers, subject to the approval of the Home Secretary. It was a sort of Permissive Bill for endowed institutions in Scotland. Under that Act the Merchants' Company obtained the necessary powers to re-organize their schools. Heriot's Hospital applied in the succeeding year for powers to re-organize theirs, and to extend their powers somewhat, though not to the same extent as the others, inasmuch as they had previously obtained an Act which went far in that direction. The Act of 1869 contained a power for the Secretary of State to prolong its existence for one year in the case of any school where anything occurred to prevent their wishes being complied with in the three years of the duration of the Act. The Lord Advocate for the time being thought the demand of Heriot's Hospital in the way of extending powers was beyond the spirit and intention of the Act of Parliament, and he advised the Home Secretary that he should not give effect to the wishes of that great trust. The Governors of the Hospital asked an interview with the Home Secretary, and availed themselves of a power in the Act which said that if the Home Secretary did not approve of anything in any scheme laid before him, he could strike out, or put in, or alter in any way he thought fit, and that if the parties were not satisfied with his proposals they might withdraw the scheme. The Governors of the Hospital said to the Home Secretary—"We are perfectly
  1278
  willing to leave out all those things you think in excess of the powers given by statute, and to take the rest." The Home Secretary would not do that. He said it was not his business to frame a Bill for them. They then struck out what they supposed was objectionable, and went to him again to pass the amended Bill. That he declined to do. Years passed on, and when another hospital made application for an extension of one year, Heriot's Hospital asked to be put in also, but the Lord Advocate opposed this, and the Home Secretary refused to put it in. So Heriot's Hospital did not get the advantages of the powers of that Act. The Government, however, promised to introduce an Act which they thought would please all parties in another year, and accordingly they did introduce a Bill which gave extravagant powers to the Government to devise or alter a scheme in any way they thought fit, and with the provision that in whatever way the Home Secretary altered it, the parties must take his fiat and receive the Bill. This Bill was opposed out and out, and after it had been read a second time we succeeded in getting it stopped. The result was, that the parties whom the citizens of Edinburgh credited with a secret desire to get hold of the revenues of Heriot's Hospital for purposes connected with the University, and for other purposes which the founder did not contemplate, felt checkmated by these proceedings, and got the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the endowed schools and institutions of Scotland, with the view of gaining their objects by that course. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Elgin Burghs has said that this Commission was composed of men of all political parties. That is literally true, but hardly true in its spirit. The inhabitants of Edinburgh were most anxious that some one man should be put on the Commission who was acquainted with the management of the institutions of Edinburgh—a man of intelligence and probity, who would look to the interests of the institutions, and be able to put the right questions at the right time, and to elicit information. Great influence was used to get the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate to appoint one such man, and the gentleman who was President of the Chamber of Commerce at

  1279
  the time was recommended. They resisted that proposal, and appointed a Commission on which there was not one man who was at all conversant with the affairs of Edinburgh. Two Edinburgh barristers were appointed, holding office at the time under the Lord Advocate, but no other person connected with Edinburgh was on the Commission, and it was, in consequence, distrusted both by my constituents and myself. There was one Conservative Member on it, and in that sense the statement of the hon. Member is correct that both political Parties were represented; but only in the proportion of one to six. I do not think that was a fair proportion. The Commission reported, and a very accurate and fair epitome of the Report has been given. The chief point in which I am interested for my constituents is that in regard to what they think and I think—the proposed misappropriation of the revenue of that great trust, Heriot's Hospital; and that I may not be thought presumptuous in setting up my opinion against the opinion of those seven able Commissioners to examine this question, I may inform the House that although there are 54 Governors of that Hospital, 13 of the city clergy, and 41 magistrates and town councillors, not one of them approves of the Report. They are unanimously against it. During the last three yearly elections to the Town Council of Edinburgh, the candidates were asked whether they would approve of such an appropriation as this of the funds of Heriot's Hospital, and without one exception in any of the wards of the city, not a man came forward who said he would approve of this proposition. Under those circumstances, I hope I shall not be thought singular or presumptuous in trying to give effect to the opinion so generally felt in the great city I have the honour to represent. George Heriot's Trust was constituted 250 years ago. In the deed of trust he said it was to be modelled on the plan of Christ's Hospital or the Bluecoat School in London; not on that school as it is now—a school for the rich and well-to-do citizens of London—but as it was then, a school for the poor in London—for the endowment of Christ's Hospital has been changed in its character as much as any endowment. In many cases of English trusts it has been found that when the Governors did nothing, the value of the
  1280
  land originally left increased while they slept, and therefore they deserve no credit for any increase in the revenue. The improvement arose from circumstances beyond their control. But it was very different with the managers of Heriot's Trust. He left no land, but some houses in Edinburgh, and money, which he authorized them to invest in whatever way they thought fit. They sold all the property he had, and bought other lands from time to time as they came into the market. The whole money he left was about £23,000 and the revenue of the Hospital now is about £20,000, so that the yearly income, entirely owing to the good management of the Trustees, and not to any peculiar circumstances, is nearly equal to the original sum, and out of the original sum the beautiful building, the Hospital itself, was erected. About 40 years ago, it was found that the revenue was nearly £3,000 in excess of the requirements of the institution, and I think I can say, from having been then a Governor, that the surplus was not always wisely spent. There was an inclination to spend it in ornamental embellishments. A motion was made for the Governors to endeavour to get an Act of Parliament to apply the surplus in establishing out-door schools as nearly as possible in the spirit of the original document, which was "to provide for the maintenance and education of poor orphans and fatherless children." But Heriot left power to a gentleman, afterwards Dean of Rochester, to make the constitution such as he thought fit, and the Dean left out the words "fatherless children." Therefore, the trust stood for 250 years for poor children, being the sons of burgesses in poor circumstances, whose parents were not sufficiently able to maintain them. The Trustees applied to Parliament for an Act to enable them to establish out-door schools. Their wish was that the original institution should be kept up to the original extent as to the number of boys, and that the surplus should be applied to the out-door schools, under the careful nursing of the Governors. Thirty-nine years ago, one school was created; another, and another, and another followed, as the funds increased, until now there are 16 in existence, and other four are being erected. Upwards of 4,500 children are now receiving an entirely gratuitous education in these schools, in addition to keeping up everything

  1281
  that the original founder desired to be kept up. [An hon. MEMBER: Including the maintenance?] No, I speak of out-door schools; the maintenance only applies to the children in the Hospital. The Governors, by the Act, did not seek to extend the principle of seclusion and maintenance; there was plenty of that already provided in the city. They preferred to establish schools to take the children in simply for education, believing that in that way they could do many times as much good as could be done with the same sum of money in any other way. That Bill was keenly canvassed in both Houses of Parliament. Six Petitions were presented against it in the House of Commons by trades and corporations and other parties who thought themselves interested, and five Petitions in the House of Peers. Considerable Amendments were made in the Bill, particularly in the House of Peers, one of them to the effect that the Dean's statutes was to be read as equal in authority with the terms of the will. I mention this circumstance because of a direction in the will that no arrangement should stand which was contrary to the spirit of the statutes; and it is contended in the Report that the omission of the words "fatherless children" was a mere clerical blunder, notwithstanding that the Dean went down to Edinburgh to consult the local authorities, and there came to the conclusion that there were not a sufficient number of fatherless children of the class requiring to be provided for. Then it is said in the Report that the University of St. Andrews, having a residuary interest in the funds of the Hospital, was not aware of the Bill being before Parliament. The old system of Committee of the House of Commons was in existence at that time. Scotland was divided into two or more districts, and one Committee, called the Eastern Committee, included the Members for St. Andrews, Fifeshire, and all the neighbouring burghs, and for counties on the East of Scotland. To that Committee the Bill was referred, and if St. Andrews supposed it was interested, there was no difficulty in moving in the matter, but they never made any application. The Governors appointed by Heriot were every minister of the Established Church in Edinburgh, and every member of the Town Council, and he gave solemn injunctions
  1282
  in his will, which were repeated in the Dean's statutes, that an oath should be taken by each Governor on entering upon office, that he would never try to alter the terms of the Trust in any way whatever; and there was a condition that if they did not carry out the will, the trust should be forfeited to the University of St. Andrews. That is what the Commissioners call the residuary interest. Who can imagine that St. Andrews has an interest of any kind whatever? The Governors have not only done all that Heriot desired, but they have so administered the trust as to produce results conferring an incalculably greater benefit on the community. The Commissioners are not disposed to let well alone. Whatever may be said of the monastic character of the Hospital, one would suppose that schools so well-established, and which have done so much good, would escape any changes such as might visit others not so successfully administered. The Commissioners admit that these are the best schools in Edinburgh, and there are many still higher authorities as to their excellence. Those schools are free. Every child costs about 30 s., and therefore every poor mechanic's son in effect gets a bursary of 30 s. a-year. The most necessitious children are admitted, judging from the income of the parents and other circumstances. The advantages are such, the Commissioners state, that there is a great pressure to get in, and a great fear of being put out. The attendance is better than at any other schools in the kingdom, and it may interest hon. Members to know what is the talisman which brings about that result. Rules were made at the establishment of the first schools that when a child was absent, the teacher or his deputy must go and ascertain the cause each time, and if it was found that a child was absent three times without proper cause, his name should be struck off the roll. That is the only compulsion applied; there is a moral compulsion, and that is found quite sufficient to fill the schools, and to keep them full, and to do a great deal of good. The result is that of every 100 children on the roll there are always 89 or 90 in attendance. The Edinburgh School Board have established many schools, and I find from their Report, which I read in the newspapers a few days ago, that the

  1283
  average attendance at their schools is only 73 out of every 100, the absentees being 27 per cent, as against 11 per cent at Heriot's Hospital. We see how well these work, and yet the Commissioners cannot let well alone, but insist on fees being charged at least to the extent of those who are willing to pay—and of that number they assume there are two-thirds. They say—"If you charge fees, you can get a grant of £2,600 from the Privy Council, and as much, or more, from the children's pence," and therefore they strongly recommend that course to be adopted. They are also strongly in favour of the establishment of bursaries, and of giving advantages to the University, and extending the benefits of the institution beyond the limits of the City of Edinburgh and the neighbourhood, to which they are now confined. Now, all that is fair matter for discussion, but for my part I do not see where the principle, if you once begin to act on it, is to end. One would have thought the Commissioners would have gone to the towns where nothing has been done, and call on those towns to open up their schools as the Merchant Company of Edinburgh has already done, but they do not ask that. All they ask is that Edinburgh should be deprived of its remaining advantages. They forget that there are large bequests at Aberdeen, Glasgow, and other places—larger even than that of Heriot's Hospital. There is the Ferguson bequest of about £16,000 a-year, extending to four counties in the West of Scotland. Why do not they recommend that the advantages of that bequest should be opened up to all other counties? Why not recommend the opening up to other districts of the Hutcheson bequest in Glasgow, which is larger than Heriot's? There appears to me to be no principle in their recommendations. Carrying the illustration still further, look at Oxford and Cambridge in England. If it is a wise thing to seize on the funds of a great institution in Edinburgh; if that is a principle which is to receive the sanction of Parliament, why would it not be right to seize on the property of Oxford and Cambridge and apply it to the University of Durham, Owen's College in Manchester, and similar institutions in England? Once admit the principle of spoliation—for such, without meaning any disrespect to the
  1284
  Commissioners, I venture to call it—if you once admit that principle of confiscation where are you to stop? Then, in regard to bursaries, which the Commissioners think so exceedingly advantageous, a good deal has been done in that way already. Edinburgh has between £6,000 and £7,000, and Glasgow between £7,000 and £8,000, and the other Universities have also considerable sums. The thread running through the whole of the Commissioners' Report is that University education is the one thing needful, and they seem to complain that only two boys have been sent to the University from Heriot's Hospital each year; but the fact is, they do not want to go to the University—they want to learn trades. There are already a much larger number of University students in Scotland in proportion than in England. In the Scotch Universities, after deducting the English, Irish, and other students, there are about 4,000 Scotch students. If there was the same proportion of University students in England their number would be 26,000, whereas, I believe that, taking both Oxford and Cambridge, there are fewer than 5,000; so that Scotland, in proportion to its population, has five times as many University students as England. Yet it is implied all through this Report of the Commissioners that University education is the thing neglected in Scotland. It appears to me that Edinburgh, where there is so small a population engaged in trades and manufactures, is the last place in the country where the Commissioners should propose to try such an experiment as they suggest, for establishing a large technological school on the German model at the expense of Heriot's Trust, with any chance of success. Why should not they have tried the experiment with Hutcheson's Hospital at Glasgow—a city where it might have borne fruit, instead of in the more sterile soil of Edinburgh? The Commissioners place great value on University education; they are probably all University men themselves, and their opinion is no doubt entitled to respect; but still their opinion does not seem to be shared by the large towns of England and Scotland. I have looked at the biographies in Debrett of the Members for five large boroughs in England, and I find that out of 14 Members, only one describes himself as having

  1285
  had a University education. Looting to the Members for four of the large burghs in Scotland, I find that one graduates at Aberdeen, one in Dublin, three simply say that they were "at Universities "—one of them abroad—and three had not been at Universities at all. Those facts go to show that the electors of our large cities and towns do not value University education quite as much as the Commissioners do. They think men are quite equal to their duties even in Parliament, although they have never had the advantage of a University training. I find, too, that the same thing applies to the Judges of the Superior Courts in England. One would naturally suppose they had all been educated at Oxford or Cambridge, but I find that is by no means the case; nearly one-half of the Judges, both in the Courts of Chancery and Common Law, never having been at any University. If, then, men are good enough to be Members of this House, and Judges holding the highest position in the land, without having been to a University, surely it is unreasonable to urge that all the poor lads in Heriot's Hospital ought to get a University education, or be disparaged if they do not. They cannot afford to spend the years necessary for a University education, even if all their fees and maintenance were paid for, unless they intend to follow one of what is usually called the learned professions. The Universities are very good in their way, but the cry in their favour may be carried too far. The Commissioners object to poor people being, what they call, pauperized by having a free education given them; but are not the bursaries and prizes given for the Universities sufficient both to clothe and educate the students who obtain them. Does that pauperize them? And, if not, why should you say it pauperizes poor children to have a free education, without food or clothing, if it does not pauperize the richer classes? The Commissioners do not approve of giving benefactions to particular names. There was a gentleman of the name of Maclean who recently left about £16,000 to establish a benefaction for boys of that name. I say that if they do not think it right to give the benefaction to the name of Maclean's only, they ought to give the money back to the heir-at-law. Parliament should never decide that benefactions should not be applied for the
  1286
  purposes and in the manner intended, so long as it is a legal and useful purpose. There are several rather wild statements in the Report, one of which relates to the expenditure. The Commissioners find fault with the expenditure; but the expenditure has not been made out fairly. It is just like some hon. Member asking what the expenses of the regiments of Guards in London are, and in making up the account to put in the whole expenses of the staff in London, and say that that is the cost. Heriot's Hospital has a superintendent of works, clerk of works, treasurer, law agents, and all those officers; and their salaries and outlay for repairs are all put down in the return of the expenditure. I contend that in every estimate showing the cost of education all the salaries paid to the officers I have enumerated ought to be deducted. Then the Commissioners appear to think that Heriot's Hospital was meant for boys who were to be of rather a better class than the present inmates; and, in support of this view, they refer to the requirement that they ought, at certain stages, to attend the Grammar School. If they had looked to the records of the Town Council they would have found the Grammar School of Edinburgh was the only school in Edinburgh at a time when trade guilds and similar combinations were rampant, and when it was strictly forbidden for anyone to open another school in competition. I have already adverted upon one chief matter, and I will just say another word or two—without intending to disparage the Report in any way—about the open competition for bursaries. It sounds well, and it would also be very well if the open competition was among persons in equal circumstances. It is then the best possible means of selection; but if you have to draw into competition raw young lads who have never been at good schools with those who have had superior advantages, then I answer that it is not at all a good mode of selection. The son of a poor man has not had the advantage of being at a first-rate school. The sons of wealthy men have had the advantage of good schools and private tutors. If you send the sons of working men to compete with the sons of well-to-do men for bursaries, with a view to entering a University, this is not fair competition. George Heriot was most particular in imploring the

  1287
  Governors of his Hospital never to devote any of his funds to any other purpose than that for which he meant them—to support poor orphans and fatherless children, or children whose parents were not sufficiently able to maintain them. A poor man with 30 s. a-week, I should say, is not sufficiently able to maintain them—probably one child would get to school, but all would not get a sufficiently good education, and Parliament could not do a greater wrong than sanction those principles of confiscation which, I venture to think, are contained in this Report.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, it was not necessary for him to waste time in alluding at length to the subject before the House; but he could not refrain from taking the opportunity of expressing his satisfaction that a Gentleman so well able to judge of the merits of the Report to which allusion had been made, should have expressed approval of its terms, and approbation of the general recommendations of the Commissioners. He had the honour to serve on that Commission, and he felt it a high honour to make an inquiry of which he hoped the result would be that they would obtain for the poor the advantages of instruction in the higher branches of learning, which appeared to be denied to them in the present state of education in Scotland. He regretted that what was stated by the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs had not been concurred in by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren). The Commissioners never expected that recommendations so general, and affecting so many different interests, could possibly be received by everyone, without leaving room for difference of opinion. There was room for differences of opinion on many points of the recommendations, but they certainly did not expect that objection would be raised by anyone interested in Heriot's Hospital. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had complained that the Commissioners were not sufficiently informed of the state of education in Edinburgh. He (Mr. Ramsay) thought that came with an ill grace from the hon. Gentleman, seeing that the Commissioners wrote him a polite note, asking him to give evidence before them on the subject of inquiry. The hon. Member declined—on what grounds was not stated, except that he
  1288
  might have thought the Commissioners were not properly qualified, and were not capable of judging of the interests of Edinburgh. That might be so, because he could not think that the hon. Member would have refrained from giving evidence solely on account of not getting the Gentlemen appointed on the Commission whom he thought ought to have been there. He (Mr. Ramsay) must repeat that he could not possibly have expected that anyone interested in He-riot's Hospital would have raised objection to the Report. He arrived at that conclusion because the Governors of Heriot's Hospital themselves submitted a scheme to the Home Secretary in 1870, in which they really asked to obtain powers to do all that the Commissioners recommended should be done in regard to that Hospital. He had a copy of the scheme, and he had been struck with the fact that the recommendations of the Commissioners were in strict accordance with the proposals of the Governors of Heriot's Hospital, and he could not, therefore, comprehend what change of opinion could have come over that body, to induce them to send Gentlemen to spend some hours in the Lobby of that House, lest the action of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs should result in something detrimental to the interests of Heriot's Hospital and education in Edinburgh. It would only occupy a few minutes to go over all the recommendations seriatim, and place them in contrast with the scheme proposed by the Governors of Heriot's Hospital so recently as 1870. The first recommendation was that the charitable foundationers should be boarded out in respectable families. The Governors in their scheme proposed there should be a grant conferred upon them, and that they should have power, if they deemed it expedient in order to render the funds of the Hospital of greater benefit, to board out foundationers with persons approved of by the Governors. The second recommendation of the Commissioners was that the Hospital School should be thrown open as a day-school free to all. The Governors of Heriot's Hospital had also asked to have that power. The Commissioners next proposed that a considerable proportion of the places in each foundation should be thrown open to competition among boys, with a view to technical instruction. The Governors

  1289
  asked for the same power in their scheme. In the next case—that of pupils paying fees, it was provided that a sufficient number of places should be reserved for necessitous cases. Was there anything there to exclude the poor? Nothing could be further from the desire of the Commissioners than that the interests of the poor should be in any way neglected. The scheme of the Governors also provided for a system of education where fees could be charged. Therefore, he did not see what objection the hon. Member for Edinburgh should have to the recommendations of the Commissioners. With regard to higher instruction, the hon. Member had taken special exception to the proposal that technical schools should be opened, because he believed there was no demand for such instruction. Why did the Governors propose they should have that power conferred upon them? They not only recommended higher and secondary schools to be called "George Heriot's intermediary schools," but they would give technical education and instruction in modern languages. How then was it possible for the hon. Gentleman to object to the Commissioners' Report? The hon. Member took an active part in promoting the reforms in 1836 which induced the Governors of Heriot's Hospital to open the elementary day-schools which were now in existence. The Commissioners' Report also gave effect in that direction, and he could not explain how the hon. Gentleman, accurate as he usually was, should have asked them to believe the Report was not beneficial to the public, when there was not one word in the Report to countenance such an idea. [Mr. M'LAREN: Charging fees.] He had already stated that in the Governors' scheme fees were to be charged. Not only that, but the working men of Edinburgh came before the Commission, and said they preferred to pay them, therefore if the hon. Gentleman had been on the Commission he must have concurred in the recommendation. He did not feel—and he was sure the hon. Member did not feel—that they could do enough for the poor by providing a merely elementary education. That was not the Scottish idea of education at all—it was that the poor should get an education in the higher branches of learning. He was astonished to hear the opinion expressed
  1290
  that elementary education was all that ought to be provided. [Mr. M'LAREN: I never said anything of the kind.] He certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to deprecate anything like the higher education. He was quite satisfied, however, with that disclaimer, and he thought he had said enough to satisfy the House that the recommendations of the Commissioners in their Report were quite in accordance with the wishes of the Governors of Heriot's Hospital as expressed in their scheme in 1870. Nothing in the Report would tend to injure the institution; but he thought if the power were conferred on the Governors of carrying out the recommendations it would be a great blessing to Edinburgh, and to the people of Scotland. As to the cost of the Hospital system, the hon. Member had said that in reckoning the cost of each child, they had included the general expense of the administration. [Mr. M'LAREN: The salaries.] It was a point on which he thought the hon. Member was mistaken, and the hon. Member would perhaps allow him to say that probably he had not read the Report with the care which it might be expected he would have bestowed upon it. The net amount expended on the maintenance and education of the children was the basis of the calculation, and anyone who would refer to the Report would find that that was correct. He would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of the Government taking the subject into their very serious consideration, in order to do something to make the application of the funds of much greater use than they had hitherto been. His conviction was that by means of those funds, which were very great in the aggregate, they might confer upon the people of Scotland, not the elementary education, which was already provided by statute, but place within the reach of the poorest that higher education which, as he had said, was the ideal of what constituted education in Scotland, and which was at any rate the ideal of the founders of the Scottish school system.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that this was a much wider question than one affecting a single institution, and as one having had some experience with regard to the endowments of the town and county of Aberdeen, he wished to

  1291
  express his concurrence very largely with the Report of the Commissioners. Throughout the North-Eastern districts of Scotland there was a very high system of parochial teaching, and he thought that the success which had attended many of the young men from Aberdeen and that district was due to the beneficial effects of inducing high-class teachers to accept appointments in the parochial schools. No doubt, that money had been exceedingly well applied, and had been productive of the highest results, and he did not quite agree with the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) who said they had no secondary schools in that part of Scotland, because it was a fact that many of the pupils in those parochial schools got a good secondary education, comparatively speaking, went directly from them to the Universities, where they achieved great success. He agreed very much with what had fallen fron the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay). He thought that in these endowments they had ample funds to provide secondary education. He knew the anxious desire in Aberdeen and in Scotland generally to utilize the endowments, and he found the sum of money which might be fairly and well applied to the secondary schools was ample for all useful purposes; but as matters stood he was afraid there was a considerable risk of a secondary education falling through between the elementary and the University education. As regarded University education, a strong feeling existed that it did not provide the education which it was necessary for young men entering the world to have, and that the popular element should have greater power in deciding the curriculum of the Universities. At present the University curriculum was based very much on the ideas current 100 years ago, and young men were practically bribed to go in for a University education, which, having obtained, they did not know very well what to do with. It would be very much better if the education comprised what was now necessary for an educated gentleman; but, practically, the curriculum of the University was confined to the ancient, to the almost total exclusion of modern, education. But that was rather apart from the questions under discussion. He merely wished to state that,
  1292
  so far as the University of Aberdeen was concerned, he believed that the curriculum there, and also the curriculum at other Scottish Universities, was such as did not command the general confidence of the public. It was not what the general public desired. With regard to the endowments in Aberdeen which were referred to by the Commissioners, he would support the views of the Commissioners from his own acquaintance with the abuses which existed at present in regard to them. Where the endowment had been confined to the nearest of kin it turned out in this way—two or three generations back the nearest of kin was ascertained to be a certain child, and then the descendants of that child continued to lay claim to the endowment as the nearest of kin, and thus abuses grew up. Again, as regarded the endowments which were confined to certain classes—for instance, take the case of the sons of burgess of guild. Certain endowments were strictly confined to what were called sons of decayed burgesses, but he knew that cases had arisen where there were no sons of burgesses answering that description, and although the Town Council had desired to bestow the bursaries in accordance with the intention of the founder, there were no students qualified. He thought it right to state with regard to one important endowment in Aberdeen, that of late years the Trustees had taken a much more liberal view of the deed of foundation, and instead of restricting the benefits of the institution to the sons of burgesses of guild as heretofore, had liberally construed the provisions of the deed in favour of the sons of necessitous parents. He thought that showed the desire on the part of the Trustees to go forward in the direction of the views of the Commissioners. He therefore hoped that the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate would take into consideration the propriety of bringing forward a Bill which would freely give to those Trustees the power to liberalize those endowments in accordance with the views and the wishes of the public. Considering that the Trustees were almost in every case elected representatives of the public, they would not move farther in straining the views and the opinions of the testator than public opinion warranted.

  1293
  He could not agree with the opinion and the statement with regard to confiscation that had been uttered. He thought the sound view to take in regard to the endowments was this—that the founder was sincerely actuated by the desire to apply the money to the purpose which would do the greatest amount of good in a particular direction to his fellow-citizens. The principle, therefore, which ought to guide them in dealing with the endowments was to apply them in such a way as would lead to good and not harm; to apply the money in the most advantageous manner under the circumstances of the present time, and see that it was really productive of good, and not of harm, which could not have been the object of any pious founder.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that, as a Member of the Commission, he was not unprepared for some exhibition of local prejudice or claims in the case of endowments which it was proposed to open up and extend. But he owned he was surprised at the opposition which he very much regretted had been offered by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) on this occasion. Generally, the Commissioners had every reason to be satisfied with the reception their Report had met with. It had been received with cordial approbation; and a general desire had been expressed to see its principal recommendations carried into effect. He was, however, aware that, judging from the past, they might meet with some special difficulties when they applied their principles to that part of Scotland which his hon. Friend below him represented. He utterly denied that the Commissioners had in their recommendation drawn any distinction between the principles which they had applied to Heriot's and to Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland, but they had proposed principles which they thought would be beneficial to the whole country. He had not disguised from himself the doubt that the remedies formerly proposed might not yield the fruit expected from them. In the first place, they would only be operative in a limited number of institutions; again, there was the difficulty formed by the unwillingness to part with power. In saying that he was happy to say that the effort made by the late right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. Moncrieff), in passing a
  1294
  Permissive Bill giving facilities for the reform of these endowments, had been very liberally responded to by some of the leading institutions in Scotland, and it was much to be regretted that the progress of that reform had been checked by the opinion of his successor (Mr. Young); indeed, but for his interposition, many of those institutions would have been reformed, and would have conferred great benefit upon Scotland. He was surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh should have made the application of the funds to elementary education the text of his speech. He (Sir Edward Colebrooke) believed Edinburgh derived the greatest benefit from those schools; but he thought that the testimony which they had received from the Trustees of Heriot's Hospital fortified the conclusion at which the Commissioners arrived, that the time was come when indiscriminate gratuitous education should cease. That was the principle they proposed to apply to these schools. They thought they should stand like every other school, and in laying down that principle they laid down one which they were prepared to apply generally. With regard to that part of the question which referred to competition, he thought that the more they could spread competition the better it would be for the cause of education, and for the institution they wished to support. This principle they were prepared to apply generally. They thought that, as far as possible, consideration should be shown for the wishes of original founders, but at the same time they held that the Legislature had a right to see that such institutions conferred the greatest benefit on the greatest number. There was one point on which the Commissioners were entirely at one, and that was with respect to the claims of secondary education. Scotland, while rich in endowments, and while possessing Universities which opened their arms widely, was more poorly supplied with secondary schools than England or almost any other country in Europe. Hero there was a great field open to the Government. If they took this matter in hand with the view of seeing how far they could carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect, they might confer the greatest benefits on Scotland, without in any way shocking the feelings of the people or going in advance of public opinion.

  1295
  Above all, it was the object of the Commissioners to recommend what was practical, and to endeavour that those fine revenues might be so applied to the wants of the people, that Scotland would take her place in the front rank of the educated nations of the world. In that view, the duty of the Commissioners was to consider, not merely what would meet the popular case at the moment, but to lay down broad rules that would meet with general support. Whether they had succeeded or not, it would not be for the House to say; but, at all events, they had discharged their duty conscientiously.
  MR. MAITLANDhoped that he would be allowed to address the House for a few minutes, for the question was one of great importance to Scotland, and it seemed to him that if the Government were to take the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, the result would be to embroil the country in a great deal of mischief. He must say for himself he totally disagreed and dissented from the Report of the Commissioners, and he would explain why he did so. In their final Report the Commissioners recommended that the Government should cause an Act to be passed for the appointment of an Executive Commission to deal with all the endowed schools in Scotland according to the recommendations of the Department. He (Mr. Maitland) objected to the appointment of any Commission, and he had the greatest possible objection to the specific recommendations contained in that Blue Book. His objections were two-fold. In the first place, all the recommendations contained in the last few pages were so vague and ambiguous, that he could imagine the two Commissioners endeavouring conscientiously to follow them out might come to diametrically opposite opinions. He thought that the House should more clearly understand what these recommendations were before they appointed a Committee to carry them out. Moreover, it seemed to him that from beginning to end of the Report there was something like a misrepresentation of the hospital system. An hospital was really nothing more than a public school for the poorer classes. It was like Eton, Harrow, and Rugby, with this difference—that it was a school for the education and maintenance of the poor, or orphans; and children of persons
  1296
  in such crippled circumstances that they could not provide for the education of their families. In that Blue Book every possible objection was urged against the system, and he would show how groundless many of the objections were. The boys maintained in the Hospital were all from 7 to 14 years of age, and yet from beginning to end of this Report the system was branded as the monastic system. That was the way it was sought to prejudice people against it. Why, the children in these hospitals saw more of their parents than the children of any public school in either England or Scotland, and yet it was called the monastic system! He could only say that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead the people of Scotland. The expression occurred 20 or 30 times, and there was not the shadow of an excuse for it. The Commissioners were to-night maintaining that the opposition to their scheme was all local prejudice, and when the hon. Member for Edinburgh got up and objected, he was pooh-poohed, and the House was asked to believe that there were no solid arguments against the scheme. Another objection taken to the hospitals was that the children were brought up in a style of life for which they were not suited. He did not think that was a good objection, and he held that they should carry out the intentions of founders, unless there were some strong reasons for disregarding them. So highly was the system thought of in Scotland that £80,000 or £90,000 had been devoted to an hospital for the maintenance of children of a better class, for Fettes College was nothing but an hospital for the better-off classes. He would not follow the speech of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), but he would say this, that before they attacked such a system as this which had existed so long, and had done so much good, they must have some good object in view to which the revenues could be applied. And what was the object in this case? Every sort of proposal—some of them most preposterous—had been made in regard to the hospital. One was to found a school of technical education, and another to found a Chair of Paedutics. He trusted that the Government would not accede to the recommendations of the Commissioners.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he wished to say a few words in support of the view which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) on the subject. He (Mr. Macdonald) was disposed to go as far as any hon. Member in that House in favour of securing secondary education in Scotland, and he thought that the time had come when an effort should be put forth for that purpose. But while he desired to see a technical education given at every large centre of industry in the country, he would not consent to that object being attained by despoiling any institution of funds which had been left to it for a totally different purpose. There were institutions in Scotland, and notably the one to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had referred, which were designed by the founder for the purpose of educating the poor. He had read carefully the Report of the Commissioners, and found that they admitted that this institution was carrying out almost to the letter the object of its founder. If that were so, and if there still remained poor children in Edinburgh to be educated, he ventured to say that if that House attempted to apply the endowment to any other purpose, it would be depriving these poor children of their birthright, and of the benefits which the founder designed to confer upon them. He went further, and said that he did not believe in confiscating or diverting from their original uses the endowments which, either in the Middle Ages or in modern times, were left by persons for good and pious purposes. He was convinced that if the Legislature should take the course of laying ruthless hands upon the revenues of institutions of this kind, they would dry up in a large degree, if not altogether, the feelings which prompted benevolent persons to leave these benefactions, and to do away with that public sympathy which was one of the characteristic features of our times. He entered his strong protest against any interference with these institutions. If any mal-practices were alleged, by all means let an inquiry be instituted; but he trusted that the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate would deal with this subject in the spirit of maintaining these institutions for the purposes and objects which their founders had in view, and would not, either now or at any other
  1298
  time, allow ruthless hands to be placed upon them.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he must confess that he had been much taken by surprise by the remarkable Tory speeches which they had heard from that—the Liberal—side of the House. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), whom he knew to be zealous for education, had spoken as if the question were a new one, and did not appear to be aware that the subject of these endowments had been exhausted by the fullest inquiries, by not a Scotch Commission merely, but also by a great English Commission. The hon. Member asked that all endowments should be kept to the most pious purposes for which the founder originally intended them. He would keep, for instance, the large endowments that they possessed in London for liberating English captives from Barbary—a most pious intention of the founder, whose money had swelled to gigantic proportions. But now there were no English captives at Barbary to be released. Yet that pious foundation must be preserved according to the principles of his hon. Friend. There was another foundation for killing lady birds in Cornhill. Would his hon. Friend wish that the will of the founder in that instance should be perpetually kept, and not dealt with according to the wants of the time? Such views were so old that he had not believed that there was a person in the House who would have advanced them. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Maitland) spoke of the hospital system as if it were a system for which the Scotch people had the greatest admiration. Why, the reason that this Commission had been instituted at all was that the Scotch people were perfectly convinced that the hospital system had failed. ["No, no!"] Was it not the Trustees of these endowments who themselves had come to that House with schemes for the reform of the hospital system. The Edinburgh Merchants' Company had abolished the hospital system, and made great day-schools. The Governors of Heriot's Hospital, if they had not abolished, had largely modified that system. When the Scotch people had ascertained that there were no fruits of that system, that the children educated under it never attained distinction, they applied to that House, and asked them to change the

  1299
  system and mate it useful, and that was what the Commission had most laboriously inquired into and had furnished them with admirable plans. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright said that hospitals were more schools like Eton or Harrow. Why, then, had they been productive of so little fruit? Every parish school in Scotland could boast of its distinguished scholars. How came it that these Scotch hospitals, with all their wealth, had none to boast of? He was an older educationalist than the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright, and he thanked the Commission for the admirable Report which they had made, in which ample care was taken of the poor. What was the change which they desired to see? It was this—Edinburgh, as the metropolis of Scotland, had got an enormous acquisition of wealth in regard to these hospital foundations. It had got this great wealth, not because it was Edinburgh, but because it was the capital of the kingdom; and was the hon. Member for the City of Edinburgh to be the person to ask that House to treat Edinburgh as a small locality, and not as the metropolis of Scotland? Why, did it not add to the dignity of Edinburgh if it were made the metropolis of education as well as the metropolis of Scotland. The Commissioners recommended that Edinburgh should he made the metropolis of education in Scotland, and that these enormous foundations, which had come to it because it was the capital of the kingdom, should not be limited to Edinburgh alone, but extended to the whole kingdom.
  MR. M'LAREN: What foundation has Edinburgh got, because it is the capital of the kingdom? I know of none.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: Heriot himself left it to Edinburgh because it was the capital of Scotland, and what he said was this—"If you don't fulfil the purposes of my foundation, it shall go to another place." He said that the Governors of the Hospital had never fulfilled the literal terms of Heriot's foundation, and it was because they had not done so that Scotland was grateful to them. They had enlarged the terms of the trust, as they found there was occasion for it, and the schools spoken of as "Heriot's" might he called "M'Laren's schools," because there was a celebrated Lord Provost, now one of
  1300
  the Members for the City of Edinburgh, who instituted these schools. It was because Heriot's views had been altered to suit the wants of the time that this trust had done good outside its hospital system. It was in order to still further enlarge that trust that the Commissioners had made the recommendations which had been brought under the attention of the House. There had been remarks made about the Universities of Scotland, which answered themselves. For instance, the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) said he did not think they suited the wants of the people at present, and therefore the Commissioners recommended too much when they desired to promote the existing objects of those Universities. But that was answered by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, when he said that they educated too large a proportion of students in proportion to the population, so that they obviously possessed the confidence of the people. He hoped the Lord Advocate would tell the House that he appreciated this Report as highly as he (Mr. Lyon Playfair) was sure the large proportion of the population of Scotland did; that he would be willing to adopt the moderate views which were expressed in it; and that he would enable them by an executive Commission to carry out the recommendations somewhat after the manner in which action was taken by the Schools Inquiry Commission in England. If he did so, he would confer a great benefit upon Scotland, and promote very largely the education of the people.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I was very glad, Sir, that the hon. Member who opened this discussion (Mr. Grant Duff) said he was about to originate a conversation on the question, and that he would not conclude with any practical Resolution. I think his object has been amply served by the discussion which has taken place, with which I trust the House will be satisfied. I agree with other hon. Members that the question is not quite so clear as the Commissioners, by the terms in which they make their Report, appear to think it, and that there are difficulties connected with the subject. I am glad the hon. Member did not conclude with any Motion, because I have not been able to give that consideration to the matter which its importance demands, nor has my right hon. Friend

  1301
  the Secretary of State, owing to the pressure of other Business. All I can say is, in answer to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that during the Vacation we shall take the opportunity of most seriously considering the terms of the Report. I can give no pledge as to what our decision shall be, because I have not studied the evidence sufficiently to offer an opinion, and it must be evident to all hon. Members that there are considerable difficulties about the question. At the same time, I am certainly anxious that something should be done for the benefit of the secondary schools in Scotland. Nobody can be more desirous, than I am that that should be done, and it may be remembered that I proposed an Amendment to the Education Act of 1872, the object of which was to secure for the secondary schools all contributions which had been previously given from corporations and other sources to parish or burgh schools for the purpose of higher education. But, anxious as I am to see secondary schools established and supported in a better manner than they are at present, we must be very careful indeed that we do not infringe the supposed rights or the actual rights of persons who are interested in particular localities in regard to the funds which have hitherto been devoted to them. We shall very likely encounter prejudices which may throw obstacles in the way of carrying out even the more moderate recommendations of the Commissioners. But, with a sincere desire to do what we can for the purpose of improving the secondary schools in Scotland, we shall consider fully the recommendations and the evidence, which I confess I have not yet done. I have certainly read the Report, which is a very long one, but it requires that we should apply our minds to it more thoroughly before arriving at a decision; and meanwhile it would be wrong of me, regarding the matter rather in my judicial capacity, to express any strong opinion either for or against the terms of the Report.
  MR. E. NOELtrusted the Government would not hastily adopt the recommendations of the Commissioners, however good they might be in themselves, because he conceived they had no right to interfere with the will of the founders of charities so long as they were
  1302
  not detrimental to the public interests. He wished to speak especially in regard to Heriot's Hospital. The Commissioners in their Report adduced in support of their recommendation, the evidence of Dr. Bedford, who in 1862 had written a paper which was read before the Social Science Congress. The evidence given by Dr. Bedford before the Commissioners, and which was quoted in full in their 1st Report, was also mentioned in the 3rd Report. Dr. Bedford was asked the question—
  "Do you to a certain extent hold the opinion that in these institutions, the children are of less intelligence than in other schools?"
  To which he replied—
  "Yes; I stated that at the time with the view of considering whether it was correct or not, but I have no hesitation in saying I believe it is substantially correct. It was Heriot's Hospital with which I was familiar."
  But the Commissioners, in their last Report, had omitted to add a most important addition which Dr. Bedford made to that answer—namely—
  "I have modified my opinion since then in respect to Heriot's Hospital, because new arrangements have been introduced into that institution."
  He (Mr. Noel) was quite ready to acknowledge that if the founders of those educational institutions had directed anything wrong in the application of their funds, that House would be perfectly justified in taking some steps in the matter, but nothing of the kind could be shown in the application and working of the endowments. He therefore contended it was neither right nor proper to so alter the original intention of the founders as to expose Heriot's schools to changes that might endanger the best interests of the large number of children that were receiving a good education on its foundation. No one could doubt that Heriot's Hospital in Edinburgh had within the last few years been effecting great good; and how could it be justified that a school that was imparting the benefits of education to 5,000 children in a much more effective manner as regarded the compulsion than the school board schools, was to be interfered with on the Report of the Commissioners, and to have its funds diverted. The Commissioners, according to their Report, recommended that the body of administrators

  1303
  of the funds, amounting to 54, should be reduced to 15, and that in the face of the fact that the administrators of the funds were comprised of the corporation and other respectable citizens of Edinburgh, whose object it was to carry out the intentions of the founders to educate the children of poor burgesses. The endowment fund amounted to £9,886 18 s., and the cost of boarding and educating many of the children amounted to £54 each per year. The £9,886 18 s. included all the expenses of administration, &c. He submitted that it would be most unfair to single out that school to be dealt with in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners; and unless they were prepared to deal with the whole question they should not meddle with the funds left for such objects, as he had pointed out, by the founder.

IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSIONERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. E. JENKINS,in rising to call attention to the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the accounts of the Irish Temporalities Commissioners, said, he was prevented by the Rules of the House from making the Motion of which he had given Notice—
"That certain questions arising thereon be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts, with instructions to examine into the same and report to this House."
He had to complain of the unsatisfactory relations existing between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Commissioners, who, from the tone which they adopted with reference to ordinary criticism, appeared to prefer that no examination should be made into their accounts; and also of the reply which had been given him (Mr. Jenkins) in a tone of cynical reserve by the Treasury Bench, when he had asked a Question upon the subject, to the effect that the Treasury could not interfere even if there was any necessity to do so. But the Treasury had interfered in the matter by sanctioning the publication of two He-ports criticizing and impugning the action of the Comptroller and Auditor General. If public accountants were hereafter to be permitted to publish criticisms upon the manner in which the
1304
Comptroller and Auditor General discharged the function of examining public accounts, it would be a most grave abuse. The only matter which he desired to be cleared up was that with reference to the limitations of the functions of the Auditor and Comptroller General and of the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners, between whom a very grave dispute had arisen as to the limitation of their respective functions. He thought it was a most unfortunate state of things, and that it was time to put a stop to it. On the one hand the Church Temporalities Commissioners said that plenary powers were conferred upon them by the Irish Church Act, and that their decisions were final; and although the Auditor General was appointed to audit their accounts, they insisted that when they had made an order he could not go behind that order and say whether the accounts were right or not.
MR. W. H. SMITH,speaking for the Treasury, as a Member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, deprecated discussion on matters which were not before the House, but which were under the consideration of that Select Committee. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General was considered, paragraph by paragraph, by the Committee, and witnesses examined as to the statements contained in the Report; and he believed that the draft Report of the Committee upon the subject had been prepared by the Chairman. With regard to the controversy to which the hon. Member had referred, the Treasury had no power to interfere, the proper judges in the matter being the Public Accounts Committee. The Treasury had, however, thought it right to consent to the Commissioners reporting to the House upon the mode in which they had conducted their operations during the past three or four years; and when that Report was before the House, it would be the time for discussing these questions.
MR. LAWvindicated the conduct of the Commissioners maintaining that they had only defended themselves when attacked the in several Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Commissioners, he added, were always anxious that their accounts should be thoroughly and properly examined; and it was to be observed that the Reports

1305
in which they had answered the charges of the Auditor General were made at suggestion of the Lords of the Treasury, who, doubtless, thought it was but common justice to give them some opportunity of explanation. As to the complaint of the Auditor General that those against whom he made serious charges should be allowed to say a word in their defence, he must say it was characterized by a great deal of simplicity.
MR. WHALLEYpointed out that the hon. Member's object was to draw attention to the profuse manner in which the Commissioners appropriated these monies to the dependents and connections of the Church in Ireland. It was no answer to that to say that the Commissioners were all highly respected and respectable Gentlemen. If these monies had been appropriated in an unwarrantable manner—if there had been jobbery with regard to their distribution, it was a proper question to be brought before that House. To all intents and purposes these were public monies, and if more had been given to curates, deans, and incumbents than they were strictly entitled to, the hon. Member ought to receive the best consideration of that House for having brought the subject under their notice.
CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that the hon. Member for Peterborough was mistaken in stating that this was public money. Unfortunately it was not, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see that it was more justly appropriated. He could only express the great regret which would be felt in Ireland when they found that hon. Members on neither front bench supported the hon. Member for Dundee in his inquiries into this matter.

RECEIVER GENERAL OF INLAND REVENUE—APPOINTMENT OF SIR ALFRED SLADE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DILLWYN,in calling the attention of the House to the recent appointment of the Receiver General of Inland Revenue, contended that such office, if it were necessary at all, should be filled on the recommendation of the Board of Inland Revenue. He had no personal interest in this matter, but simply brought it forward on public grounds. He was a strong advocate of promotion by merit, considering that appointments
1306
made on political or personal grounds were a great discouragement to the Civil Servants in all Departments, In the Report of the Committee on the organization of the Permanent Civil Service presented in 1854, it was recommended that the young clerks should be made to feel that their promotion and future prospects depended upon the industry and ability with which they discharged their duties, and that was the principle which ought to be adopted. The appointment violated the principles of the Report to which he had alluded. What were the facts of the case? The office of Receiver General of Inland Revenue was created in 1849 by an amalgamation with the Department of Stamps and Taxes, with a salary of £1,000 a-year. In 1871, Mr. Brotherton, the then holder of it died, and Lord Alfred Hervey, formerly M.P. for Brighton, was appointed; and at his death, recently, Sir Alfred Slade was appointed over the heads of all the clerks of the department. It happened that during the last four years of the life of Lord Alfred Hervey he was incapacitated from performing the duties of the office, which were discharged by Mr. Rea, the chief clerk. That gentleman had entered the service in 1842, and had worked on through all the grades until in 1867, he became chief clerk, with a salary of £600 a-year. He should like to know what duties of the office there were which the chief clerk could not fulfil? It appeared to him, after what had taken place, an unnecessary office. But he should like to know also what special qualifications Sir Alfred Slade had for the office; or whether it was not given to him from party or personal considerations? He did not attack the Government. They only did what their Predecessors, and what he probably should do himself if in their places. All he meant by his question was to draw attention to a bad custom, which ought to be got rid of, because it must act as a discouragement to Civil Servants of every class and grade.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANthanked his hon. Friend for bringing forward a delicate question in so temperate manner. It was, however, necessary sometimes to call a slade a slade—he begged pardon, he meant a spade a spade, and although he believed Sir Alfred Slade to be an estimable man and an excellent officer,

1307
yet he should much like to know what earthly chance he would have of being appointed Receiver General, if it were not for the fact that he had been an unsuccessful candidate for Taunton. He did not object that this gentleman had been rewarded for Party services; what he objected to was, that the remuneration should be reserved for those who had not borne the burden and heat of the day. If situations of the kind were given to young and aspiring politicians, the interests of the country must suffer, and however a strong a Government might be it could not afford to play with appointments in this manner.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he was sorry that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had been obliged to leave the House, because the selection to this office rested with the Prime Minister and not with himself. At the same time, his position enabled him to give an explanation as to the appointment. When the vacancy recently occurred, his right hon. Friend requested him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to communicate with the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue and to ask him whether the office of Receiver ought to be filled up, and if so, whether it ought to be filled by the promotion of anyone in the office? He knew that at that time his right hon. Friend had no one specially in view for the office. The Chairman informed him that it was necessary the office should be filled up, and that not only had no one any special claim in the office, but that it was desirable it should be filled up outside the office. Sir Alfred Slade was afterwards appointed. He understood that the course taken upon the occasion of the vacancy which the late Lord Alfred Hervey was appointed to fill was very similar. Inquiry was made, and the same replies were made by the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue when similar questions were put to him by the late Prime Minister. As to the selection of the gentleman who had been appointed to this office, he really had nothing particular to say. He had no doubt his right hon. Friend had good reasons for the selection he made. The appointment involved a great deal of responsibility and a very heavy security, and therefore, like that of the Receiver General of the Customs, as a general
1308
rule, it was given to a gentleman of independent fortune, who was in a position to give good security. He thought it was a very hard thing that gentlemen who had entered in the lower ranks should find that the superior Staff appointments were filled unexpectedly by gentlemen outside of the office, and he adhered to the opinion of the Committee that it was most desirable for the interests of the public service that they should be given as far as possible within the ranks of the service. But, no doubt, the Receiver Generalship of the Customs and the Receiver Generalship of the Inland Revenue had generally been regarded as being on a different footing, and were generally given to persons of independent fortune.

FEEDING OF CATTLE (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. R. POWER,who had a Notice upon the Paper to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is unreasonable and unfair to deny to the Irish farmers the same privileges that are accorded to farmers in Great Britain, of germinating grain for the feeding of cattle, and that the Law in this respect requires alteration,"—
  said, that upon two occasions he had put Questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject; and having failed to receive anything like a satisfactory answer, he now ventured to bring the question more prominently before the House. It appeared that by a statute passed in the year 1870, it was enacted that the farmers of Great Britain might germinate grain for feeding purposes for cattle, and anyone who understood farming or knew the nutritious property of germinated grain, could well understand what an advantage it was to an agricultural community. Why Ireland was exempted from that Act he did not know, and he was curious to hear some reason why it was, or why it should continue so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say—"Oh, you have plenty of green crops to fatten your stock;" but every farmer knew that to make beef what it ought to be in as short a time as possible, some auxiliary to green crops was required, and there was none better, or, perhaps, he might say, as good, as germinated

  1309
  grain; besides, green crops were not within the farmer's reach at all seasons, but grain was. True, he might import oil-cake, rape-cake, palm-nut meal, locust beans, and other foreign stuffs; but why force the Irish farmer to that expense and risk, when he could grow on his own land a far better material at a less cost? But the right hon. Gentleman might say—"Oh, you whisky-drinking people; the extension of this Act to Ireland would encourage illicit distillation, and illicit distillation might considerably affect my Budget." That appeared to be arguing against the use of a thing from its abuse—a process of reasoning which he trusted would not have much weight in that House. He did not believe there was ever such an answer—such a flimsy excuse; a reason so unworthy of such an ingenious mind—an answer showing so plainly the justice of the claim which he had brought forward. "Why, the English farmer consumed more alcohol than the Irish farmer, and the Scotch consumed more than either; yet they possessed that privilege, and Ireland was again helped to a dish of exceptional legislation. In that country spirit was made from beetroot. "Why not prohibit the growth of such a dangerous vegetable. He supposed his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would some day bring in a Bill to extirpate from the country this intoxicating vegetable. On the same principle live poultry ought to be prevented in England, in order to stop cock-fighting; and the growth of blackthorns ought to be prevented in Ireland, because they sometimes created headaches. Were they going to say that they continued such a law because they had not the power to prevent illicit distillation? If they had not the power, of what use were the Constabulary and Revenue officers, for whose maintenance we paid so much? Was it right that the Irish farmer should suffer for the inefficiency or incompetency of the Irish Executive? Therefore, away with the assertion that the revenue of the country would be affected by the extension of this Act to Ireland. That was one of the last restrictions which they allowed to continue upon the industry and enterprize of Irish farmers, and its existence carried the mind back to the time when, by the 20th of Elizabeth, they prohibited the
  1310
  importation of live cattle from Ireland, when it was penal to sell the hides for leather or the wool for clothing, when by an Act of William III. they destroyed our woollen manufacture. For centuries we had had to compete with not alone your enterprize, your marvellous energy, your industry and perseverance, but also with your repressive Acts of Parliament. How unfavourably did your system of dealing with the farmers of Ireland contrast with the fostering care bestowed upon agriculture by the Irish Parliament in 1774. In that year there existed the Dublin Society for the encouragement of agriculture, planting, and other articles in husbandry; and he would call their attention to a book printed over 100 years ago, which gave an interesting account of the sums expended for a better system of farming. £250 was given yearly to each county in Ireland as premiums for producing the best quality of wheat. Such sums as £240 were given yearly to farmers for the reclamation of bog in each of the provinces. Many of the premiums were granted by Acts of Parliament. For instance, the premium for the best mode of preserving corn upon stands. Were the farmers of Ireland to be told that you were not alone ungenerous, but also unjust. Ireland was a great stock-producing country, and, he regretted to say, it was becoming more so every day. Ireland was your provision store, and why, in the name of reason or of common sense, should the Irish farmer be prevented from using his own grain for his own cattle in the manner he thought best, and in the manner in which the farmers of England and Scotland had the privilege of using it? It might be said this was a matter of small importance—it was only an Irish question; but yet it was a question of rare merit; for it was a question into the discussion of which, unless by some wonderful ingenuity, neither religion nor politics could be imported. But it was not only an Irish, but also an English, question, because if we produced the beef, it was the English who ate it—a circumstance which, he thought, made it more an English than an Irish question; for certainly the English had the best of the bargain. Neither was it an agricultural question only—it was also one of commerce; for the principal trade between the two was in the export of Irish mutton, butter, and beef,

  1311
  all of which would be affected by the Resolution on the Paper. Almost the only manufacture left them was the manufacture of meat for the English markets, and even here the jealous spirit of former times manifested itself in the maintenance of a law giving privileges to Scotch and English farmers, of which it denied the Irish. In bringing forward the question, he did not seek either favour or affection for the Irish farmer. All he wanted upon that occasion was equal rights and equal laws. He was no political economist or deep-thinking philosopher; neither did he believe in theoretical dreams or fantastical legislation; but he maintained that any law that lessened or discouraged the production of human food was impolitic, and immoral, and a disgrace to the Statute Book. That law, he said, which we ask you to repeal was nothing less than a tax on human food. In bringing forward the subject, he had two objects—first, to increase the quantity, to lessen the price, and improve the quality of Irish meat supplied to the English public. His second object—and he trusted the House would not consider it less important—was to try and remove from the minds of the Irish people the impression that there was one law for England and another law for Ireland; or, in other words, that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. He appealed to hon. Members opposite to aid him in his endeavour to remove from the Statute Book one of those odious distinctions, one of those unequal laws, which had too often impressed the susceptible minds of his countrymen with the idea that they sought to retard their progress and obstruct their enterprise. He did not intend to detain the House. The question was so simple, so just, so easily understood, that he felt convinced it was unnecessary to speak further on the subject; but he must remind them that when first the present Parliament met, when there were many strange faces present, and many familiar ones absent, they were told that if Irish Members brought forward their complaints, they would receive every fair consideration from that House. He therefore hoped that his request would be granted—a request which, connected with no party intrigue, possessing no sinister character, was conceived in a spirit of justice,
  1312
  and based on the principles of equality, freedom, and fair play.
  MR. MELDONsaid, the subject was brought forward on national as well as utilitarian grounds; because, but for the operation of this penal law, farmers in Ireland could find on their own lands the means of fattening their cattle, which at present they had not, and were unable to procure.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that those who had some knowledge of the state of matters in England were aware that the Act on the subject passed a few years ago had been taken little advantage of in this country, and he did not think that the mere fact that it had not been extended to Ireland was such a very great grievance. At any rate, he believed that that was the first time that any request had been made that the operation of the Act should be extended to Ireland; but if it could be shown that a decided benefit would be secured by its extension, the matter was well worth the consideration of the Government. However, in such consideration there were other points that must not be overlooked. The question of illicit distillation was not so simple as hon. Members might suppose. It was true that in Ireland illicit distillation was now almost at the minimum point, but those who were interested in the Revenue would be most anxious not to make any change in the law which might encourage the practice. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for whom he spoke, while most anxious that illicit distillation should not be increased, had the subject to which the hon. Member had called attention under his consideration, and had requested him to add that if the hon. Member for Waterford and some of his Friends would do him the favour to have an interview with him on some early occasion, he and the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue would be most happy to confer with them, and see if they could not arrive at some satisfactory solution of the matter.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he was sure that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman had been very satisfactory to the Irish Members generally. He would only remind the right hon. Gentleman that what might not be a great boon in England, might, from the difference of climate and of soil,

  1313
  inducing many farmers in Ireland to grow barley, be much regarded in Ireland.
  MAJOR O'GORMANwould not add one sentence to what had already been said, and he was perfectly content with the promise made on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £51,305, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for Salaries and incidental Expenses connected with Criminal Proceedings in Scotland."
  MR. DILLWYNobjected to Supply being taken at half-past 12 o'clock, and moved that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: I think it would be more practical if the hon. Member, instead of telling us when we are not to take Supply, would tell us when we are to do so.
  MR. W. H. SMITHappealed to the hon. Member not to press his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £44,396, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
  (3.) £23,916, to complete the sum for the Register House Departments, Edinburgh.
  (4.) £18,471, to complete the sum for Prisons, and Judicial Statistics, Scotland.
  (5.) £32,851, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery in Ireland.
  (6.) £20,740, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts, Ireland.
  (7.) £7,085, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland.
  (8.) £9,481, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Court, Ireland.
  MR. MELDONcomplained of the insufficiency of the staff. He maintained that one Judge for the Court was in-sufficient.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYmentioned that the Judge of the Court had himself expressed the opinion that no additional Judge was necessary.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, it was within the knowledge of every professional man in Ireland that the working power in the Landed Estates Court was quite inadequate; the delay to suitors being in many cases intolerable. His hon. and learned Friend was quite justified in stating that the staff of the Landed Estates Court was not sufficient to effectually discharge the heavy and important duties of that Court.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that the Act of Parliament appeared to require that there should be two Judges of this Court. The last Government thought they could dispense with the second Judge, but the general opinion of the profession was that the work was too much for one Judge. He had to investigate the titles, and all other matters connected with the estates and the sale of them. He considered that the work was too great for any one man to discharge in a Court where mistakes were liable to occur, and from which there was no appeal.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHadmitted that there was a strong feeling among the Bench, the Bar, and the solicitors of Ireland in favour of the appointment of a second Judge. The facts stated by hon. Members showed however, that there were great difficulties connected with the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare was perfectly justified in the course he had taken; and in any change that might be deemed necessary in the Judicature system of Ireland the state of the Landed Estates Courts would not be lost sight of with a view to improvement.
  MR. WHITWELLhoped that in any change that might be made in reference to the business of the Landed Estates Court, the Court would be made a self-sustaining Court.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not object to the appointment of a second Judge, but only wished that he should not be appointed before the rearrangement

  1315
  of the Irish Judicature system.
  Vote agreed, to.
  (9.) £8,773, to complete the sum for the Probate Court, Ireland.
  (10.) £1,255, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.
  (11.) £13,891, to complete the sum for the Registry of Deeds, Ireland.
  (12.) £2,403, to complete the sum for the Registry of Judgments, Ireland.
  (13.) £101,368, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £745,037, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."
  MR. MELDONsaid, that considerable discussion would arise on this Vote, and therefore he moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Meldon.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERpointed out that there were only three other Votes in this class, and he hoped they would be taken before Progress was reported.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the choice was between passing these Votes without discussion—["No, no!"]—and reporting Progress.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would postpone the Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (14.) £30,800, to complete the sum for Government Prisons, &c., Ireland.
  (15.) £67,721, to complete the sum for County Prisons and Reformatories, Ireland.
  (16.) £4,081, to complete the sum for Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  CHELSEA BRIDGE BILL.
  On Motion of Lord HENRY LENNOX, Bill to amend the Acts relating to Chelsea Bridge, ordered to be brought in by Lord HENRY LENNOX and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 249.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock, till Monday next.