Commons Sitting of 17 July 1876

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the Eastern Division of the County of Kent, v. Sir Wyndham Knatchbull, baronet, Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Waste Lands and Peasants Dwellings (Ireland)*.
Second Reading—Winter Assizes* [245]; Exhausted Parish Lands* [252].
Select Committee—Metropolis Gas (Surrey Side)* [204], nominated; Arklow Harbour Improvement* [199], Sir George Balfour added.
Committee—Elementary Education [155]—R.P.; Crossed Cheques [112]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation* [220]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Hailsham, &c.)* [223]—(Hornsey)* [224].
Withdrawn—Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland)* [106]; Clerk of the Peace and of the Crown (Ireland)* [119]; Civil Bill Courts (Ireland)* [82].

ARMY—VETERINARY DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for War, If it has been decided whether the appointment of Principal Veterinary Surgeon in the Army is to be held for life, or only for a limited period like other Staff appointments in the Cavalry, which are held for five years; and, when he will be prepared to produce the new warrant relative to the Veterinary Surgeons which has been so long delayed?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that it had been decided that the Principal Veterinary Surgeon should be appointed for seven years, the same as the Director General of the Army Medical department.

THE RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. MACDONALDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in the Report of the Select Committee on the Railway Passenger Duty, which states:—
  "Your Committee regret that for so long a period no steps were taken to obtain an authoritative legal decision on a point so critical and important, especially as by this omission a considerable sum has been lost to the Public Revenue;"
  whether the sum there mentioned amounts to several millions sterling; whether it was with the authority of the Treasury that the Board of Inland Revenue did not collect the money that became due as Railway Passenger duty by the judgment of the House of Lords; whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue did not overstep their duty when they took upon themselves to remit and rebate taxes legally due; and, if any steps have been taken by the Government to ensure that there will be no remission of taxes without the consent of Parliament?
  MR. MACDONALDalso asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it be the intention of the Government to take any action this Session on the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Railway Passenger Duty which has been presented to the House; and, if not, if the present mode of assessment of the Duty is to be

  1475
  continued, or if the Duty is to be assessed in accordance with the judgment of the House of Lords; and, whether the inspection and audit of the accounts of the Railway Companies of Great Britain, as carried on for the last seven years by an accountant of the Inland Revenue Department, as stated in the evidence of Mr. Rickman before the Select Committee, is still being carried on by that office; if not, what is being done in the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the paragraph in the Report of the Select Committee on the Railway Passenger Duty, from which a passage was quoted in the Question of the hon. Member. The paragraph as it appeared in the Report of the Committee was fuller than that introduced by the hon. Member into his Question, for it ran thus—
  "Especially as by this omission either a considerable sum had been lost to the public revenue, or Parliament had been deprived of an earlier opportunity of dealing with the subject."
  He observed that these words were adopted not unanimously, but no doubt by a considerable majority of the Committee. He had not yet had the opportunity of seeing the evidence on which the paragraph was founded, and he apprehended it would be impossible for him to give a positive answer or to discuss the question until they saw the evidence. With regard to the second Question, he was unable to say whether any public money could properly be said to have been lost at all. Certainly he was unable to say, if any sum had been lost, that it amounted to several millions sterling. He believed the fact shortly was this—some 30 years ago an exception was granted from railway duty to railway passenger trains fulfilling certain conditions. There was no idea for many years that those conditions were not fulfilled by trains failing to stop at every station. From the year 1844 to 1867 the tax was remitted on a number of trains only. If the tax had been exacted from all trains, no doubt the duty would have amounted to a considerable sum; but he was informed that the amount which might under any circumstances have been received would not in any case have amounted to the sum the hon. Member seemed to suppose. He asked—
  1476
  "Whether it was with the authority of the Treasury that the Board of Inland Revenue did not collect the money that became due as Railway Passenger Duty by the judgment of the House of Lords?"
  The Board of Inland Revenue were advised that they had no power to collect that duty; at all events, they never asked the authority of the Treasury on the subject. Certainly, whatever might be the legal point in question, it would be inequitable to call on shareholders of the present day to pay money that might possibly have been demanded from shareholders some years before. With regard to the intentions of the Government, they waited till they saw the evidence and had time to consider it; but as to the question whether the present mode of assessing the duty was to be continued or a mode in accordance with the judgment of the House of Lords, he had to say that the present mode of assessment was not inconsistent with the judgment of the House of Lords. He was unable to give any answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's last Question. He did not know what evidence Mr. Rickman had given.

  TURKEY—ALLEGED ATROCITIES IN BULGARIA.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the British Consul at Adrianople has made reports, either to Sir Henry Elliot or to the Foreign Office, confirming the accounts published in the "Daily News" of the atrocities committed by the Turks in Bulgaria; and, whether it is not a fact that our Ambassador at Constantinople some time ago remonstrated with the Turkish Government in regard to these outrages?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman had asked the Question when he gave Notice of it, it would have been my duty to say that the Consul at Adrianople had made no reports confirmatory of the statements in The Daily News, and, consequently, that the Ambassador at Constantinople could have made no remonstrances on the subject. But since Notice was given of the Question we have received intimations of an interesting kind relating to the matter. I promised the House, on a former occasion, when the Government were in possession of authentic information on the

  1477
  subject, and when we had received answers from Sir Henry Elliot, after repeated inquiries, I would state the result to the House, and I am prepared to do so to-day; but I think, perhaps, it would be more convenient to allow the course of Questions to be proceeded with now, and on moving the Order of the Day I may be permitted to make a statement.

BRUSSELS—INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION—SICK AND WOUNDED SOLDIERS.—QUESTION.
LORD ELCHOasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to take advantage of the opportunity now afforded by the exhibition at Brussels by Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Switzerland, of the latest inventions and appliances for aiding and transporting sick and wounded soldiers in time of war, and send two or more Commissioners to inspect and report to the War Office upon that important International collection?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that already Professor Longmore had been selected for the purpose, and he intended to associate with him a member of the Hospital Staff.

EGYPT—IMPRISONMENT OF GENERAL KIRKHAM:.—QUESTION.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that a British subject named Kirkham was some time ago detained by the Egyptian authorities at Massowah on his way from Abyssinia to England; whether he is still imprisoned without trial; whether there is any prospect of his release; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table any Correspondence which has taken place on the subject? He might add, that since he came down to the House he had heard it reported that General Kirkham died recently.
MR. BOURKE: Sir, in the beginning of June it came to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government that the British subject alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member was imprisoned at Massowah. He is better known under the name of General Kirkham, late
1478
Commander-in-Chief of the Abyssinian Army, and was taken prisoner by the Egyptians last spring, being at that time engaged in hostilities against the Egyptian Army. At the time that Her Majesty's Government were first informed of his imprisonment, they were also informed that he was suffering from alleged harsh treatment by the Egyptian officials at Massowah. Under those circumstances Her Majesty's Government brought these facts to the notice of the Egyptian Government, and on the 6th of June Cherif Pasha assured our Consular authority in Egypt that there was no foundation whatever for the statement that General Kirkham had been treated with any harshness; that he was supplied with everything that was necessary for his comfort, and allowed to take exercise in the open air, and the confinement to which he is subjected is no stricter than is necessary to prevent his communicating with his political and military allies and associates. As to the second part of the Question, being taken prisoner of war, he would, I conclude, not be subject to any trial. Whether there is any prospect of his release I am unable to say at present. If my hon. Friend would like to see the correspondence he is welcome to do so, but I do not think that any advantage would accrue to General Kirkham by its being made public. I regret to hear that Kirkham has lately died, but Her Majesty's Government are in no way to blame for it.

NAVY—H.M.S. "VANGUARD."

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will add to the Return, "Navy (Loss of the Vanguard), No. 98, I.," ordered by the House on the 14th March, an amended Return, containing a plate illustrating the "Wing Passage Bulkhead: its purposes and uses," and other information as originally ordered, provided he is satisfied that it will not be necessary to hire a special artist and to go to great expense for copper plates?
  MR. HUNT,in reply, said, if the hon. and gallant Member would call on him at the Admiralty, he would see what could be done in the way of accomplishing the object desired in the Question.

  UNITED STATES—INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, PHILADELPHIA—THE BRITISH COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is the fact that the representatives of some of the principal journals of Germany and Belgium at Philadelphia have refused to describe any of the British or Colonial exhibits on the ground of want of information and courtesy at the British Commission Office; and is the Government aware that dissatisfaction is felt by British and Colonial exhibitors at Philadelphia with the management of the arrangements and conduct of the office under the control of the British Commissioners; and, if so, whether it is their intention to remodel the constitution of the Commission, or take other means to remove the causes for dissatisfaction?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, in consequence of the hon. Member's Question I caused inquiries to be made at the various Government Departments concerned in the matter, and no information has reached the Privy Council, the Foreign Office, or the Colonial Office which would support the allegations made in the Question of the hon. Member.

ARMY—PATENTED INTENTIONS—SMALL ARMS.—QUESTION.
SIR WALTER BARTTELOTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the decision of the House of Lords of the 11th instant in the case of Dixon versus the London Small Arms Company, that the Crown is excluded from the free use of patented inventions, except within the manufactories and departments of the Crown, will not practically limit the supply of small arms to those made at the Royal Factory at Enfield; and, whether the resources of that manufactory are not utterly inadequate to the wants of the Country in case of any great emergency?
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I am advised that the decision of the House of Lords only precludes the Crown from the free use of patented inventions. But this does not prevent the Crown from obtaining arms by contract, provided the Crown pays the usual Royalties. 2. The resources of the Government Factory at
1480
Enfield are quite equal to any emergency that can be foreseen. I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend upon this question of that which I stated upon the Estimates—namely, that at the close of the financial year we shall have about 376,000 Martini-Henry rifles out of a total of 891,000 breech-loading arms.

TURKEY—CONSULAR MEMORANDUM ON HERZEGOVINA.—QUESTION.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,quoting a published despatch from Mr. Consul Holmes, which promised further observations on the grievances of Herzegovina, asked, Whether those further observations had been received?
MR. BOURKE: No, Sir; Mr. Consul Holmes has not sent any such observations as those alluded to by the hon. Member for Poole. I have no doubt that he was prevented from doing so by press of business; but in October Consul Holmes sent a Memorandum upon the affairs of Herzegovina through Sir Henry Elliot, and, if the hon. Gentleman will wait a few days, he will see that Memorandum in the Papers which will be presented to Parliament very shortly.

SEAL FISHERIES ACT, 1875—CLOSE TIME.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether arrangements have yet been made by which the Provisions of the Act of 1875, establishing a close time for the Seal Fishery, shall be carried into effect next year?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the provisions of the Act of last year were to empower the Queen, by Order in Council, to make a close time for seal fishing when it appeared that the foreign States engaged in the same fishery did the same. Her Majesty's Government put themselves immediately in communication with the three foreign Governments concerned. The Norwegian Storthing have passed a law practically similar to our own. The German and Dutch Governments have Bills prepared for the establishment of a close season, but we have not yet received information of their becoming law. The consequence is that nothing further can be

1481
done in the matter until those countries establish the needed restrictions by law.

ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which I have given him private Notice. He was understood to say the other night that the Ecclesiastical Assessments Bill would be proceeded with to-night, and I now wish to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill this Session?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I regret very much that my answer the other night was misunderstood. What I meant to say, and what I believe I did say, was that I should be prepared to-night to state what the Government intended to do as regarded that Bill; and I may now say that, as I see no chance of the Bill passing this Session, I think it will be better to withdraw it.

LISBON TRAMWAYS COMPANY—TWYCROSS v. GRANT.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
LORD HENRY LENNOX: I rise, Sir, under feelings of considerable difficulty to ask the House of Commons to give me a measure of their indulgence while I allude to a personal matter deeply affecting myself and my position in this House. I will try to make as short a statement as I can; and I never should have brought myself or my affairs before the House of Commons had it not been that on a very recent occasion one of the most distinguished men and one of the most distinguished Judges of the land, while summing up the evidence in a recent financial case, alluded to the conduct of a certain body of gentlemen, of whom I was one, and distinctly stated that their conduct, in his opinion, required explanation, and he hoped, if they had any explanation, it would be given, for it was needed. Sir, I hope that before I sit down what I shall be able to show to the House will be as satisfactory to the noble and learned Lord and to this House as it certainly is to my own conscience. I need not say more than that I am alluding to the now celebrated Lisbon Tramways Company. I joined that com-
1482
pany at the solicitation of the Duke de Saldanha, and in consequence of my knowledge of Portugal, of Lisbon, and of the country generally. All that was told me was that I was to have as my colleagues a very distinguished body of men, including, among others, the then Chairman of the Union Bank of London and the then Chairman of the London and South Western Railway, and that our fees were to be £100 sterling per annum. I beg to say, Sir, that I knew nothing whatever of the preliminary contracts, agreements, or other arrangements which it now appears were made between the promoters of the company and the Duke de Saldanha and the contractors. I have letters in my pocket which I could produce, but I know that my word will go as far as the letters, in which every one of these gentlemen distinctly states that neither directly nor indirectly had I the slightest knowledge of any one of these agreements, contracts, &c, which have been the subject of discussion in a Court of Law; and, more than that, Sir, I can say I had never seen the contractors until I joined the Board, and I never saw Mr. Grant, the principal promoter, from the time of his leaving the House of Commons until after the prospectus was issued. Here do not let me be supposed to be throwing a stone at Mr. Grant in the time of his difficulties; I am merely stating it as a fact to show that there was no personal communication whatever between me and the promoters of the company until I formally took my seat on the Board as a director at £100 a year. The next point I will run over as quickly as I can, because I know I am trespassing upon the goodwill of the House. I have had a seat in this House 30 years, and I prize very much the esteem and goodwill of every Member of it. Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, in the undoubted exercise of his right, commented, though not so strongly as other Judges have done, upon the practice of directors receiving qualification shares. I received my qualification shares—100, and of these I returned 50 when I left the Company. I assure you beyond that, that I invested my own money in 300 shares of the Company. I am not here to defend now, according to present views of the matter, the system of qualifying directors; but I do think I may fairly say that at that time—and it is

1483
five years since these transactions occurred—the practice was well known to every hon. Member of this House, that no objection was ever made to it, and it was considered to be the ordinary way of remunerating directors. I have to state, in addition, that with the exception of those 100 shares, which I did not know were furnished by the contractors—and I have a letter from the contractors, Messrs. Clark and Punchard, saying that I could not know it—that except these 100 shares I never received any money payment, shares, or remuneration whatever, direct or indirect, for my position on that Board, and I am a large loser by the non-success of the Company. Now, Sir, the next point the noble and learned Lord made—and he spoke most strongly—was contained in these words—
"How, after the engineer's report and Mr. Grant's urgent letters requesting that the money should he returned for the line, he really could not understand the conduct of the directors, and that conduct required explanation."
I entirely agree with the Lord Chief Justice that if the directors had received Mr. Grant's urgent and, as the Lord Chief Justice called them, manly letters requesting them to discontinue the line and return the money to the shareholders, and had then gone on with the line, that their conduct would have required explanation which it would have been difficult to give. But I hold in my hand a letter from Mr. Punchard stating in the most solemn manner that these letters of Mr. Grant were never laid before the Board of Directors at all, and that I could not have known anything of the matter. More than that, these manly letters, as the Lord Chief Justice called them, which Mr. Grant wrote, were not at all written with reference to the line which the directors went on with, which they ultimately carried out, and which was worked for a year and a-half. I say this distinctly, and in so many words—that Mr. Grant's letters were never seen by the Board of Directors. They were a protest against the engineer's, Mr. Trevethick's, remarks on the Cascaes line, where the gradients were bad, and the distance round to Cintra from Lisbon was doubled. The line actually carried out was one the concession for which was obtained by the Duke de Saldanha, and which was in a straight line from Lisbon to Cintra.
1484
The directors did more than that, for, having altered the route from that laid down in the prospectus, they issued a circular to the shareholders saying what they intended to do and asking for their approval, and that request and demand were ratified by a general meeting two months afterwards at the Company's offices. Sir, I only wish to say that I make this explanation to-night as an independent Member of the House. Feeling and knowing that there was a feeling that I have been mixed up with practices with which I ought not to have been mixed up, five years ago, I felt that the most honourable, the most straightforward, and the most manly conduct that I could pursue was to place my resignation of the high office which it has been my privilege to hold for three years in the hands of the Prime Minister, and patiently to await any attacks that came from any part of this House. I will only say, in conclusion, that deeply as I regret the loss of my position at the Board of Works, I would willingly yield up that or any other post of high trust, so long as I can continue to enjoy the esteem and goodwill of this great Assembly, in which the better part of my life has been passed.
MR. DISRAELI: Before I avail myself, Sir, of the permission of the House to speak on the Order of the Day on the subject to which I have adverted, I wish to refer to the remarks made by my noble Friend. I think it due to him and to the House to say that all I know of this affair is that I received a written intimation from an hon. Gentleman who sits opposite that it was his intention to make certain charges against my noble Friend to-day. I have had no authentic statement of any charges against my noble Friend, and having confidence in his honour and conduct, I have never credited them. But I felt it was my duty, under the circumstances, to communicate to my noble Friend that I had received this intimation, and I left him to consider what course he would take. My noble Friend, with that delicacy which the House will appreciate, said these things had happened five years ago, when he was not a Member of the Government, and he wished to defend his conduct as one who was not now a Member of the Government. He felt that it would be a position more satisfactory to him if,

1485
as an independent and private Member, he vindicated his conduct, and therefore he tendered me his resignation. I have been present in this House to answer the Question the Notice of which was given to me privately, but that Question has not been put to me to-night. The House has heard the statement of my noble Friend, and, without misinterpreting the feeling of the House, I think it is one not unworthy of himself. I have no wish to precipitate any decision on the subject at this moment, but I could not reconcile it to my own feelings not to say these few words.
MR. TREVELYAN: So much has passed in letters not marked "private" between myself, the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and the noble Lord who has likewise addressed the House, in a manner so creditable, I must say, to his feelings, that I would rather not leave this matter without explanation to the chance gossip of the Lobbies. Therefore, I will just say this—that the right hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood the letter I addressed to him. I did not say in that letter that I was prepared with any charges against the noble Lord, or that I would put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman to-day. I felt that in a matter of such extreme, delicacy the main object of every one who wished to approach it as a public man should be to give the Government the power of acting first in the matter. So on Friday I wrote a private letter to the right hon. Gentleman informing him that I should to-day—not put a Question to him, but give public Notice of a Question of certainly a most open nature. The Question, which I do not happen to have in my pocket, was, so far as I recollect, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what course he proposed to pursue in consequence of the facts affecting the Chief Commissioner of Works which had been brought to light during the proceedings of the trial "Twycross v. Grant?"It was never my intention to press the noble Lord, as the right hon. Gentleman has mistakenly understood, by putting that Question without first of all a long private and then a long public Notice. Of course, after what has passed, I shall not enter into the case further, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is a case susceptible of two colours. One is that which is put upon it by those
1486
who regard it only from a public point of view. That was the case with myself, for I never even heard of the Lisbon Tramways Company until two months ago, when I read, of it in The Times, and when I determined as a public man to go to the bottom of the business. There is also the colour most naturally put upon it by the noble Lord who was concerned in it, and who, I think, yielded, I will say in some excess, in some cases to indiscretion and imprudence. I had, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, good reason for calling the attention of the House to this matter, for the result which I expected has been that which has been brought about. I thought it was necessary to press for that result as a tribute to public morality, and, as that result has been brought about, I shall not say one additional word.

TURKEY—ALLEGED ATROCITIES IN BULGARIA.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, before I read to the House the despatches that have been received by the Government from Sir Henry Elliot since the Question of which Notice was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), with the indulgence of the House I should wish to make, in as condensed a shape as possible, a reference to certain previous circumstances, as otherwise they will be unintelligible. I will endeavour to do that with the utmost brevity possible, and with the wish to avoid all controversial matter; but it is necessary that the House should understand what is the opinion of the Government, formed on the best information they have in their possession, as to the origin of those disturbances in Bulgaria that have led to these terrible deeds. The first information received by the Government was in a series of despatches received May 15th from Sir Henry Elliot at the outbreak of these disturbances, and was as follows:—
  "On the 4th of May Sir Henry Elliot reported that an outbreak had occurred at the village of Otloukeni, not far from Philippopoli, and that it was known that revolutionary agents were working actively among the Bulgarians, and that arms and ammunition had been introduced in considerable quantities. On the 7th of May the Turkish Government at once despatched 5,000 troops to the spot, and there is

  1487
  little doubt that the leaders were Servians and other emissaries of the Revolutionary Committees."
  That was the statement of Sir Henry Elliot; but this was the statement of M. Dupuis, our Consul at Adrianople, the nearest Consulate to the scene of disturbance, upon the matter to which the Question of the right hon. Member for Montrose referred. M. Dupuis reported—
  "That the organizers of the movement were pursuing the same atrocious policy as was followed in Herzegovina by burning and ravaging all villages, whether Mussulman or Christian, if the inhabitants refused to join them."
  "The Austrian Consular Agent at Philippopoli reported that five villages had been burnt by the insurgents."
  "On the 9th of May, Consul Reade, Rust-chuck, reports that a Circassian village—this is important to notice—near Avratalan had been burnt, and the Circassians were sure to take their revenge. On the 12th of May Consul Dupuis reports that the local authorities, as well as the Turkish Beys, were enrolling Bashi Bazouks and other volunteers, and that the burning by the insurgents of the village called Bellova seems to have been attended by horrible cruelties to the small Turkish Guard in charge of the place, who, being overpowered, were hacked to pieces by the insurgents. He also reported that he had heard from the Greek Consul that the Greeks in Philippopoli united with the Turkish Guards to maintain order and to repel any attempt on the place by the insurgents. Consul Reade also reported that the discipline of the Turkish troops was admirable."
  That is the origin, so far as the Government have authentic information, of the atrocities in Bulgaria. It is necessary for various reasons, as we shall see, that the House should be acquainted with these events, because I must ask the House to consider first who were these Circassians, who, no doubt, perpetrated great atrocities, and whose conduct has been retaliated upon and revenged in the same spirit. The Circassians are described in the public journals, and I know in conversation, as irregular troops of the Turkish Government; but the fact is, they are not irregular troops of the Turkish Government, or of any other Government. They are the men, or the descendants of the men, who 20 years ago commanded the sympathy and admiration of the House of Commons. They are men who, at the Treaty of Paris, a very strong Party in the House of Commons, consisting of Members of both sides of the House, believed were extremely ill-treated by the English Government in
  1488
  particular. In consequence of their country being yielded up to Russia, a great proportion of the population refused to live under the Russian Government, and appealed to their Suzerain, then the Sultan, to give them lands in part of his dominions. In consequence there was a considerable migration of the population, and they were portioned out in various parts of Turkey, not only in Europe, but in Asia. These men have lived peaceably for 20 years. Their conduct has been satisfactory, and there has been no imputation on them of savage or turbulent behaviour. They have cultivated farms and built villages, and during the whole period I think there has been no complaint of these men. But we know, of course, what Eastern populations are, and the Circassians are a courageous and an armed population. Naturally, therefore, if their villages were burnt and their farms ravaged, it need not be a matter of surprise that they should take matters into their own hands and endeavour to avenge themselves. It is necessary that the House should be made aware of that. There prevailed there a guerilla warfare of local vengeance and personal passion, and there is no doubt that from that time, which was towards the end of May, scenes took place during this guerilla warfare of a description from which, with our feelings, we naturally recoil. But all this time, no doubt, our Consuls—and the House will soon have ample evidence of the fact—were in communication with the Ambassador, and the Ambassador was—I will not say remonstrating constantly with the Turkish Government, for the Turkish Government were most anxious to be guided by the advice of the British Ambassador, but he was using his influence with the Turkish Government to prevent, as much as he possibly could, these distressing scenes. The Grand Vizier said to our Ambassador that—
  "It is impossible to add to the stringency of the instructions he had sent to put an end to the disorders, and to disarm the Circassians, the Imperial authorities being ordered to do that by force, if they resisted, but that he (the Grand Vizier) noticed the omission of all mention of the horrors practised on the Mussulmans by those who had attempted to get up the insurrection."
  There is no doubt, from the evidence before the House, that acts on both sides, as necessarily would be the case under

  1489
  such circumstances, were equally terrible and atrocious. Now, previously to this declaration of the Grand Vizier, Sir Henry Elliot said on the 16th of June that the Bulgarian insurrection appeared to be unquestionably put down, although he regretted to say with cruelty, and, in some places, with brutality. He said—
  "I am not disposed to accept the accounts which come from the sources to which it would not he difficult to trace the origin of the movement, which are exaggerated to a degree which must deprive them of the slightest credit; but there is evidence that the employment of Circassians and Bashi-Bazouks has led to the atrocities which were to be expected."
  I have now stated to the House the origin of this insurrection, and given a general view of what subsequently occurred until the day on which the statement appeared in the newspaper which has been referred to in the Question of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, Monday, the 26th of June. The accounts of the Consuls which will be seen by hon. Gentlemen and the conduct of our Ambassador with regard to the Porte, which also will be made known to them in detail, are, no doubt, the results of a distressing state of affairs which a guerilla warfare in such a country and among such people must always furnish; but there was nothing in those accounts which at all justified the statements that appeared in the public Press, and which are the foundation of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. On Monday, the 26th of June, the Duke of Argyll called attention to the first statement in The Daily News. I will not read that statement, because hon. Gentlemen are generally familiar with it and it is of considerable length. In the Blue Book it occupies many pages of print, and therefore I think it would be inconvenient if I were to read it in extenso on the present occasion. The statement is dated from Constantinople. It was headed "Moslem Atrocities in Bulgaria," and it announced that 30,000 inhabitants had been slain, that 100 villages had been destroyed, that girls had been burnt alive, and that there had been a massacre of the children in the school-houses. A statement appeared the same day in another paper of equal authority—The Times—in which we were told that 10,000 persons were in prison and enduring torture. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: That was a fortnight after.] It was not
  1490
  after the Question was put to me. It was also said that 1,000 girls had been sold in open market. The consequence of this was that inquiries were made in both Houses of Parliament, and, immediately after the Question was put by the Duke of Argyll, Lord Derby telegraphed to Sir Henry Elliot. After he had telegraphed, however, there appeared in The Daily News an additional article, which occupies seven or eight printed pages in the book. Thereupon Lord Derby wrote a despatch, which, if the House will permit me, I will read, because it contains the cream, the pith of the statements in The Daily News, as they were put before our Ambassador by Lord Derby asking for inquiry—
  "The Earl of Derby to Sir Henry Elliot,
  "Foreign Office, July 13, 1876.
  "Sir,—With reference to my despatch, No. 501, of the 28th ultimo, I enclose, for your Excellency's information, additional extracts from the "Daily News" of the 8th and 10th instant, reporting the occurrence of further atrocities in Bulgaria and elsewhere, and I have to inform your Excellency that this matter has been again under discussion in both Houses of Parliament. It is stated that in the district of Philippopoli alone 25,000 innocent lives have been taken, whilst by others the number is fixed at about 12,000. It is reported that upwards of sixty villages have been pillaged and burnt, and the inhabitants reduced to beggary and starvation. Large numbers of Bulgarian girls and children are said to have been sold publicly as slaves at Philippopoli and elsewhere, and numbers of Bulgarians to have been undergoing torture in prison. In one instance, where the fugitives fled for protection to a convent near Novo Selo, 40 girls were seized, violated, and subsequently burnt alive in a straw-loft. Similar atrocities are reported to have occurred at Gabrovo and other places, with the connivance, in many instances, of the Turkish authorities. I have to instruct your Excellency to report to me how far reliance is to be placed in these statements. Your Excellency has already on different occasions remonstrated with the Porte against the employment of Circassians and Bashi-Bazouks, to whom many acts of cruelty have been ascribed, and Her Majesty's Government desire that you should, whenever you have reason to believe it necessary, urgently impress upon the Porte to see that its irregular forces are kept from committing atrocities which discredit the Ottoman cause. Her Majesty's Government trust that the reports which have been circulated, and to which I have referred in this despatch, will prove to be unfounded. In a conflict such as is now taking place in European Turkey, it is, unhappily, almost inevitable that acts of unnecessary violence and bloodshed should at times occur, and should give rise to reprisals on the other side. But the Porte will not deny that it

  1491
  is the duty of a civilized Government to use its utmost endeavours for the repression of such, barbarities on the part of its own forces. The emergency of the moment or the nature of the country may render the employment of irregular troops a matter of necessity; but, unless these are kept under proper control, it is probable that the indignation which will be roused throughout Europe by the accounts of cruelties and outrages, and the sympathy felt for the inhabitants of the oppressed districts, may go far to counterbalance any material successes which the use of such undisciplined levies may secure. Her Majesty's Government feel, therefore, that they are acting in the interests of Turkey herself, no less than in those of humanity, in warning the Porte against the toleration of acts committed by its troops which would arouse the reprobation of the civilized world."
  The House will observe that I am now trying to put before them the statements which appeared in The Daily News. I have given the pith of the first statement in The Daily News, and I have allowed the House to collect the pith of the second statement from this despatch of Lord Derby. I will now proceed to read the further statements which were made by The Daily News before we recently communicated with Sir Henry Elliot. After the two long communications to which I have been referring there appeared the following in The Daily News of July 10th:—
  "(By Submarine Telegraph.)
  "(From our own Correspondent.)
  "Paris, Sunday night.
  "A Vienna telegram, dated this day, published by the 'Courrier de France,' says:—
  " 'A horrible massacre of Christians, lasting two days, has just occurred at Gabrovo and surrounding villages. There were upwards of 10,000 victims. The Turk sent from Constantinople to direct the slaughter is Ibrahim Bey.' "
  On the 13th of July Lord Derby wrote to Sir Henry Elliot as follows:—
  "Foreign Office, July 13, 1876.
  "I transmit to your Excellency a further extract from the "Daily News," reporting that in the district of Tatar Bazardjik cartloads of the heads of murdered women and children were boastfully paraded as their revenge after each defeat. It is, moreover, affirmed that Bulgarian women are now sold publicly in the streets. Her Majesty's Government are waiting to receive intelligence from your Excellency as to the truth of these reports."
  The enclosure in the letter was as follows:—
  "Belgrade, Tuesday night.
  "In the Tatar Bazardjik district in Bulgaria, the Bashi-Bazouks have, it is said, boastfully paraded cartloads of heads of murdered women
  1492
  and children. These exhibitions are their revenge after each defeat. Young women are now, it is affirmed, regular articles of traffic, being sold publicly in the villages by the Tartars and the Turks."
  There was one more telegram which appeared in The Daily News of the 13th of July, and Lord Derby at once telegraphed to Sir Henry Elliot as follows:—
  "Foreign Office, July 13, 1876, 3 40 p.m.
  "The following appears in the "Daily News" of to-day:—
  " 'Belgrade, Tuesday night.
  " 'In the Tatar Bazardjik district in Bulgaria, the Bashi-Bazouks have, it is said, boastfully paraded cartloads of heads of murdered women and children. These exhibitions are their revenge after each defeat. Young women, are now, it is affirmed, regular articles of traffic, being sold publicly in the villages by the Tartars and the Turks.'
  "It is very important that Her Majesty's Government should be able to reply to the inquiries made in Parliament about these and similar statements of atrocities. Inquire by telegraph of the Consuls, and report as soon as you can."
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster) pressed me more than once on that subject, and very properly so; but he will see from what I have read that there never was any delay on the subject on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I will now read the despatches which have come from Sir Henry Elliot in reference to this matter. I wish first to explain, however, that when I stated that we had not received any despatches from our Vice Consuls referring to statements in The Daily News, of course I did not allude to despatches received since our last telegram. This is Sir Henry Elliot's letter, dated, as the House will see, on the 6th, and received on the 14th, and it includes the statements of the Vice Consul, which I will not read as the House will have them in their hands so soon—
  "Therapia, July 6, 1876.
  "My Lord,—I have the honour to enclose two despatches from Mr. Vice Consul Dupuis upon the present state of Bulgaria, and the excesses committed in the suppression of the insurrection. These have unquestionably been very great, as was inevitable from the nature of the force which the Porte was, in the first emergency, obliged to employ, but it is equally certain that the details which have been given, coming almost exclusively from Russian and Bulgarian sources, are so monstrously exaggerated as to deprive them of much claim to attention. Cases of revolting cruelty have been mentioned to me in such a circumstantial

  1493
  manner as to make it almost impossible to doubt this truth, but which proved on investigation to be entirely fictitious; and, without impartial agents on the spot, I am unable to say more than that I am satisfied that, while great atrocities have been committed, both by Turks upon Christians and by Christians upon Turks, the former have been by far the greatest, although the Christians were undoubtedly the first to commence them. I have spoken to one of the most influential Bulgarians upon the subject of the sale of Bulgarian children, to which Mr. Dupuis alludes, and he told me that it had also been reported to him, but that he had been unable to ascertain that anything of the nature of a traffic in them was going on. Many fatherless children had been received both into Turkish and Greek families, but he looked upon them as having been taken chiefly out of charity. I said I had already made representations on the subject to the Porte, and he promised to give me the result of the further inquiries he was making on the subject; but that the Circassians, who have no compunction in selling the children of their own countrymen, would scruple to sell those of the Bulgarians is not to be supposed, and I have not a doubt that many such instances must have occurred. I have already informed your Lordship that very strict orders were given for the disarming of those lawless people, but the operation was found to be extremely difficult, and proceeded but slowly. For weeks past I have never seen one of the Turkish Ministers without insisting upon the necessity of at once putting an end to these excesses, and the answer has been invariably the same. They (the Turkish Ministers) deny that the cruelties have been upon a scale at all approaching to what they are represented; they point out that the horrors committed upon Turkish women and children are passed over in silence; and they plead that they had no alternative but to use the irregular force at their disposal to put down an unprovoked insurrection fomented from abroad, the authors of which are responsible for the sufferings which have been entailed upon both Christians and Mahomedans."
  On the same day Sir Henry Elliot wrote again—
  "Therapia, July 6, 1876.
  "My Lord,—Since I wrote my preceding despatch the Greek Minister has called upon me, and spoke of a Report he had received from his Consul at Philippopoli, where there is no British Consular Agent. This report mentioned a marked improvement in the state of public security, and the disarming of the Mussulmans was being proceeded with. He said the Governor was acting extremely well, but was badly seconded by some of the other authorities. I asked whether any of the Greek Agents in Bulgaria had spoken of children being sold as slaves, and he replied that none of them had spoken of it."
  We now come to a telegraphic communication from Sir Henry Elliot, dated "Constantinople, July 14." He says—
  1494
  "I have been prevented by illness from replying to your Lordship's telegram about cruelties in Bulgaria until to-day. I can add little to the statements in my despatch of the 6th instant. There is no British Consular Agent except at Adrianople, Rustchuk, and Burgas, and they have seldom been able to guarantee the truth of the reports that reached them. There can be no doubt the instigators of the insurrection began by committing atrocities on Mussulmans and burning Bulgarian villages with the view of creating exasperation between the two races. In this they succeeded, and when the Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians were called out, they indulged in every kind of misconduct, killing and outraging numbers of innocent persons. I have not been able to verify the reports of cases of wholesale slaughter which have been brought forward, which come mostly from quarters not entitled to much confidence. A Bulgarian, upon whose statements I have several times made known cases of maltreatment to the Porte, assured me that the accounts published were grossly exaggerated, and he expressly stated that he had no complaint to make of the conduct of regular troops. It, however, appears from other sources that the regular troops have at other times been guilty of great excess. Bulgarian children have certainly been sold, but I cannot find that there has been anything like a regular traffic in them. Until I received your telegram I had heard nothing either of cartloads of heads being paraded, or young women publicly sold, but I will make every possible inquiry. It was supposed here that the abuses had been put a stop to for some time."
  Now I have given pretty well to the House, and without any concealment, the general character of the reports. Of course there will be details in some of the Consular reports, but it would be most wearisome for the House to be furnished with them now. The statements in the journals must be examined and compared, and they may be susceptible of various interpretations, but it would be impossible for me at this moment to enter into any discussion of this kind. The whole of the Papers will soon be in the hands of hon. Members. One statement, however, I think I ought to make. I ought to say that in consequence of Mr. Dupuis'despatch, which was the first despatch we had ever had from the Consul at Adrianople referring to cases at all like those related in The Daily News, he was ordered immediately to repair to the scene of these outrages. There is one thing which I think is consolatory amid these dreadful circumstances—there appears to be a complete failure throughout in creating anything like a religious war. I cannot trace in any manner that the feeling of religious animosity has prompted, I will not say every deed,

  1495
  but has prompted the general conduct of the masses of the population on either side; and the last telegraphic despatch which we received on Friday night from Sir Henry Elliot is so remarkable upon this subject that I think it my duty to read it to the House—
  "Therapia, July 14, 1876.
  "Volunteers are offering themselves in considerable numbers for service against the Servians, and the Christians, both in the capital and in the provinces, are enrolling themselves. It is proposed to give the volunteer corps a flag, on which the crescent and the cross are displayed side by side. Nothing can be more striking in the present crisis than the almost unanimous loyalty shown by the Christians, and the hostility they feel against the Servian aggression."
  This despatch gives a different view from the one commonly circulated. I do not want to enter into any discussion now. There will be opportunities for doing so afterwards; but these statements made to Sir Henry Elliot on such high authority, and not as reports sent to him or as the result of his own observation, seemed so remarkable that I thought they ought to be communicated to the House. Without entering into controversial matters, I think I have placed the House fairly in possession of all the information which the Government have received, and which will enable them to form some general idea of what has occurred since the commencement of these terrible scenes, so that when we come, as I suppose we shall, to really discuss the subject, with the ample information which will then be in the hands of hon. Members, they will, at least, have something which will guide them in the investigation of these matters.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
[BILL 155.]
(Viscount Sandon, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Assheton Cross.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 14th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Administrative Provisions.
  Clause 15 (Supplemental provisions as to certificates of proficiency and previous attendance at school).
  On the Motion of Mr. RYLANDS, Amendment made in page 6, line 32, after "Act," by inserting—
  1496
  "And such certificate shall be granted to the child entitled to the same free of cost or charge to such child, or to the parent of such child."
  MR. DILLWYNmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 32, after "Act," to insert—
  "Such certificates shall be given by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools at the examination of each school."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that the Amendment was a very important one; but as it would to a great extent be provided for in the Code of next year, which would follow the policy of the present one, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was quite ready to withdraw his Amendment on that understanding.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, at end of line 39, to insert "certificates of age for the purposes of this Act and," for the purpose of showing that they intended to insist upon certificates of age.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Clause further verbally amended, and, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 16 (Certificates of birth for purposes of Act).
  MR. BIRLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 5, to leave out "one shilling," and insert "sixpence."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he was informed by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Local Government Board that great resistance would be made by Registrars to the proposed reduction. The fee had already been reduced under pressure from the Education Department.
  MR. RYLANDSsuggested that the number of certificates being greatly increased, registrars would really have an addition made to their income if the fee were reduced from a shilling to sixpence.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the hon. Member for Manchester would press his Amendment to a division. The question with him was whether they should demand any fee at all.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHappealed to the noble Lord the Vice

  1497
  President of the Council to concede the point.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that the last thing he wished was to be hard upon the parents in this matter; but, after what he had said respecting the opinion of the Local Government Board, he felt bound to adhere to the clause as it stood.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERopposed the Motion, observing that the point had been very carefully considered, and they were of opinion that the amount should be that stated in the clause.
  MR. MUNDELLAthought a shilling was a heavy charge to be made for the certificate if the parent had to pay it.
  MR. MUNTZsupported the Amendment, as in many cases the question of sixpence was an important matter.
  MR. WATNEYthought the certificate should be given gratis.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, he must carry the question to a division, because the charge would be a heavy one on a working man, and they were already putting him under considerable pressure.
  MR. HERMONthought that one shilling was too high a charge, and he hoped it would be reduced.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should wish to consult the President of the Local Government Board on the subject before consenting to any alteration of the clause in this particular; but he desired to fall in with what appeared to be the very general feeling of the Committee. Perhaps the matter might be allowed to stand over for the present.
  After some further discussion,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproposed that the word "shilling" be struck out of the clause, and that the sum to be substituted for it should be left blank until after he had been able to confer with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, he had no objection to that course, but he did not pledge himself to be bound by the views of the President of the Local Government Board.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Clause amended by
  1498
  striking out the words "one shilling," in page 7, line 5, and leaving the amount in blank.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 17 (Penalty for employing a child in contravention of Act).
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 10, after "Act," to insert "after due warning in writing from the local authority," the object being that in the absence of warning no fine should be enforced against persons employing children in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It was but fair that in this matter employers should be placed upon the same footing as parents of children.
  VISCOUNT SANDONopposed the Amendment, as he believed if it were adopted it must lead to very costly machinery to carry it out. Besides, it was really unnecessary. Under one of the earlier clauses of the Bill, the local authority was to give notice to all concerned of the provisions of the Bill, so that employers would have notice.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 18 (Provision as to bye-laws under Section 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 75), as extended by this Act), agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 19 (Failure of local authority to perform their duty under this Act).
  MR. ISAACmoved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 31, to leave out "any persons," and insert "registrar of births and deaths of the district, or other persons." He thought that that would be the best possible appointment when so much turned upon the ages of the children.
  VISCOUNT SANDONobjected to the Amendment as being calculated to fetter the hands of the Department.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 20 (Provision as to requisition of parish.)
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHproposed the omission of the latter part of

  1499
  the clause, which was to the effect that the requisition might be accompanied by representations made by resolution as to the nature of the bye-laws desired by the parish, and that in making and approving the bye-laws regard should be had to such representations. He thought it was going quite far enough to delegate the making of bye-laws to Boards of Guardians, and that it was going too far to ask ratepayers in public meeting to decide on these difficult questions. If the matter were left to individual parishes they would in one Union have various inconsistent bye-laws.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 17, to leave out all the words after the word "Board," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth.)
  VISCOUNT SANDONobjected to the Amendment, and as to the clause explained that its only effect would be to enable the locality to express its wishes; as, for instance, whether there should be half-time or full-time attendance. Hitherto the school boards had full power to make bye-laws, and the result was there was infinite variety in the manner in which they had exercised the trust.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERadmitted that the clause called upon the locality to do more than it was required to do at present, and he thought that the section to which the Amendment applied would considerably fetter both the School Attendance Committee and the Department itself. There was no doubt that any representations made by the ratepayers would be felt, and would have their full weight with the School Attendance Committee.
  MR. PAGETsaid, it was only maintaining the individuality of small places.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, school boards were amenable to ratepayers, but all the members of a School Attendance Committee would not be so amenable.
  MR. ASSHETONsupported the provision.
  MR. DILLWYNthought it unworkable.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, the more local wishes were expressed the better.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the Education Board would be placed in a strange position if they had to approve of all the various bye-
  1500
  laws which each separate parish might think fit for itself. The Guardians were quite competent to settle bye-laws without receiving instructions from each one of their vestries. He would ask whether regard was to be had to representations in favour of employing children under 10?
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the 7th clause of the Bill would prevent that. He was afraid that the views of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was "the old, old story"—the same proposal, in fact, which they had discussed fully earlier in the Committee and negatived—that the Boards of Guardians should be able to override the wishes of the ratepayers. He must adhere to the clause as it stood, and give the ratepayers the power of saying what sort of bye-laws they would have.
  MR. BRISTOWEsupported the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would make a proposition which he hoped would be accepted by the noble Lord. The paragraph as it stood in the Bill went further than the noble Lord intended, and virtually meant that however absurd the bye-laws proposed by the ratepayers were, the Education Department would be obliged to assent to them. He suggested that the clause should read thus—
  "And in making and approving bye-laws the School Attendance Committee and the Education Department shall consider the nature of the representations made to them."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought that to adopt the suggestion would be to give up the whole point for which they were contending. Their objection was to any parish meeting being called upon to deal with the details of the bye-laws.
  VISCOUNT SANDONthought that it would be as well to adopt the form of words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; but in his opinion, they were covered by the clause as it stood.
  MR. RODWELLobserved that in all legal proceedings the words "regard shall be had" meant no more than "be duly considered."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the only question was, whether it was desirable to give the parish meeting authority to make representations as to the

  1501
  nature of the bye-laws which they required. The Amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Bradford would make the point clearer, and therefore might be adopted by the Committee.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that if the Education Department were to approve of the representations made by the parish, they would often have some very curious bye-laws to approve, and, if not, they would introduce an element of contention between the Guardians and the parish.
  Question put,
  "That the words 'The requisition may be accompanied by representations, made by a resolution passed in like manner, as to the nature of the bye-laws desired by the parish,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 62: Majority 63.
  Amendment (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 21 (Officers of local authority); and Clause 22 (Provision as to powers and expenses of school board), severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 23 (Expenses of local authority other than school board).
  On the Motion of Viscount Sandon,Amendment made in page 8, line 32, at commencement of Clause, by inserting—
  "A school attendance committee under this Act shall not incur any expense, or appoint, employ, or pay any officer without the consent of the council or guardians by whom the committee were appointed; and where they are appointed by guardians also, of the Local Government Board, but with such, consent may employ and pay any officer of such council or guardians."
  MR. PELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 9, at end of Clause, to add—
  "Provided always, That relief or money given under this Act for the payment of school fees in any parish where the local authority is the board of guardians shall not be paid out of their common fund, but shall be a separate charge on each parish; and the board of guardians shall issue their precept to the overseers of such parish requiring the overseers, within a time limited by the precept, to pay the amount
  1502
  of the separate charge specified in such precept to the board of guardians, or to some person appointed by them; and the overseers shall comply with the requisition of such precept by paying the sum required out of the poor rate of such parish.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that the Government would endeavour to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman by a proposal to be brought up on a later stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 24 (General and local committee of local authority), postponed.
  Clause 25 (Clerk of guardians, and application of Acts to guardians), verbally amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 26 (Effect of subsequent appointment of school board).
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 32, after 1870, to insert—
  "Provided, That after the passing of this Act a school board shall not be formed for any school district in which there exists efficient and suitable provision for the elementary education of all the children resident in such district."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that was by no means a trifling proposal, as it was opposed to the programme he laid down in introducing the Bill, when he stated that every district would be able, as at present, to have a school board if it wished it—the object of the Government being to allow the country to choose either the school board system of the Bill of 1870, or that of the present Bill, the choice being left absolutely to the people of a district, provided always that they did their duty in providing proper school accommodation, and in securing the proper instruction of the children, as made necessary by this Bill. It would be, therefore, entirely contrary to the views of the Government to say that it should be impossible for any district to have a school board, if by a popular vote it desired to have one. Consequently, the Government would offer a decided opposition to the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERobjected to the Amendment, which, if adopted, would

  1503
  effect a great change in the Bill, and reverse the principle laid down in the Act of 1870, and be a retrograde step in the course which had been pursued for the last three or four years. He thought the Government had taken the proper course in regard to the present proposal.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYD,in supporting the Amendment, remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich stated, when the Bill of 1870 was introduced, it was intended, not to destroy, but only to supplement the existing system.
  MR. CHARLEYalso supported the Amendment, on the ground that school boards should be called into existence, not for the purpose of supplanting, but of supplementing, voluntary exertions. He feared that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council did not sufficiently appreciate the feeling on that side of the House, the Members of which did not think that the Bill would sufficiently carry out the object for which, so far as education was concerned, they were returned. Gazette after Gazette was filled with announcements of the formation of new school board districts, although it was the policy of the Conservative Party to maintain and extend the voluntary system.
  DR. LUSH,believing the Bill meant the absolute destruction of school boards, and the transfer of the education of the country entirely to denominational schools, said he should give his most strenuous opposition to anything which would destroy the alternative which some districts now possessed of having school boards if they pleased.
  MR. HAMONDcontended, on the contrary, that the Amendment, instead of destroying school boards, sanctioned them wherever they were required, although it disputed the supposition that it was necessary to have school boards where there was ample public elementary school accommodation in any district. At the present moment there were no fewer than 500 school boards in England and Wales with not one single school among them. He maintained, therefore, that those school boards were entirely beyond the Elementary Act of 1870. The object of the present Bill was to give local authorities greater powers to do what had hitherto been
  1504
  proposed to be done illegally by the school boards. He hoped the Government would give way on this point.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYcontended that if the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle was good for anything, this Amendment was entirely unnecessary. If school boards had been illegally created they could be set aside. By the Act of 1870 an application from the Town Council or ratepayers would clearly compel the Education Department to give them a school board, and though the Bill provided another mode of dealing with the question, yet its whole principle was that the ratepayers should be left to decide whether they would prefer to elect a school board in preference to relying on the Town Council or Board of Guardians. What was asked was that these bodies should be left to act for themselves. It was not the fact that school boards did not put compulsory bye-laws into operation in districts where there were only voluntary schools, for in Stockport there was not a single school which was not upon the voluntary principle, and yet compulsory bye-laws were in force there. What Her Majesty's Government desired was to respect the individuality of the school districts, and to leave them to act as they thought proper with the view of enforcing attendance.
  MR. MUNDELLAexpressed satisfaction with the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, and said that, if they did not stand fast upon the point, it would be fatal to their Bill and to the character of the education to be given. School boards were intended for more purposes than merely supplying school accommodation. In Manchester, in 1869, the state of education was deplorable, though there was ample school accommodation. The fact was, that there were no bye-laws to enforce attendance; but the result of having a school board was that attendance had nearly doubled.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. DILLWYNrejoiced at the declaration that the Government did not countenance the reversal of the policy of the Act of 1870. He gave credit to the Government for good intentions in the measure they had brought forward, but it had rather the appearance of being intended to strike a blow against school boards throughout the country.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUtrusted that the Amendment would not be pressed to a division, for if it was, he must vote against it. If, as he hoped, the Bill should work well, the ratepayers would never have recourse to the expensive machinery of school boards.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEY,replying, to objections, said that the Amendment had been very much misunderstood. It would not at all touch existing school boards, as it was entirely prospective in its nature. It was also idle to say that the Amendment was contrary to the Act of 1870. The only functions of school boards were compulsion and the provision of accommodation together with the maintenance of schools. Of these functions the latter was ex hypothesi voluntarily performed, and the former was conferred by the Bill on other authorities; if, therefore, they failed in their duty, a school board was not likely to discharge them. An important object of the Bill was to supersede the necessity of forming school boards for the sole purpose of compulsion, and the Amendment would further that object; it would enable the country with greater ease to avoid the creation of these noxious and unpopular bodies. The Amendment would leave the principles of the Act of 1870 in perfect integrity, while it would be a step, though a small one, towards the consolidation of local machinery.
  MR. STORERsaid, the Amendment would act very beneficially in rural districts by preventing their running into unnecessary expense. There were many districts where school boards had been formed and nothing further done.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, it would be a great mistake to alter the present law for the sake of two or three particular cases.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Legal Proceedings.
  Clause 27 (Application of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 86, ss. 23–4 to penalties &c).
  MR. BIRLEY (for Mr. Hardcastle)moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 40, to add, after "thereto," the words—
  "And every person who shall fraudulently obtain, or enable or procure any other person to obtain payment or an order for payment from any school board or local authority, or expose any school board or local authority to the pay-
  1506
  ment of any school fees, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he should be disposed to accept the Amendment, if it were amended so as to contain the punishment named in it for obtaining from a school board payment, or order of payment, or remission of payment of a school fee.
  Amendment to said proposed Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GREGORYmoved to omit the words "with or without hard labour," which he said would make the punishment excessive, especially as it was for a new offence.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERurged that even three months' imprisonment without hard labour would be an excessive punishment. It was a very severe clause, and it ought to be well considered by the Committee before it agreed to the infliction of such a penalty.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALconsidered the offence with which the clause proposed to deal quite as bad as that of obtaining money by false pretences. Moreover, as the Amendment provided that the imprisonment should not exceed three months, it would be in the power of the magistrates to mitigate the penalty.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHTsaid, the House ought to consider that the class of persons to whom the clause applied was a very numerous and poor class, to whom a small temptation of the kind would come often with irresistible force. It was no worse an offence than for a person to go to the overseer of the parish and by, in some degree, misrepresenting his condition obtain out-door relief, when perhaps with a little economy he might be able to do without it. It was said that three months was the limit of the penalty; but these cases would come before a great variety of magistrates, some of whom might not be very judicious, and who would be subject to varying moods, and might sometimes think it necessary to make a severe example. He thought the punishment of a fortnight's imprisonment would just as completely deter any person from the commission of this offence as a punishment of three months, which he considered to be too severe for such a slight offence. He should therefore propose

  1507
  to substitute 14 days for three months' imprisonment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought, perhaps, the justice of the case would be met by a maximum punishment of a fortnight's imprisonment with hard labour. He would therefore assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment (Mr. Gregory), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. John Bright) agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 28 (Exemption of employer on proof of guilt of some other person).
  MR. ONSLOWmoved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 23, to leave out from "representation" to "conviction," in line 25. It was the part of the clause which provided that where an employer, charged with taking a child into his employment in contravention of the Act, proved that he had used due diligence to enforce the observance of the Act, and either that some agent or workman of his employed the child on the production of a false certificate, or on the representation by the parent that the child was of a proper age, and that the employer had taken all practical means in his power to prosecute such agent, workman, or parent to conviction, the employer should be exempt from such penalty. The hon. Member contended that it would be a hardship to require the employer to find out whether a child taken into his employwas really what he had been represented to be, and that the duty of prosecuting the persons in fault should be left altogether in the hands of the Inspectors. If it were not so, great inconvenience, to say the least of it, would often arise to the employer of labour if he had to go about the country hunting up evidence in order to obtain a conviction.
  VISCOUNT SANDONobserved that the words in question were taken verbatim from the Factory Act of 1844, and he thought it would be desirable to retain them.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHTsaid, he thought the proposition of the hon. Member a very reasonable one. He was not sure that those words were to be found in the
  1508
  Factory Act, but he was quite certain of this—if they were in the Act they had never been put in force. If the words had not been found necessary under the Factory Act, they ought not to be inserted in this Bill. They were antiquated, and he hoped the noble Lord would not retain them.
  VISCOUNT SANDON,having referred to the Factory Act, said there appeared to be considerable doubt in the matter. He should, therefore, act on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and adopt the Amendment.
  MR. GORSTsaid, there was this difficulty about the declaration of the age of children, that in many cases children were not registered, and in such cases it would totally preclude them from getting employment.
  MR. WHALLEYpointed out that the Act was still experimental, and therefore should not be too harsh.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Miscellaneous.
  Clause 29 (Adaptation of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 86, s. 3, respecting pauper children to this Act).
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,referring to that part of the clause relating to relief out of the workhouse being given by the Guardians by way of allowance to the parent of any child above the age of five years, prohibited from being taken into employment, or required to attend school, moved that the additional provision should be inserted that such child should be one who had not passed the Standard of reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic fixed by Standard III. of the Education Code of 1876, so that it should be a condition for the continuance of relief that elementary education should be provided for the child. He would not enter into the controversy of why the Standard of education was lowered to the out-door pauper, but he thought that children who were to obtain employment should have attended school more than 125 days in two years. His object was to insure that all children should be required to reach Standard III. in these respects, instead of being reduced to Standard II., as they might be if the clause was not amended as he proposed.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 3, after the word "who," to insert the words "has not passed the standard of reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic fixed by standard three of the Education Code of 1876, or who."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the regulation only applied to out-door pauper children in districts. He understood that Standard III. was to be the class in all pauper schools. The object was to bring all the children into the same category. He always received the proposals of the noble Lord with attention, but the noble Lord was the one person who had taken the opportunity of saying things which he must have known were likely to be personally disagreeable to him, and he must say that, after the way he had received his Amendment, and those of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought he was entitled to receive different treatment at his hands.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the clause made no distinction whatever; and even in the case of such children, it was a mockery to give them so low an education. For years the instruction of that class had been, he might say, disgraceful, and a mockery of the word.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that no one had been more willing than his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) to acknowledge the willingness of the noble Lord opposite to receive Amendments from all parts of the House, and no one was more sanguine as to the effect of the Bill. This, however, was really an important point. Should pauper children, whether in-door or out-door, in urban or in rural districts, have the same elementary education as other children or not? He quite agreed with his noble Friend that all children should be kept up to Standard III. The real question before the Committee was whether these children were to have an education which might be supposed to be worth having, or whether they were to have an education which was worth nothing at all for the next two years, because the Second Standard did not secure that a child should be able either to read or write.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHregretted that anything which he had said should have given the noble Lord opposite cause of complaint. It was
  1510
  completely unintentional on his part, and he thought that he was paying the Bill a high compliment in saying that this was the only retrogressive clause in it.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that last year only 1,400 of those children passed in Standard III. and all the rest had to be kept continuously at school, unless they had complied with the provisions of the Agricultural Children Act.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 181: Majority 73.
  Clause 30 (Amendment of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75, as to elections to fill casual vacancies in school boards).
  On Motion of Lord SaNdon, Clause amended, so as to bring into immediate operation, on the passing of the Act, the powers of school boards to fill casual vacancies.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 31 (Application of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75, ss. 83, 84, to orders and documents of Education Department); and Clause 32 (Effect of schedules), severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 33 (Definition of employment in case of parent).
  MR. ONSLOWmoved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 3, to leave out "employs," and insert who, "after due warning contiuues to employ."As the clause now stood a parent who employed his child for the sake of gain, without its having obtained the necessary school certificate of proficiency, or had attended a certain number of times at school during the course of the year, should be looked on in the light of an employer, and be liable to the same pains and penalties. Now, he (Mr. Onslow) thought that this was a little too severe on the parent, unless he had wilfully disobeyed the warnings of the Inspector. He therefore thought that the words he proposed to introduce might tend to mitigate undue hardship.
  VISCOUNT SANDONthought the Amendment would so far trammel the measure that he hoped his hon. Friend would not press it.
  MR. EVANSsaid, that under the working of the Act of 1870 the parents received two or three warnings from the school boards, and he did not think the local authorities would be less sedulous in the matter.
  MR. KNOWLESthought the parents would run the risk of keeping their children from school if they were not required to do so until they had received a warning.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the provision was exactly the same as that in the Act relating to the education of children in factories.
  MR. WHALLEYemphatically protested against the more than Algerine severity which it was proposed to adopt in enforcing education.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 34 (General definitions).
  On the Motion of Mr. W. E. FORSTER Clause amended, so as to provide that the education of a child should commence at five years.
  MR. RODWELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 7, to leave out "fourteen," and insert "thirteen."It would not, he said, be for the public interest that a child in the agicultural districts should be kept from work until he was 14 years of age. In favour of his Motion he might say that the age at which a child might commence to be educated in the work which would enable him to earn his daily bread was expressly mentioned in the Act of 1870 as 13. The same age was mentioned in the Scotch Act, and also in the Pauper Children Act, and he thought the proposition a reasonable one, for he protested against a child being subjected to a year's enforced idleness.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 7, to leave out the word "fourteen," in order to insert the word "thirteen."—(Mr. Rodwell.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexpressed a hope that the Government would not accept the Amendment, as it would, to a great extent, do away with the good of the Act of 1874.
  MR. KNOWLESsupported the Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLAhoped the time was not far distant when the children would pass a higher standard in education than at present.
  MR. CHAPLINfound fault with the Amendment, because it did not go far enough. He had an Amendment proposing the age of 12; but he would withdraw it if the Government accepted the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was not interested either the agriculturists or the manufacturers, but the Committee had just passed a clause to inflict severe penalties on the parents if they employed their child in any sort of work until he was 14 years of age. He sympathized with the parents, and supported the Amendment to substitute 13 years for 14.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHurged the Government to abide by the age they had inserted in the Bill.
  MR. STORERsaid, at 13 these children were hired, and it would be a great hardship to keep them another year in idleness because their parents had neglected their children's education.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would shortly be attending a council in North Wales known as Eistedfodd, and he believed they would display on that occasion an amount of energy and ability which would show that the very last thing they ought to teach children was reading. In support of that he need only point to the ancient kingdom of Wales, which had produced people more moral, more loyal, and more happy socially than any other portion of this country, or of Europe. He must again repeat that he objected to the Algerine provisions of this Bill. In passing it, they were acting in opposition to experience, and to the opinion of a large proportion of the population of this country.
  VISCOUNT SANDONcould not claim for the Bill the character of Algerine legislation. The Government were told from other quarters that their Bill was altogether too mild, and these contradictory views encouraged him to believe that they were hitting the happy medium in the proposals which they made. He could not sympathize with those who, like the hon. Gentleman, thought reading undesirable. If they were all musical there might be something to say in favour of that view. He could not

  1513
  assent to the Amendment, being of opinion that, for the sake of uniformity, which would be a matter of great convenience both to parents and to the employers, the limit of 14 years should be adhered to. The age of 14 had been enacted in the Factory Bill of 1874, passed by the present Government, with reference to children engaged in connection with textile fabrics, and it must be remembered that great numbers of agricultural children were in the neighbourhood of the great centres of industry. It must not be supposed that children were to be kept at school until 14, for, with proper care, most of them would be able to go out to labour at 10 or 11 years of age. It was no unimportant part of the scheme of indirect compulsion that the operation of the Act should extend as far as 14 years, because, if a parent neglected his duty, he would, know that it would be possible that his child's labour might be kept from him until the child was 14. This would also have a great and very important effect in reference to "wastrel" children, who had always been eluding the grasp of our educational legislation, the dealing with whom satisfactorily was one of the objects respecting which he felt the greatest anxiety. He regretted, therefore, that he could not comply with the wishes—which were by no means unnatural—of his hon. Friends, and must adhere, on the part of the Government, to the age of 14.
  THE O'CONOR DONpointed out that in factories a child could not be employed full time until he was 13, whilst under this Bill an agricultural child could be so employed at 11.
  MR. CLARE READremarked that the factory legislation was based upon the ground of health as well as education, whilst in agriculture it was education alone. He hoped that the Amendment would be pressed to a division; because he feared that the age of 14 would very much tend to damage the cause of education in the country. He contended that if they were to advance gradually and surely, they had better not jump to the extreme age of 14.
  MR. RODWELLsaid, the whole argument against the Amendment was based upon the fact that the age of 14 had been fixed in the Factory Act. He rested the Amendment upon the injustice and hardship of compelling children
  1514
  to remain until they were 14 years of age in a state of pupillari. He should certainly go to a division, as he thought the concession ought to be made by the Government to those who believed that 13 was sufficient for any of the purposes of the Bill.
  MR. HEYGATEsupported the Amendment, on the ground that if the age of 14 were adopted uniformity would not be arrived at.
  SIR GEORGE ELLIOTpointed out that the point in difference was only half-time, or six months between the ages of 13 and 14, and he thought the Government would be acting wisely if they gave way.
  Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 108: Majority 89.
  VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 11, at end, to insert as a separate paragraph:—
  "The term 'certified efficient school,' in this Act means a public elementary school, and also any elementary school which is not conducted for private profit, and is open at all reasonable times to the inspection of Her Majesty's Inspectors, and requires the like attendance from its scholars as is required in a public elementary school, and keeps such registers of those attendances as may be for the time being required by the Education Department, and is certified by the Education Department to be an efficient school."
  This was a school which no one would be compelled to attend, but it was the definition of a certified efficient school which he had promised to give the Committee.
  THE O'CONOR DONobjected to the words "not conducted for private profit." He thought the clause would be sufficiently stringent without them.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, it would be impossible to undertake the inspection of all private venture schools.
  Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 35 (Provision as to part of a parish); and Clause 36 (Construction of this Act with other enactments), severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 37 (Temporary modification as to application of Act, and saving for children in employment at passing of Act), verbally amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 38 (Repeal of Acts) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

CROSSED CHEQUES BILL.—(Lords.)

  [BILL 112.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (General and special crossings).
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 20, to leave out "or of two parallel transverse lines simply." Its object was to exempt from the operation of the Bill cheques which had merely two parallel transverse lines.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, if the Amendment were agreed to, the Bill would become a common nuisance throughout the country, and he hoped it would not be pressed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Crossing after issue).
  THE LORD MAYOR (MR. Alderman Cotton)moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 4, after "specially" to insert—
  "Where a cheque is crossed generally or specially a lawful holder may add to the crossing the words 'for account of,' or any abreviation thereof, followed by the names of the persons or company to whose account he wishes the cheque to be credited."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Crossing material part of cheque).
  MR. DILLWYNmoved, to report Progress, protesting against such an important measure as that being proceeded with at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. There were 24 Bills on the Orders of the Day, and the Government ought to decide what Bills they really
  1516
  intended to proceed with, and what they would withdraw.
  MR. BACKHOUSEappealed to the hon. Member for Swansea not to press his Motion, on the ground that the Bill was generally desired.
  MR. E. JENKINSconsidered that it was most unfair for the Government not to take the House into their confidence, and let them know what measures they really intended to go on with. He was interested in several Scotch Bills, and had to remain in the House night after night to see that the Home Secretary did not slip any of these Bills through without discussion.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member did not intend to impute that he would "slip"any Bill through. He had distinctly stated that no Scotch business should be taken unless full Notice was given of it.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, of course, if he had used any expression to which the right hon. Gentleman objected, he would at once withdraw it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was most inconvenient that the discussion on a Bill as to which there was a general agreement should be interrupted in this manner.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 123: Majority 110.
  MR. E. JENKINSthen moved, that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  MR. ORR EWINGopposed the Motion. He (Mr. Orr Ewing) was satisfied that the constituents of the hon. Member would be much better satisfied with him if, instead of interposing obstructive propositions, he would assist in passing a Bill which was demanded by the entire mercantile community.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 122: Majority 111.
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. BURTsaid, he had voted in the first instance for Progress being re-

  1517
  ported; but as the feeling of the House was evidently in favour of going on with, the measure, he did not see any use in persevering with those Motions of delay.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Payment to banker only).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Thomas Eustace Smith.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  WASTE LANDS AND PEASANTS DWELLINGS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Biggar, Bill to provide for the purchase of Waste Lands and the erection of Peasants Dwellings in Ireland out of the surplus funds of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland, ordered to be Drought in by Mr. BiggaR, Mr. Cowen, and Mr. O'Sullivan.

  ARKLOW HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Arklow Harbour Improvement Bill do consist of Seven Members:—Sir George BalfouR added to the Committee.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Colonel Makins be added to the Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 14: Majority 4.
  House adjourned at half after Two of the clock.