Commons Sitting of 20 July 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Ordered—First Reading—Public Record Office* [262]; Civil Servants Superannuation (Unhealthy Climates)* [263].
First Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Artizans and Labourers Dwellings)* [260].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* [251]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bingley,

1621
&c.)* [255]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Chelmsford, &.c.)* [256]; Parliamentary Electors Registration* [169].
Select Committee—Report—Ardglass Harbour* [200];Erne Lough and River* [187].
Committee—Elementary Education [155]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Cattle Disease (Ireland) [94]; Juries Procedure (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [176–261]; Exhausted Parish Lands* [252].
Considered as amended—Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Confirmation* [241].
Third Reading—Metropolitan Commons (Barnes)* [234];General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Paisley* [235]—(Perth)* [236]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Irvine and Dundonald)* [237];Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Tolleshunt Major)* [238]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Carnarvon, &c.)* [239];Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Coleraine, &c.)* [240];General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lerwick)* [242], and passed.
Withdrawn—Arklow Harbour Improvement* [199];Linen and Hempen and other Manufactures (Ireland)* [216]; Agricultural Holdings (Scotland)* [159]; Poor Law Guardians Elections (Ireland)* [88].

ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—MILITIA ADJUTANTS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL NAGHTENasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Adjutants of Militia who have done duty as acting Paymasters will receive the allowances promised them in May last?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am afraid I cannot say exactly when these allowances will be issued to the officers in question, as the subject is now under the consideration of the Militia Committee. Some allowance for the duties performed will, however, undoubtedly be granted.

ARMY—FORAGE ALLOWANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether forage allowance is not granted to all substantive field officers except Majors of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers; and, why Artillery Majors should not be placed on the same footing as Infantry Majors in that respect?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I must answer the first Question in the affirmative; but forage allowance is not granted to other officers holding the relative rank of field officers, unless their duties require them to be mounted. Forage is
  1622
  not an emolument of the officer; it is issued to him only when the officer's duties require him to be mounted. Majors of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers frequently do not need to be mounted. When they do they receive forage or allowance in lieu, the same as Brevet field officers.

CHANNEL ISLANDS—ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY—ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. LOCKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether another Order in Council was presented to the Royal Court of Jersey on the 4th day of July 1876 for registration; and, whether the Bailiff of the Island refused to register the same, and his reasons for so doing? Also, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accept the resignation or confirm the appointment of any Jurat of the Royal Court of Jersey so long as the Court refuse to register Orders in Council or Acts of Parliament?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had received a telegram from the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey respecting the Order in Council of which it was alleged that registration had been refused by the Bailiff. The Lieutenant Governor was of opinion that the Bailiff's act could not be construed into a refusal to register, and therefore the Lieutenant Governor did not see why the Government should interfere with the appointment of any Jurat. It was probable that the Order in Council would be registered at the next meeting of the States, which would be held next week.

JAMAICA—MR. P. A. SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE.—QUESTION.
MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a number of Custodes of Hanover and Saint James, in the island of Jamaica, and also of the Magistrates, have signed and presented a Memorial to the Governor, praying for the removal of Mr. P. A. Smith, District Judge of Monte go Bay; and, what has been the course adopted by the Governor or by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in consequence?
MR. J. LOWTHER,in reply, said, it was true that such a Memorial had

1623
been presented; but the gentleman in question was believed to be a most efficient official, and information had since been received that the Memorial had been withdrawn by the persons who originally presented it. Mr. Smith had been appointed to another post, which was higher than that which he had previously held.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Lord Advocate, What course he intends to pursue with respect to the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE,in reply, said, the Bill consisted of two parts—the one extending the jurisdiction of the Sheriffs; the other amending the procedure in the Sheriff Courts. So far as he could gather, the opposition to the Bill was limited to its jurisdiction clauses, and there was no opposition to the procedure clauses, the importance of which was admitted by all the professional bodies in Scotland, as well as by the public. Although he regretted the necessity, he proposed for the present to withdraw the jurisdiction clauses of the Bill, and to ask the House to pass the procedure clauses. If opposition was continued after this explanation, he must allow to rest upon those who occasioned it the responsibility for delaying important improvements in judicial procedure in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland.

THE HOME OFFICE—DEPUTATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is satisfied with the accommodation provided for the reception of deputations at the Home Office; and, whether it is contemplated to make further provision for that purpose? He asked the Question because, having gone to the Home Office with a large and important deputation, they found only a room of very moderate size in which they could be received, not very well lighted, and which could seat at most only about a dozen persons.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have no hesitation in at once answering the hon. Gentleman's Question by say-
  1624
  ing in the most distinct terms that I am not satisfied with the accommodation referred to for the reception of deputations at the Home Office; nor do I think that the deputations which come there can be called upon to be satisfied with such accommodation. At the same time, it is not often that they come in such numbers as that on the occasion to which the hon. Member has referred. The only proposition yet made by the Department which has charge of public buildings is to change the room in which deputations are received from the waiting-room to the Library. This, however, I think, would be like jumping from the frying-pan into the fire. I hope, however, that some improvement will be made to remove what I think is a very scandalous state of things.

TOLL BRIDGES (RIVER THAMES).

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY PEEKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact that after six inquiries before Select Committees of this House, the Bill for abolishing Tolls on the Thames Bridges in the Metropolis has been carefully considered, amended, and reported to this House by another Select Committee, that the plan for providing the funds is accepted by the Metropolitan Board of Works and approved by all the representatives of the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, he will be prepared to give such facilities to the final stages of the Bill as will enable the Bill to pass in the present Session?
  MR. DISRAELI: It is quite impossible for me, with the number of arrangements I have to make at present for the progress of Public Business, to enter into any engagement with my hon. Friend, but I will bear his reasonable request in mind.

  EPPING FOREST—THE FOREST COMMISSIONERS' SCHEME.—QUESTION.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Report of the Commissioners on Epping Forest will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The draft scheme of the Epping Forest Commissioners will be published to-morrow, the 21st in-

  1625
  stant, for public inspection. The Commissioners will receive any objections or suggestions which may be made to them in writing respecting the said scheme pursuant to Act of Parliament, and afterwards will consider objections, holding such public meetings as may be necessary or desirable, and will then finally settle the scheme, and also their final Report. The Commissioners entertain no doubt that the matter will be ready for legislation in the next Session of Parliament.

  BOW STREET POLICE COURT (SITE) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House what is the estimated outlay of money expected to be incurred under the Bow Street Police Court (Site) Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There will be payable to the Duke of Bedford a ground rental of £1,100 per annum for a lease of 99 years. There will be also a sum payable to the present tenants in respect of their interest, which will be ascertained in case of difference under the general Act. It is undesirable at the present moment to state at what sum those interests have been valued. The above-mentioned expenditure will be incurred for the site both for police court and police station. The proportion which will be payable in respect of the site of each of these buildings cannot be stated at present, and it will have hereafter to be determined accordingly what portion shall be borne by the Board of Works and what by the police rates. The cost of the buildings is estimated at £12,000 for the court and £8,000 for the police station, which will be charged to the separate heads of Public Works and police rates. These estimates for buildings are approximate.

  METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE—FIRE AT CHELSEA.—QUESTION.
  MR. BASSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that a destructive fire was raging at Chelsea on Tuesday night for forty minutes before any fire engine arrived, though the fire was seen for many miles around?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: In answer to the first Question, I have to say that as Secretary of State I have no control over the Metropolitan Eire Brigade. That is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but I have made inquiries, and I am told that the information of the fire was received at the station at 11.23. The first engine arrived at the place of the fire at half-past 11. That is, the engine arrived at one side of the fire. I am told that an engine was not sent round to the other side for some considerable time.

  THE ARMY LIST—HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.—QUESTION.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will inform the House why the name of the Queen has been inserted in the List of the Officers of the Army published in the Monthly Army List on the 8th of July; whether such insertion indicates any change in the relations hitherto maintained by the Sovereign with respect to the Army; and, whether it is consistent with the Preamble of the Mutiny Act that the Sovereign should be included in the List of the Officers of the Army, for whose control that Act was annually passed by Her Majesty and Parliament?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: In reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I have to say that the Queen's name is not inserted in the list of the officers of the Army. It has long been placed at the head of Hart's unofficial "Army List"—with the names of her aides-do-camp following. I regarded that as the suitable position in which it should be placed, in consideration of the relations which Her Majesty bears to the Army. With respect to the second Question, the insertion indicates no change in the relations hitherto maintained by the Sovereign with respect to the Army, but is, on the contrary, a confirmation of those relations that have always existed. With respect to the Preamble of the Mutiny Act and the Mutiny Act itself, they have no influence on Her Majesty whatever; for I am not aware that Her Majesty is in Her Majesty's military service.

PEACE PRESERVATION ACTS—THE COUNTY OF LOUTH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the eminently satisfactory condition of the borough of Dundalk and the county of Louth, both as regards offences against the person and property, as evidenced by the calendar of prisoners, the constabulary returns of crime, and the charge of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald to the grand jury of the county of Louth on the 11th instant, that—
  "The detailed reports laid before him presented a very gratifying aspect as regarded the county of Louth, for they showed that during the five months that had elapsed since the last assizes only four cases of crime had been reported. I can only express a hope that the county will establish for itself and maintain permanently the character it now deserves of immunity from crime;"
  and, whether he is prepared, in view of the foregoing circumstances, to revoke the Proclamation placing the borough of Dundalk and the county of Louth under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Acts?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that I believe that the Charge of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald to the Grand Jury of the county of Louth at the Summer Assizes notices the satisfactory condition of the county with regard to ordinary crime; but it must be remembered that the statements contained in the Question of the hon. Member do not exhaust the reasons for which proclamations under the Peace Preservation Act have been imposed, and which must not be forgotten in considering the propriety of maintaining them. However, last Spring the Irish Government caused inquiry to be made as to the necessity for continuing the Proclamation in county Louth, but the result did not, in the opinion of the Government, justify its withdrawal. I am quite ready to undertake that the matter shall again be considered, and I think it will be admitted that the Government have shown that they are not anxious to maintain these Proclamations where they can properly be revoked.

TOLL BRIDGES (RIVER THAMES).

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the right honourable the Lord Mayor, Whether, in view of the general desire which is felt by the people of the Metropolis and of the counties of Surrey and Middlesex, that the Toll Bridges (River Thames) Bill, already considered by a Select Committee, should pass this Session, he will withdraw the Notice of opposition which he has given to the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill, so that any objections to the Bill may be considered in Committee?
  THE LORD MAYOR (MR. ALDERMAN COTTON),in reply, said, as the matter was the subject of an adjourned debate on the part of the Corporation, he was not prepared to withdraw his opposition to the Bill.

  POOR LAW (METROPOLIS)—CASE OF CHARLOTTE HAMMOND.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can now state the result of the inquiry held by the Board in the case of Charlotte Hammond, whose death was said to have been caused by destitution; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the evidence taken at the inquiry?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, that the result of the inquiry had been exhibited in a letter addressed by the Local Government Board to the Guardians of St. George's Union, and it was published in the newspapers to-day. The House would hardly wish him to read the paper; but the general result was to remove from the Guardians any imputation with respect to the case. The Report would be laid on the Table.

  ARMY MOBILIZATION—ROMAN CATHOLIC MILITIAMEN.—QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the fact that no provision was made for religious ministrations by clergymen of their own church to the officers and men of the Louth, Longford, and Monaghan Militia Regiments (almost exclusively Catholic Regiments) composing the First Brigade, Second Division, of the Fifth Army

  1629
  Corps, now mobilised near Salisbury; whether these regiments would not have been left without Divine Service on Sunday last but for the exertions of Lord Arundel, who lives close by, and whose brother, Rev. Mr. Arundel, officiated for that day; whether it is true that a private in the Louth Militia, who died of sunstroke on Saturday, expired without any clergyman to administer to him the last sacraments of the Catholic Church, to which he belonged; and, what steps, if any, have been taken to remedy this state of things?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: It was impossible to any large extent to spare the regular commissioned Roman Catholic chaplains from their ordinary stations to take part in the present mobilization. The War Office, therefore, applied to the Roman Catholic Bishops of the respective dioceses in which the two Army Corps were to be stationed to provide priests, giving at the same time all particulars as to the position of the camps, and stating what remuneration would be given. Mr. Arundel was, in consequence, nominated by Bishop Clifford, and duly appointed by the War Office to do duty with the 1st Brigade, 5th Army Corps. The War Office had no communication from or with Lord Arundel on the subject. No information has been received by the War Office with regard to any man having died from sunstroke. I am not aware that I can take any further steps in the matter than have been already taken.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE STEAMER "MARIE."

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the British steamer "Marie," which has been lying for two years past at Santander, and latterly at Bilbao, is about to sail for the river Niger with a cargo of gin; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the vessel is quite unseaworthy, on account of her having been built for river traffic, her engines being partly above deck, and her free board being only eight inches; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the local authorities at Bilbao have power to detain unseaworthy ships, he has taken steps to prevent the sailing of the "Marie?"
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The circumstances relating to the British steamer Marie are these—About two years ago it was reported that she was lying at Bilbao, and her crew refused to sail in her, as unfit to go to sea. The Board of Trade instructed the Consul to summon a Naval Court, which, after survey, reported that she was unfit for a winter voyage. New owners having lately bought her, and being about to send her to sea, the Board warned them of what had occurred, and sent information to the Committee of Lloyd's and the Salvage Association. A telegram has this day been received from the Consul at Bilbao stating that she was going to sail for the Niger, and that the crew were willing to go, and that he was of opinion that there were no reasons for detaining her from the proposed voyage. There are, however, no local authorities having power to detain a British ship at Bilbao.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—CERTIFICATED CHILDREN—CLAUSE 14.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any estimate has been formed of the amount likely to be charged upon the Imperial revenue under the provisions of the fourteenth Clause of the Elementary Education Bill; and, if he will consider the propriety of limiting, according to the number of children in each school or otherwise, the amount of school fees payable for children who may obtain certificates under the provisions of such Clause?
  VISCOUNT SANDON,in reply, said, this was a very difficult matter to calculate. He had, however, placed an Amendment on the Paper which he thought would meet the views of his hon. Friend and other Members on this subject. It was proposed that only 10 per cent of the children should get these certificates in each school, the preference being given to those attending for the longest time, and they must make 350 attendances in each year and pass an advanced Standard. Those provisions would extend to schools where the fees were not higher than 6d., and the fees to be paid for higher education not more than 6d.

  PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Speaker, this being the 20th of July, and there being 31 Government Orders on the Paper, the House will not, I think, consider it unreasonable if I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is able to give the House any intimation of the probable course of Business during the next week, and, if possible, during the remainder of the Session. I trust it may be possible to get through the Committee on the Education Bill in the course either of to-night or to-morrow morning; but the right hon. Gentleman is in a better position than I can be to form an opinion on this subject; for I believe the Government clauses and the new clauses proposed by the Government have already been disposed of, and the remaining work of the Committee consists chiefly of new clauses proposed by hon. Members sitting on the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House. The first Question, then, which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, What business he proposes that the House should proceed with after the Committee on the Education Bill is disposed of? I should have liked to have asked whether the Government are now in a position to state, with regard to their other measures standing on the Notice Paper, their intention of proceeding with or abandoning any of those measures; but I know from the experience of last Session that the right hon. Gentleman has a great objection to make what he considers a premature statement on this subject, and, therefore, unless he wishes to make any statement on that matter, I shall not press him to do so. However, it will not, I think, be wasting the time of the House if I point out very shortly the great number and great importance of the measures which have already up to the present time made but small progress in the House, and which must still occupy a great deal of time. Besides the Education Bill, there are on the Paper at present the following measures which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will agree, occupy a front place among legislative measures. There are the Prisons Bill, the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, and the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill, the two University Bills, the
  1632
  Valuation Bill, the Bill that has just been printed, and is coming to us from the House of Lords, the Cruelty to Animals Bill, and another—I do not know whether it has yet come down from the House of Lords, but if not it soon will, with very considerable Amendments—the Merchant Shipping Bill. In addition to these important measures, there is also some work to be done in Committee of Supply. I am perfectly willing to bear testimony to the advanced state of preparation in which the Estimates were presented early to the House and the progress which consequently the House was able to make at an early stage of Supply. But there are still some very important Estimates to be taken, and I believe it was understood when the last Vote on Account was taken that a pledge was given on the part of the Government that the discussion on the remaining Votes would not be postponed until the close of the Session. Besides those measures of importance I have mentioned, there are a great number of measures of considerable importance, but perhaps of somewhat minor importance to those I have enumerated—the Pollution of Rivers Bill, the Highways Bill, the Patent Law Amendment Bill, the Suez Canal Shares Bill, the Bishopric of Truro Bill, and the Poor Law Amendment Bill. There is also a considerable number of measures relating to Ireland. There are the Linen and Hempen and Other Manufactures Bill, the Irish Prisons Bill, the Juries Procedure Bill, the Civil Bill Courts Bill, and the Clerk of the Crown and Peace Bill. It would be very convenient to learn from the right hon. Gentleman what course he means to take with reference to these Bills. I now come to the Scotch Business, about which I know the Members from Scotland take a very great interest, and in reference to which they are extremely anxious, if possible, that an intimation of the intention of the Government should before long be made. A statement was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate with regard to one of these Bills. I am not in a position to say whether that statement will facilitate further discussion; but, besides the Sheriff Courts Bill, to which he referred, there are the Poor Law Bill, the Prisons Bill, the Ecclesiastical Assessment Bill, the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and the Roads

  1633
  and Bridges Bill. Now, Sir, I have said that I am not going to press the right hon. Gentleman to make any statement as to which of these Bills it is the intention of the Government to proceed with, and which they intend to withdraw; but I think we have a right to appeal to the Government on one point. There was a very important measure which was introduced at the commencement of the Session—the Maritime Contracts Bill—and which we were informed was intimately connected with and even as important as the Merchant Shipping Bill, and we understood that both Bills were to be proceeded with together. No progress was made with the Maritime Contracts Bill, and a short time ago the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill was discharged without any Notice being given to the House of the intention of the Government. I believe also the Order for the Indian Legislation Bill was discharged, and I am not aware whether any Notice was taken of the proceeding. I think, however, it due to House that when the Government have made up their minds that important measures are not to be proceeded with, some intimation should be conveyed to House of the intention of the Government, and that we should not be left to find from an inspection of the Votes that the Minister in charge of the measure has come down to the House, and moved the discharge of the Order for that measure. The Government measures to which I have referred are not the only matters which will require a portion of the time at the disposal of the Government. The Government have contracted several engagements towards private Members, as to the fulfilment of which I think the House will be anxious to have some information. It is understood that as soon as the Papers on the subject of the recent negotiations on Turkish affairs have been presented to Parliament—and I must say here that there appears to have been a very considerable delay in their production—as soon as these Papers have been presented, and the House has had time to consider them, an opportunity will be afforded to the House for a discussion on Turkish affairs. There is also an understanding that a day will be given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) to bring forward his Motion on the subject of the Extradition Treaty negotiations. We
  1634
  have also been promised that an opportunity would be given to us to discuss, if we think proper, the mission of Mr. Cave to Egypt. And last, though not least, I have to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Indian Budget, with regard to which promises are invariably made in the beginning of every Session, but which generally share the same fate. I believe the discussion on the Indian Budget this year will be even more important than it usually is. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), has given Notice to call attention, on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair on the Indian Budget, to the effect which the depreciation in the value of silver has had on Indian finance, and I believe that that is a very proper opportunity to raise the discussion on this important question. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that the discussion on the Indian Budget will not be postponed as usual to the very last day of the Session. Whatever may be the intentions of the Government with regard to the prosecution of their own measures, I think we have some right to express a hope that they will take measures to fulfil the engagements they have entered into with the House with as little delay as possible, and that they will be able, as soon as the Committee on the Education Bill has been concluded to make arrangements that will enable us to discuss in good time the important matter to which I have referred. I beg to apologize to the House for having taken up so much of its time; but I feel at this period of the Session the House will be anxious to obtain all the information of the probable course of Business which it is in the power of the Government to give.
  MR. DISRAELI: The noble Lord is quite accurate in stating that I am generally disinclined to the precipitate giving up of Bills introduced to the notice of Parliament; because experience has taught me that, although the end of the Session may be impending, that very circumstance sometimes loads to a happy compromise which really facilitates progress, so that measures may be carried which at first blush may not appear in so promising a position. The noble Lord is also quite accurate in stating that any undertaking made by the Government for the discussion of public affairs will, I hope, be fulfilled, not only in the

  1635
  letter, but in the spirit; and I will endeavour to express to the House what is the course which I think we ought to pursue at the present moment. In answer to the first Question of the noble Lord as to what Business we will proceed with after the Committee on the Education Bill, I propose, without pledging myself to everything, to proceed first with the Prisons Bill, then with the two University Bills and the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, and I should be sorry if I cannot by the time when these Bills are passed appoint a day for the Indian Budget. The Indian Budget, being always an interesting subject, this year promises to be one universally so, and will require the consideration of a not thin House. On Monday, the 24th of this month, we propose to go into Committee of Supply in fulfilment of the engagement made by the Government that the Education Vote, on which we had an advance on account, should be considered in the month of July. Therefore we fulfil that engagement. On Monday, the 31st of July, we propose to go again into Committee of Supply, when the Vote respecting the Mission of Mr. Cave and the affairs of the Suez Canal will be before the House. That is another of the subjects on which the noble Lord considers, and justly, that we have promised an opportunity for full discussion should be secured to the House. With regard to the discussion on Turkish affairs and also upon the Extradition Treaty, of course the noble Lord and the House will see that I cannot at once fix an exact day. First of all, the Papers, I regret to say, are not yet in the hands of hon. Members, although I hope they will be within 24 hours or little more; but I will communicate with the noble Lord on the subject, and endeavour, with his assistance and concurrence to fix days for the discussion of these subjects convenient to both sides of the House. The noble Lord complains that the Maritime Contracts Bill and the Indian Legislation Bill have been withdrawn without Notice from the Paper. Now, I think the noble Lord is under a mistake in that respect. My memory is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the Maritime Contracts Bill, and my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, with regard to the Indian Legislation Bill, made statements to the House; and that ample Notice was given to the House of
  1636
  the intentions of the Government. With regard to other measures before the House, there are certain Bills which I may at once state it is our intention to withdraw—namely, the Valuation Bill, the Highways Bill; two Scotch Bills—namely, the Poor Law Amendment Bill, the Agricultural Holdings Bill; and the Patent Law Amendment Bill. I will not proced further in that vein at present. But I do not despair of making considerable progress in Public Business in the reasonable time we may estimate that yet attends us; but in doing that I must ask for the assistance of the House, and for that indulgence which has always been accorded to us—namely, the remaining Tuesdays and Wednesdays of the Session.
  MR. LOWEasked what the intentions of the Government were with respect to the Bill for amending the law relating to cruelty to animals?
  MR. DISRAELI: That is not one of the Bills that I have announced that the Government are prepared to relinquish.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what Irish measures the Government intended to proceed with this Session?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Besides the Bill alluded to by the noble Lord opposite—namely, the Irish Judicature Bill—there are one or two measures, relating specially to Ireland, of very considerable importance. With regard to those on the Paper to-night, I am in hopes that we shall be able to get through Committee on the Cattle Diseases Bill. It is proposed to discharge the Order respecting the Linen and Hempen and Other Manufactures Bill. The Juries Procedure Bill awaits further consideration in Committee, but I have reason to think that it will be practically unopposed. The Prisons Bill is an important measure, but its progress will depend in a great degree on the fate of the English Prisons Bill.
  MR. R. SMYTH: I have listened with some alarm to the concluding observations of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. It so happens that I have a Bill down as a First Order, indeed the only Order, of the Day for Wednesday, the 2nd of August—namely, the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill. That Bill, after meeting with many difficulties, has been read a second time by a considerable majority; and whilst I think

  1637
  it quite reasonable that the Government should appropriate to themselves those remaining days which private Members have selected for abstract Resolutions, I cannot admit that it is reasonable on the part of the Government to take a day which has been obtained for a Bill, that has already passed a second reading. I feel that I am helpless against the general feeling of the House. ["No, no!"] I do not feel myself altogether helpless on this subject as against the Government. If, however, it is the feeling of the House that the day should be given up to the Government I can only acquiesce with a good grace.
  MR. NEWDEGATEhad heard with sincere regret that the Government had determined to proceed with the Prisons Bill, because, in his opinion, it was a measure totally opposed to the policy hitherto pursued by the Conservative Party.
  MR. CALLANrose to Order. There was no Motion before the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he understood the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was about to ask a Question. Any discussion as to the merits of the Prisons Bill would be quite out of Order.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was about to ask the First Lord of Treasury whether he intended to proceed with the Prisons Bill that evening, since it seemed improbable that the discussion on the Education Bill in Committee would terminate at any reasonable hour. He trusted that the Government would not attempt to force the Prisons Bill through the House with any indecent haste.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought it right to inform the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), who was not present, had a Motion down for the 2nd of August relating to political prisoners. From what he knew of the hon. Member's sentiments, it would not be easy to persuade him to forego the opportunity of bringing on his Motion.
  MR. DISRAELI: I do not anticipate at present what will take place on the 2nd of August. It will depend upon the feelings of hon. Members generally at the time. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), although the Prisons Bill stands second on the Paper, I do not anticipate that it will be brought before the consideration
  1638
  of the House to-night. Of course, it will not be proceeded with at an unreasonable hour.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I should like to make one suggestion with regard to the Bill of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Smyth). I understand that it is a Bill about which the House may be said to be agreed. ["No, no!"] At any rate the minority is a very small one. When the Government assented to the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposed to submit some Amendments in Committee. I do not know in the least what those Amendments are; but whether the Bill is proceeded with further this Session or not, it seems to me that it would be a great advantage, considering that the question is one in which Ireland is very much interested, if those Amendments could be laid on the Table of the House; because, if the Bill cannot be proceeded with further this Session, it is desirable that those Amendments should be the subject of discussion before the House meets again next Session, when the Bill will be re-introduced.
  MR. CALLANwished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, considering the absence of Irish Members on the 2nd of August it would be desirable for the Government to place Amendments on the Paper to afford pabulum, for discussion by agitators during the Recess, and not for the consideration of the House?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that on the second reading of the Bill of the hon. Member of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Smyth) he expressed the opinion that it could not pass into law in its present shape, and that if it were proceeded with this Session, which he did not anticipate either then or now, it would become his duty to propose Amendments. If the right hon. Member for Birmingham gave Notice of a Question he should be happy to answer it.
  MR. SULLIVANcomplained of the conduct of the Government in the matter of this Bill. Irish Members had expected to have been met in a fair and conciliatory spirit, and now the Government would not tell them what Amendments they proposed to make. For his own part, he could only say that there was only a very small minority of Irish Members opposed to the Bill. ["Order."]
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he could not discuss the measure; if he wanted to put a Question he might do so.
  MR. SULLIVANmerely wished to impress upon the Government the necessity of dealing with the Irish Members in a fair spirit so far as this Bill was concerned.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDhad heard with great regret that the Government intended to withdraw the Valuation Bill. He felt that announcement the more keenly, because at the commencement of the Session he introduced a Bill on the same subject, which he withdrew in deference to the Bill of the Government. ["Order."]
  MR. SPEAKERInquired whether the right hon. Gentleman was about to put any Question?
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked if the Government would give him an opportunity on going into Committee of Supply of bringing forward a Motion in favour of the establishment, on a true uniform basis, of local and Imperial taxation?
  DR. WARDpointed out that the Irish University Bill was down for the 2nd of August, and the matter was an important one which had not been discussed for some years.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONbegged to give Notice, after what had taken place, that if the Government proposed to take Wednesdays for the rest of the Session he would do all in his power to oppose that Motion, and take a division upon it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state on what day he proposes to make the Motion to which he has referred, relating to Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I rather inferred that it was his intention to ask the House at once to give up Tuesdays and Wednesdays to the Government. So I presume that the right hon. Gentleman will make the Motion either on to-morrow or Monday. I ask the question, because when the House makes this sacrifice, it, to a certain extent, makes itself responsible for the management and conduct of business by the Government; and I think that it is a Motion which the House, if asked to agree to it, ought to agree to on full consideration, and upon being satisfied by the Government that the course they propose to adopt is a judicious one.
  MR. DISRAELI: I have not any intention to fix any day for the Motion, because I am not myself in favour of the Government availing themselves of the privileges of independent Members, unless there is a very general concurrence. If there is not that general concurrence, I think the Motion will only lead to debates which will retard the progress of Business. I threw out the suggestion rather with the idea that it would give hon. Members opposite an opportunity of paying a happy compliment to the Government.
  CAPTAIN NOLAN,referring to the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) said, Irish Members would be satisfied with the Tuesday evening if the Government took the morning.
  MR. A. BROWNsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper for Tuesday next, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether the Government intended to take that evening or not?
  MR. T. E. SMITHhoped that in the general arrangements ample opportunity would be found for considering the great changes made "elsewhere" in the Merchant Shipping Bill, after the pains taken by this Honse in the elaboration of its clauses.
  MR. ANDERSON,understanding that the Lord Advocate proposed to retain only the worst parts of the Sheriffs' Court (Scotland) Bill, advised the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the Bill altogether.

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  VISCOUNT SANDONmoved the following new clause (Amendment of 33 and 34 Vic. c. 75, s. 97, as to conditions of annual Parliamentary Grant)—
  "So much of section ninety-seven of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as enacts that the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain the annual Parliamentary Grant shall provide that the Grant shall not for any year exceed the income of the school for that year which was derived from voluntary contributions and from school foes, and from any sources other than the Par-

  1641
  liamentary Grant, shall be repealed as from the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven. After the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain the annual Parliamentary Grant shall provide that, (1.) Such Grant shall not in any year be reduced by reason of its excess above the income of the school if the Grant do not exceed the amount of seventeen shillings and sixpence per child in average attendance at the school during that year, but shall not exceed that amount per child, except by the same sum by which the income of the school, derived from voluntary contributions, rates, school fees, endowments, and any source whatever other than the Parliamentary Grant exceeds the said amount per child; and (2.) Where the population of the school district in which the school is situate, or the population within two miles, measured according to the nearest road, from the school is less than three hundred, and there is no other public elementary school recognized by the Education Department as available for the children of that district, or that population (as the case may be), a special Parliamentary Grant may be made annually to that school to the amount, if the said population exceeds two hundred, of ten pounds, and, if it does not exceed two hundred, of fifteen pounds; and (3.) The said special Grant shall be in addition to the ordinary annual Parliamentary Grant, and shall not be included in the calculation of that Grant for the purpose of determining whether it does or not exceed the amount before in this section mentioned."
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: said, that while the immediate boon to the schools of this new clause would be very slight, the effect would be dangerous both in its economical and educational aspect. Nothing could exceed the liberality of the House of Commons with regard to educational grants. In 1870, £500,000 was the amount moved for the annual grant; that was now increased by the noble Lord to £1,500,000. While the House would not grudge the money to be granted for such a purpose, he thought they should not give up any check they had upon that expenditure without good reason. That check was at present found in the locality being called upon to give as much as was supplied by the State, and the result was that local management was combined with central control. If, however, the contribution were unequally divided, and if the locality gave much less than the State, the danger was lest the local
  1642
  management should become so careless that Parliament might be compelled to interfere. The end might be that the State would be eventually inclined to do without local management, and our schools would then pass under a central or bureaucratic control. The present system furnished a strong stimulus to subscribe, and the more money was raised the higher was the capacity of the teachers obtained, and consequently a better education even in elementary subjects was given to the children in their schools. He was willing to admit that there was, to a small extent, a balance of disadvantage, in so far as it was an unpleasant thing to earn money, and then to have a deduction made from it. The Church schools were by far the largest in number, and he found that their total income ending August, 1875, was £1,867,000, which was made up as follows:—Parliamentary grant, £679,000; school-pence, £570,000; endowments and sundry other sources, £101,000; subscriptions, £517,000. Supposing that the stimulus to keep up the subscriptions disappeard, what must they expect to happen? There was nothing unreasonable in supposing that the fees would reach 4d., which upon the average attendance of last year of 1,185,000 children, would give £790,000, being an increase of £220,000. The noble Lord took the possible grant at 17 s. 6d. a child. If it reached that average the grants would increase by £358,000, and the result would be that no subscriptions at all would be necessary, and there would be £60,000 profit without them. He did not believe that the grant would reach 17 s. 6d., though it would probably reach considerably beyond what it was at present. The chief effect of the clause would be upon the larger schools. He would take a school of 300 children. It was by no means unreasonable to expect that each child would get an average grant of 15 s., thus realizing £225. Then, supposing that school not to get a larger fee than 3d., its total income would be £375. He had no hesitation in saying that a good school of 300 children could be liberally managed for £375, and consequently no subscriptions would be necessary for that school. Hon. Members might say, why should there be subscriptions? Simply because if they kept up subscriptions additional money would be raised, and the school would be a better school

  1643
  than it would be without them. What the Committee had to consider was, whether they ought to entrust the management of these schools to persons who really gave nothing but their time. Moreover, if one of these schools took advantage of all the extra subjects and tried to give a thoroughly first-rate education it would do so with a tremendous fine upon it. He thought that if no subscriptions were demanded there would be less educational interest and zeal displayed by managers, and that a great number of schools would become very little better than private adventure schools. This plan of the noble Lord if it fully succeeded and became extended throughout the country would, he believed, very much increase the religious difficulty. If it turned out that very large sums were given every year to denominational schools without any considerable amount of denominational subscriptions, persons who did not belong to the denomination would very much doubt whether that was the mode in which public elementary schools ought to be maintained. The sum represented by the deductions was small, amounting to less than £30,000 a-year, but to abolish them would be to establish a principle which, in the end, would, he believed, do much harm even to denominational schools. The noble Lord's proposition really meant that any diminution of voluntary zeal should be supplied by a State grant. Now, the Government in 1870 never supposed it to be the duty of Parliament to supplement by a State grant any want of voluntary zeal. It was in the nature of things that the existence of rate-supported schools should be a great blow to voluntary schools, because a man might fairly say—"By my subscription to voluntary schools I am really saving the pockets of my fellow-ratepayers who are as rich as I am, and who ought to pay their share." But if the result were less voluntary zeal, it was no part of the business of the State to supply the deficiency. He regretted, therefore, that a clause should be proposed which was not only not just, but which would, as he believed, be useless. The Bill with the Amendments courteously accepted by the noble Lord was a considerable progress in education, as well as a considerable boon to the voluntary schools; because the system of indirect and of direct compulsion now introduced by Clause 7 would be very
  1644
  nearly as strong a measure of compulsion as was contained in the bye-laws of any Board, and thus the Bill would do much to send children into the voluntary schools and to increase the school fees and grant. He wished the noble Lord had contented himself with giving this boon, a boon fairly earned, to the voluntary schools, and had not proposed a clause which could only be adopted at the expense of a very important principle.
  MR. HEYGATE,on the contrary, thanked the noble Lord for proposing a clause which would remove obnoxious and unreasonable deductions which had an irritating and depressing effect upon the mind of school managers far beyond their pecuniary value. The right hon. Gentleman argued that, if the clause passed, subscriptions might fall off and voluntary zeal would languish. But those persons who were best acquainted with the working of the Education Grant informed him that the result of abolishing these deductions, which only amounted to some £26,000, would be exactly the contrary of that suggested, and that subscriptions were more likely to be elicited than checked thereby. It was suggested that if the deductions were abolished, voluntary schools might live without any subscriptions, and would thus cease to be voluntary. But how could that be? In 1874 over £600,000 was contributed by voluntary subscribers, and how then could the additional £26,000 enable them to dispense with the £600,000. Then, again, as much as £14,000,000 had been spent, indeed, upon Church schools, but the hon. Member who had stated that fact omitted to mention that that sum represented only the cost of building them. That large sum represented an amount of voluntary effort, which had done an immense deal of good, and saved large sums of money to the ratepayers, and that should be favourably remembered now. The Report of the School Management Committee of the London School Board, presented on the 31st of May this year, estimated the average cost of each child at £2 15 s. 2d. But in the voluntary schools the average cost was £1 17 s. 1d. This 18 s. difference was due to voluntary services in the voluntary schools, and was as good as so much money in annual subscriptions, so that, even without taking subscriptions into account, they were still entitled to be considered as voluntary institutions.

  1645
  Payments by results with drawbacks was simply taking back by the State with one hand what it gave with the other, and that was a sort of thimble-rigging which people did not understand. Another objection to the system of deduction was that it fell heaviest on those districts which were least able to bear it. Schools in rich districts like Belgravia never lost a portion of the grant by these deductions, it was in poor places like Rotherhithe that the loss was felt. He entirely disapproved of the arguments used against the Bill, and gave the clause his most hearty support.
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, the clause proposed to give grants from the Imperial Exchequer entirely irrespective of the amount of the contributions of individuals or of the fees paid. Two months ago, when introducing the Bill, the noble Lord said it was not the intention of the Government to reverse the policy of1870, but the fact was that the clause in one respect—namely, with regard to the payment for elementary education—would very materially subvert the policy of that Act. The policy of the Act of 1870 was to spare the public money when it could be done without, to procure as much as possible from the parent, and to stimulate the generosity of those benevolent men who desired to assist their neighbours. Every one who read the Reports of the Council on Education would agree that that policy had been most successfully carried out. In 1871 the amount of voluntary contributions to the schools was £418,000, in 1874 it rose to £602,000, and in the first-named year the Government grants were £575,000, and in 1874 £1,050,000. The school fees also rose, showing that the parents were willing to respond to the action of Parliament. If the present clause were adopted, instead of stimulating private contributions the effect would be to diminish them, and in the course of a few years they would entirely cease. He then pointed out that if the latter part of the proposed clause, which gave a special grant of £15 per annum to a district where there were less than 200 inhabitants, in addition to the annual Parliamentary grant which might amount to 17 s. 6d., a total amount of 30 s. might actually be paid for each child attending school in such a district.
  MR. RITCHIEdenied that there was any truth in the view taken by the hon.
  1646
  Member opposite (Mr. W. Holms), that this clause amounted to a reversal of the policy of 1870. On the contrary, he maintained that this clause was drawn precisely on the lines of that measure. He denied, too, the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that it would increase the expenses of management, and lead to useless expenditure. On the contrary, some of the existing deductions were a distinct premium on extravagance. The grant earned was reduced if the sum spent on maintenance was not double the amount of the grant earned, and this led in many cases to money being expended really unnecessarily in order to obtain the amount of the grant without deduction. This I call a premium on extravagance. There was nothing in the principle of payment by results that was objectionable; and he maintained it as an indisputable fact that the squeezing out of voluntary schools, which was going on in many parts of the country, would lead to a considerably increased expenditure, and that the ratepayers had, from a merely pecuniary point of view, a large interest in their maintenance. At present about 8s. per year per child was paid by the friends of voluntary schools, and that amount would be withdrawn from educational means, and the ratepayers be charged with a great additional burden if these voluntary schools should be closed. As an addition to the sum subscribed voluntarily which would fall on the rates if denominational schools were transferred to boards, the cost of education in board schools, while not more efficient than in the denominational schools, was much more costly. This extra cost would also have to be borne by the ratepayers. Any clause like the present, which tended to encourage local voluntary effort, ought surely to receive the support of Parliament. With regard to what was called the religious difficulty, he could only say that he regarded the maintenance of voluntary schools as the only guarantee that the children of the country would be brought up in any knowledge of religion at all. As long as the Conscience Clause was carried out there could be no cause of complaint from any religious denomination, nor any violation of conscience; but there would be a violation of conscience if they said to a parent who was anxious that his children should receive a reli-

  1647
  gious education—"You must send your children to a school in which, whatever they are taught, they will receive no religious instruction." He believed that the great majority of the people of the country were in favour of the maintenance of the voluntary schools, because it enabled them to obtain for their children a religious education which was suited to their every day lives.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, if the clause passed, school managers and masters would soon be enabled to adapt themselves to it, and when they did there would come all the dangers the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had pointed out. It would give the school managers a temptation to raise the fees, and the effect would be that the interests of the poorer children would be sacrificed. The clause allowed new sources of revenue to enter into account for the first time. Endowments did not count formerly as local subscriptions, but they were to do so now. Under the present Code they had been used for raising the character of the school, and for giving higher education; but under the new clause endowments would be merged in the private subscriptions, and would not have the same effect that they would formerly. They would find that as school managers and masters would adapt their schools to the conditions of the clause, voluntary subscriptions would fall off, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consequently have to render greater help to schools. Virtually the proposal of Her Majesty's Government amounted to a reversal of the policy adopted in 1870, which, as explained by his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, who was then First Minister, was not intended to interfere, and in operation had not interfered, with free private contributions; and he trusted hon. Members would consider the matter very deeply before they accepted a provision which would lead to the waging of a new war with denominationalism. The House always attached great importance to experience, and he would therefore give them an experience. They were going to bring their schools into the condition of the schools of Ireland. In regard to those schools, the State paid almost all the money, the subscriptions being of a very trifling amount. The result of the State paying for the education was that school committees existed only in
  1648
  name, and sometimes not at all, and that, as their substitute, there was merely a denominational manager appointed as correspondent to the Commissioners of Education in Ireland. The effect of this was that the schools did not attract interest in their localities, and did not obtain subscriptions. Was this the position they were to come to in England? He denied that it was to the interest of those who now called their schools "national" to make those schools no longer national but denominational adventure schools. The raising of the war of denominationalism would, he contended, be an injury to the cause of education and a great injury to the voluntary schools. The clause would handicap the schools that gave high class education, so that it would be impossible for them to give that education. It would be far easier to the managers to raise the fees than to keep the subjects of education high. The experience of schools of this character in Scotland was that the teaching of higher subjects raised the whole level of the school. It would be very unfortunate, therefore, if a clause like that before the Committee were allowed to become law, as it would have an undoubted tendency to extinguish the higher subjects in schools. For these reasons, he trusted the clause would not be pressed.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, one of the recommendations of the new clause was its simplicity, whereas the former clause was very complicated. The new clause had now been two days before the House, and he did not think the Committee were unprepared to deal with it. The right hon. Member (Mr. Lyon Play-fair) seemed to have overlooked the fact that in Ireland the Government had imposed education upon the country instead of fostering a system which had grown up there, so that the position of the two countries was entirely different. He also seemed to have forgotten that at present many schools were supported by the fees of the children and the Government grant. What peculiar right had managers of those schools to manage them? The parent and the State were alone the contributors. What would be the effect of making any new restriction as to subscriptions? He had made a calculation with respect to certain British, Wesleyan, and Roman Catholic schools, now supported entirely by fees and the Government grant, showing the sum

  1649
  which would have to be raised by each if the Resolution of his noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) as to subscriptions was adopted. His calculation was as follows:—Risca British School, £21 6s. 4d.; Liverpool Roman Catholic Practising School, £54 2s. 1d.; Pits-o'-the-Moor Wosleyan, £52 12 s. 1d.; Rochdale, Clever Street British, £40 14 s. 7d.; Rochdale Wesleyan, £59 13 s.; Wandsworth Road, Belmont Baptist, £52 17 s. 3d.; Grimsby Wesleyan, £67 6s. 4d.; Exeter Protestant Dissenting Charity British, £13 11 s. 5d. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) talked about an average fee of 4d., but at present the fee was 2d. in the country and 3d. in the large towns, and even those amounts were considered high. Surely the right hon. Gentleman was too sanguine in his estimate. Objection was made to the 17 s. 6d. limit, but after consultation with the Treasury he found it necessary to impose that restriction. When a school assumed a different character it would be necessary that it should get higher fees or subscriptions. At present there was an unequal pressure between the board and the voluntary schools. They must not overlook the fact that this limit had no action whatever on the board schools; but on the voluntary schools it had an immediate effect. The object of the Government was to hold the balance fairly between the two kinds of schools. He could not understand the objection that the Inspectors would no longer work these schools up to the same standard. There was such a thing as a Code passed every year, and if they found there was any decay in the intellectual character or acquirements of the schools a tremendous screw would be put on to see that proper results were obtained. It was a mere dream to suppose that the great mass of the schools would be supported by fees and by the Government grant; for the fact was that a great deal of voluntary effort would be needed. He could not understand why the proposal now made should increase the religious difficulty. Their only desire was to do what was fair and right to all existing schools, and to redress the grievances which were now felt very seriously by many voluntary schools. So far as he was able to judge of the temper of the country in all directions, they were not prepared for the sake of a
  1650
  very small increase of the Imperial grant to see the voluntary schools extinguished because the balance was not held fairly between them and the board schools. He believed this clause would give a large amount of freedom to teachers and encouragement to schools, breathing into many of them fresh life; and he hoped the Committee would adopt it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid that, looking at average attendances, the fees in many cases were close upon 3d. a-week.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, it seemed to be taken for granted that only secular instruction was given in board schools. The religious instruction given in the London board schools was quite as good as that given in any voluntary schools, and there was only one place, Birmingham, where religious instruction was not given in board schools; but the special reason for that was that the Nonconformists generally had formed themselves into a society for the very purpose of giving religious instruction, and if there were any children left without religious instruction it was because the clergy of the Church of England, with one or two honourable exceptions, had refused to enter board schools. It was admitted by the Vice President that there were many places in which the fees were excessively low, and that parents ought to be encouraged to pay high fees; but in proportion as the grant was increased, a temptation was created to keep down fees. There were other objections. As a labourer in calculating the wages he ought to have, would include the school pence he had to pay, if the fees were kept down artificially by an increase of grant, that would be a direct payment in aid of wages. As, further, what was now contributed out of rates might in future be contributed out of the Government grant, there would clearly be a subsidy in aid of the rates, which explained the popularity of his proposal with hon. Members opposite. The broad objection to the clause was, however, that stated by his right hon. Friend—that it would enable a school, in many cases, to be conducted with little or no local effort at all. The religious question was raised by this clause, because in the case of a denominational school carried on by grants and fees, part of the latter being perhaps

  1651
  paid by Guardians, the increase of the grant would be a direct subsidy of the religious education, which would not be, in any sense, paid for by voluntary subscriptions, as all the instruction, religious and secular, would be paid for out of public money. The proposition which he had placed on the Paper, which he thought it convenient to explain at this stage, was that no public elementary school should receive any payment from the annual Parliamentary grant unless the money arising from the subscriptions or rates amounted to at least one-sixth part of the total annual income of the school; it would apply to both voluntary and board schools alike. He desired that there should be no inducement to the Government to shovel out the public money in a reckless spirit to the schools in the country districts. Let them, at least, on his side of the House, not be accused of re-opening this difficult question. The responsibility lay with hon. Members opposite, and the day might come when parties were not as parties were now, when they would repent having done so.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 100: Majority 85.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he protested against the sub-section of the clause, as it had been always understood that every school that fulfilled the conditions of the Code should receive the public grant; but this clause would introduce a new principle into the system under which the public elementary schools had hitherto been dealt with.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEmoved at the end of the clause to add the following sub-section:—
  "If in any public elementary school the income arising from subscriptions or rates do not amount to at least one-sixth part of the total income of such school, there shall be deducted from the annual Parliamentary grant payable to such school a sum equal in amount to the difference between the said one-sixth part of the total income of such school, and the said income arising from subscriptions or rates."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Act of 1870 was welcomed as an attempt to rescue the minds of children throughout the country from clerical influence. The Bill, however, introduced a new system.
  MR. A. MILLScalled the hon. Member to Order for entering into the general question when the Committee had before it a particular Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough appeared to be travelling rather wide of the subject under discussion.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that denominational education was not only ignorance, but injurious ignorance, and the Bill sought to promote denominational education. Its details had been kept back till the end of the Session. The Prime Minister told him last Session that circumstances might arise when certain laws existing in this country against Jesuits—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was clearly travelling from the subject before the Committee.
  MR. WHALLEYwas sorry he had not been allowed to finish his sentence. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would find, within his own Cabinet, everything that he (Mr. Whalley) understood by what was called Jesuitism. ["Order."]
  THE CHAIRMANhoped the hon. Member would withdraw this expression.
  MR. WHALLEYwould of course withdraw it at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman, but protested against the Bill as one which, in its promotion of denominational education, was most retrogressive and a gross insult to the common sense and experience of the country.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsupported the Amendment moved by the noble Lord the Member for Calne. He was loth to put a restriction upon any special schools; but he considered that as the Bill now stood it would become necessary.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 130: Majority 47.
  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he rose to oppose the addition of the clause to the Bill. It opened up a question of so much importance that after the attempt to amend the clause in some slight degree had been defeated, he did not think they ought to allow the clause to be added to the Bill. In point of fact, it involved a reversal of the policy of the Act of 1870. The point to which he was most anxious to draw

  1653
  the attention of the Committee was one in which, personally, he felt a very deep interest. The clause proposed by the noble Lord was a breach of the compromise entered into in 1870. He had the honour of a seat in the House at that time, and of taking part in the discussions and divisions which took place upon the Education Bill of 1870, and he might remind hon. Members that when they came to consider the details of that Bill they were met by two very great differences of opinion. On the one hand, there was a very large number of Members who were anxious that there should be a national system of education promoted on a basis upon which all persons could concur, and that there should be no interference with religious rights. On the other hand, there was a large number of Members who were in favour of the existing denominational schools, and who urged that it would be unreasonable to pass any measure the effect of which would be to deal harshly or unjustly with denominational schools. If in 1870 they had been in a position to deal with the education of the country as though they were dealing with a sheet of white paper, they would, no doubt, have been able to frame a system which would have been uniform in its character, and comprehensive in all its arrangements. But they had no such sheet of white paper, and they could not shut their eyes to the existence of the denominational schools which had sprung up all over the country under the grants from the Committee of Council. Most of them belonged to the Church of England. He would not attempt to deny that the Church of England was to be very much praised indeed for the large sums of money which that Church and its members had subscribed in support of its own denomination; but it ought to be remembered that although the Church had subscribed a large sum of money it had also received the lion's share of the grants of the Committee of Council, and that during every year in which the Minutes of Council had existed a large proportion of the money granted by Parliament for the purposes of education had been handed over to Church of England schools. Hon. Members opposite would say—and it was perfectly true—that if the Church had had these large contributions from the State, the Dissenters might have been in a similar position if they had voluntarily con-
  1654
  tributed as much. But there was a wide contrast between the circumstances of the rich and powerful Church supported by the State, and the struggling efforts of poor and detached Dissenting bodies, who had to maintain their Churches entirely out of their own resources. It would be seen at once that, although the Dissenters were as anxious to promote national education as anybody, they had not had the means of raising the funds to the same extent as the Church of England. Having been frequently in communication with the Dissenters, he knew they looked with great jealousy upon the large proportion of the funds granted for educational purposes which was enjoyed by the Church of England; and when they came to pass the Act of 1870, they had to ask from the Dissenters a still further concession. As a Legislature they could not treat denominational schools as if they were non-existing. Parliament felt that it was bound to recognize their existence and to treat them with consideration and justice. The Dissenters, although there were great differences of opinion among them, still, in the main, had much sympathy with the difficulties of Parliament, and the result of the discussions in 1870 was, that they yielded to a compromise that denominational schools should be continued. It was to all intents and purposes a compromise; and it was a compromise which was the result of considerable discussion and many divisions. It was also a compromise that was accepted in a great degree by a large number of the moderate minded men in the country, although it was looked upon with some dislike by the more extreme Dissenters. It was, however, accepted generally; and he thought it was a very grave matter for the noble Lord, by this clause, to seek to disturb it, and to propose an arrangement which, he was quite sure, would give much dissatisfaction to those who, out-of-doors, had yielded to it. Perhaps it was as well that he should tell the House why it was that a number of hon. Members with whom he acted in 1870agreed to accept the compromise proposed by the late Government. They believed that, while the arrangement was just and fair in relation to denominational schools, it did open up a prospect that the board schools would be gradually established throughout the country, and that to a great extent the board schools would absorb the denominational schools. To

  1655
  a considerable extent there had been an absorption of denominational schools, and what had been done in that direction had been of positive advantage to the country. He did not sympathize with the idea expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they could not have religious instruction unless they had denominational schools. He believed that in many of the board schools religious instruction was provided, and he would be sorry indeed if it was excluded. In most of the board schools under the Conscience Clause there were the reading of the Bible, and instruction in the main truths of religion, and he thought it was possible to devise a great public school system of that kind. If they could have public schools in which the children of all denominations could commence their life by learning together the great lessons that would fit them for future struggles, such a spectacle was not only in idea an admirable one, but in its effects upon the national character would be found to be of immense advantage. If in our large schools they were to banish all sectarian feelings of rivalry or animosity, he thought they would do much to promote the spread of the best form of education. That was his opinion, and if the effect of the Act of 1870 had been gradually to absorb the denominational schools, and to cover the country over with school boards, he thought it would be of great public advantage. He therefore supported a measure which, while it did justice to the schools connected with the various denominations, did not put a barrier in the way of the adoption of a system which he considered would be better for the interests of the country. If, then, they had been willing that the terms of the Act should be such as to give certain advantages to denominational schools, those who were anxious to see the denominational schools supported ought to be content with the advantages which they obtained under the Act of 1870, and should not attempt now to disturb the compromise which was then entered into. He had refrained from voting in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) lest it should be taken to mean that denominational schools should be compulsorily withdrawn from the management of the church and denominational committees and handed over to committees of a public character. He
  1656
  believed that such a course would be an act of injustice to the managers of denominational schools. This clause, however, went as much in the other direction, and it seemed to him the effect of the clause would be to place denominational schools upon an equal footing with board schools, to give them additional strength and to increase their numbers. He contended that that was an arrangement entirely contrary to the compromise of 1870, and he therefore felt bound to resist it. The noble Lord said that denominational schools were handicapped in their struggles with board schools. It seemed to him (Mr. Rylands) that they ought to be so handicapped. The only excuse under which they could reasonably come to Parliament to ask for large grants of public money for denominational schools was that they were voluntarily supported. If they were relieved from voluntary support, then there was no argument at all why it should not be claimed that they should be put under public management. Just as he thought the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr was unfair in one direction, so he contended the proposal of the noble Lord was unfair towards the Dissenters. He was fully alive to the difficulties which many very excellent clergymen had experienced in raising subscriptions for their schools. In many of the country districts, good clergymen interested in education experienced the utmost difficulty in raising the necessary funds. They went to the neighbouring landlords and farmers, and had the greatest possible difficulty in screwing out of them a sum sufficient to support the schools. These gentlemen were, no doubt, in circumstances of great difficulty, and he dared say that they were constantly pressing on the Education Department the necessity of giving them relief. But he was of opinion that the only proper relief to give them was to place them under a school board, in order that the adjoining property might be rated and the owners compelled to support the schools instead of creating a charge upon national funds towards which all classes—Dissenters as well as Churchmen—were required to contribute. The proposal contained in the present clause was a gross injustice, and involved a most unfair arrangement, and the sooner these schools, which were receiving so much support, were put under

  1657
  public management the better. He had offered no undue opposition to the present Bill. Upon certain great principles he went with the noble Lord. He was not one of those who wished to banish religion from the schools, and he did not wish to carry out any extreme views in regard to national education; but as far as the arrangements were made in 1870, and as far as they had been fairly accepted by Dissenters, he would be no party to placing them in a worse position than they occupied under the Act of 1870. For these reasons, he was prepared to oppose the proposition that the clause should be added to the Bill.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, it appeared to him that many points had been ignored or overlooked in this discussion. As to the compromise alleged to have been effected, the principle was actually invaded in 1872. It was found that, however excellent the intentions of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), the provisions of the Act were not hereafter workable. There might be a deficiency of subscriptions for some good schools; but if this Bill were passed into law, he believed that voluntary subscriptions would increase. In thinly-populated districts the voluntary subscriptions would be found especially necessary, and in every three or four years some unexpected emergencies must arise, such as an epidemic, or the illness of the master or mistress of the school. He trusted his hon. Friend opposite would cease to set Nonconformists and Churchmen in such constant opposition. He had hoped that the right hon. Member for Bradford and the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), even if they could not accept the Amendment of the Vice President of the Council, would have suggested some mode of remedying the inequalities of the present system.
  MR. J. K. CROSSpointed out that under that clause and other provisions of the Bill, so-called voluntary schools would receive support from the rates and also 17 s. 6d. per annum for each child from the Government.
  MR. WHALLEYobserved, that this question was agitating Europe at the present moment, and it was owing to the dexterous management of the noble Lord that the public were not so much excited on the gravity of this question as it was in other countries. The Church of England was utterly degraded and put into
  1658
  an unworthy position by the policy which the Government recommended. The Church of England ought to rest in her pulpit. She ought not to descend to these poor little innocents and try to squeeze into their little brains the Athanasian Creed. There was no comparison between this country and Scotland on this question, because the national character of England was compromised, scandalized, and degraded by the conduct of her clergy—a set of Sepoys. ["Order."]
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYasked if the remarks of the hon. Member were in Order.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the remarks of the hon. Member were entirely beside the Question.
  MR. WHALLEYwas much obliged to the Chairman for keeping him in Order, but he was about to point out that our schools to whom these grants would be made were quite equally with our pulpits most remarkable spectacles of what he understood to be Jesuitism. The clergy, sustained more or less for the purpose of promoting what we called the principles of loyalty and Protestantism, supported by an enormous revenue, established the voluntary schools he supposed to carry out their views. They were not to be relied upon to deal with our children behind the pulpit, for it was as much as we could do to manage them for their conduct in the pulpits. ["Order."]
  THE CHAIRMANrose to Order, and pointed out that the Question before the Committee was that this clause should be added to the Bill. If the hon. Member did not keep to the Question, he must appeal to the Committee to support his decision.
  MR. WHALLEYalmost ventured to think it better that the Chairman should make such an appeal than that he should be restrained from uttering what he believed in his own conscience it was his duty to utter, to see if it were possible to make his voice heard even through that triple barrier, the reporters' gallery. He would not put the Chairman to the test though. He had before absented himself from the House rather than be restrained from speaking on this question in obedience to his feelings and English instincts, and did not return until he was invited back by the authorities. The passing of this clause would be a most outrageous exercise on the

  1659
  part of the Government of the powers and authority they had by their majority. Their conduct was the most retrogressive and the least honest—["Order"]—of those who advocated—
  THE CHAIRMANmust point out to the hon. Member that the expression which he had just used was not customary. He hoped that it would be withdrawn.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Surely any Member of this House is perfectly justified in saying the conduct of a Ministry is dishonest. I think it is a right we have. I do not say it was wise to say this in the present instance, but we have this right, and if I thought the Government were acting dishonestly I should claim the right of asserting that they were doing so.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield might have heard such charges made in his experience in that House; but so far as his (the Chairman's) experience went, he had not heard them put with such directness of language; and he thought the practice of Parliament rather was to veil a charge of this sort in words rather less offensive.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that he did not say "dishonest" but "least honest," but he would withdraw the words.
  MR. NEWDEGATEthought it was quite necessary Members should be allowed to call a spade a spade, and on the present occasion he was happy, in vindication of the freedom of debate, to endorse the expressions of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, after Clause 24, to insert the following clause:—
  (Power to authorise appointment of school attendance committee by urban sanitary authority.)
  "On the application of the urban sanitary authority of an urban sanitary district which is not a borough, and which is co-extensive with any parish or parishes not within the jurisdiction of a School Board, containing according to the last published Census for the time being a population of not less than five thousand, the Education Department may by order authorise the sanitary authority of that district to appoint, and thereupon such authority may appoint, a school attendance committee as if they were the council of a borough, and that committee, to the exclusion of the school attendance committee appointed by the guardians, shall enforce the provisions of this Act in the sanitary district, and be in that district the local autho-
  1660
  rity for the purposes of this Act, and on the requisition of the parish but not otherwise shall make bye-laws as such local authority, and all the provisions of this Act shall, save as before provided with respect to the making of bye-laws, apply accordingly as if the sanitary authority were the council of a borough.
  "Provided, That the expenses (if any) of a school attendance committee appointed by an urban sanitary authority shall be paid out of a fund to be raised out of the poor rate of the parish or parishes comprised in such district, according to the rateable value of each parish, and the urban sanitary authority shall, for the purpose of obtaining payment of such expenses, have the same power as a board of guardians have for the purpose of obtaining contributions to their common fund under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor, and the accounts of such expenses shall be audited as the accounts of other expenses of the sanitary authority.
  "Any bye-laws in force in an urban sanitary district, or any part thereof, before the appointment of a school attendance committee by the sanitary authority of such district shall continue in force, subject nevertheless to be revoked or altered by the school attendance committee of the sanitary authority.
  "Where an urban sanitary district is not a borough, and not wholly within the jurisdiction of a School Board, and is not within the foregoing provisions of this section, the urban sanitary authority of that district may from time to time appoint such number as the Education Department allow, not exceeding three, of their own members to be members of the school attendance committee for the union in which the district or such part thereof not within the jurisdiction of a School Board is situate, and such members, so long as they are members of the sanitary authority, and their appointment is not revoked by that authority, shall be members of the school attendance committee, and have the same powers and authorities as if they had been appointed by the guardians.
  "Where a School Board is appointed after the commencement of this Act for any parish which forms or comprises the whole or part of an urban sanitary district in which the school attendance committee is appointed by the urban sanitary authority, such school attendance committee shall, at the expiration of two months after the election of the School Board, cease to act for the urban sanitary district, and the school attendance committee appointed by the guardians shall be the local authority for so much of the urban sanitary district as is not under the School Board.
  "All bye-laws in force at the expiration of the said two months shall continue in force, subject to being revoked or altered by the local authority, in pursuance of section seventy-four of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,'as amended by this Act."
  The noble Lord, in explaining the object of the clause, said it was a very important one. There were a good number of towns which, though they had no municipal institutions, were still very large urban communities, having populations ranging from 40,000 to 8,000;

  1661
  and without some such clause as this those large urban communities would be treated merely as units on the Board of Guardians, having only single representtatives there, the effect of which would be that great urban communities would be managed virtually by their rural neighbours. The Government had to contend with considerable difficulty in dealing with this matter, because of the old difficulty of the areas for rating. They had found that they could not adopt urban sanitary districts universally, but they had been able to adopt it in certain districts. They had found that a large number of these urban communities happily coincided with civil parishes; and therefore they proposed in this clause that, where the urban district coincided with one or more civil parishes, the urban district should appoint its own school attendance committee. The limit of population was adopted in such cases—namely, where it was not less than 5,000. In those local improvement districts, which did not coincide with several parishes, it was proposed, where the population exceeded 5,000, to give the urban authorities power, with the assent of the Education Department, to appoint so many members of the Board of Guardians as would fairly represent the districts upon the school attendance committee.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYfeared that the effect of the clause would be that one-half the parishes would have bye-laws, and the other half would have none—a state of things which would lead to confusion. He moved an Amendment to insert after the word "guardian," in line 9 of the clause, the words "and the urban authorities may make bye-laws, and."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the objection to the Amendment was that in making bye-laws for enforcing compulsory attendance it was important, as far as possible, to act in accordance with public feeling. Now, the urban sanitary authority were not elected ad hoc with a view to the passing of educational bye-laws, and it would be forcing things too far to give them this power without testing the feeling of the parish in some way. Moreover, a requisition from the parish was the principle adopted in a previous clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the principle which, the noble Lord wished
  1662
  to adopt for urban sanitary authorities had been adopted for Town Councils, who would act upon their own discretion, though they were not elected ad hoc. There was no sufficient reason for making a distinction between the two bodies.
  MR. ROEBUCKpointed out that though urban sanitary authorities were not now elected for the purpose of passing these bye-laws, at every election after the passing of the Bill they would be elected ad hoc. The chief objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore fell to the ground.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that all the matters of changes of area were very difficult, and the Government would consider the matter and state what course they would adopt on the Report.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment upon this understanding.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, after Clause 25, to insert the following clause:—
  (Returns by local authority (although not a School Board.)
  "The local authority under this Act (although not a School Board) shall send to the Education Department such returns and information respecting their proceedings under this Act, and respecting matters on which School Boards can be required under 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,'to make returns, as the Education Department from time to time require."
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. WHITWELLmoved, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—
  (Copy of time tables, &c. to be supplied to local authority.)
  "The managers of each public elementary school receiving a grant of public money shall, on the first day of June in every year, supply to the clerk of the existing local authority of the school district in which it is situated, whether it be a school board or board of guardians, or the council of a burgh, a copy of the time table or tables that has or have been in use in such school during the year immediately preceding, together with a nominal roll of the children who during that period have availed themselves of the conscience clause for the purpose of being absent from religious instruction during the time such has been given in any such school."
  VISCOUNT SANDONopposed the clause on the ground that the local authority had nothing whatever to do with the internal management of voluntary schools, and that the proposition was the first step towards giving them the management of those schools.
  MR. WHALLEYthought it most essential that the manner in which these schools, supported as they would be in a great measure by the rates and the Government grant, ought to be known to the local authority.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ONSLOWmoved, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause:—
  (Compensation in case of reasonable non-attendance.)
  "If the court shall consider that the parent of a child has shown reasonable excuse for non-attendance, the court may at its discretion grant to the parent such a sum of money to cover the necessary expenses and loss of day's wages as it may think fit, such moneys to be paid by the summoning authority."
  VISCOUNT SANDONdid not think it necessary that the magistrate should have such a power. The matter would be in the hands of the Guardians, and they were not likely to be too hasty in summoning parties.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUthought there ought to be some power to grant compensation in certain cases.
  MR. WHALLEYalso contended that there ought to be such a power, and that magistrates ought to be entrusted with it.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEmoved, in page 4, after Clause 10, to insert the following clause:—
  (Provision for blind and deaf-mute children.)
  "The School Board, or other local school authority of any union, parish, or place, may, in its discretion, provide for the reception, maintenance, and instruction of any person being blind or deaf-mute in any hospital, school, or institution established, or to be established, for the reception of children suffering under such infirmities, and may pay the charges incurred in the conveyance of such children to and from the same, as well as those incurred in his or her maintenance, support, and instruction therein; and the said School Board or other school authority may provide for the maintenance and instruction of such child, in every case where there may be special circumstances rendering it advisable, by giving money for that purpose; Provided, nevertheless, That, in respect of any such child, during the period it shall be at school, payment of money for the
  1664
  purposes of this section shall not be deemed to be parochial relief given to the parent, or person in loco parent is, of any such child, nor shall such parent or other person, by reason of any money given under this section, be deprived of any franchise, right, or privilege, or be subject to any disability or disqualification."
  The hon. and learned Member urged the helpless condition of this unfortunate class if left without education, and their liability to become paupers if the special education they required was beyond the means of their parents and guardians, while such special education placed them in a comparatively independent position, enabled them to earn their own living, and saved them from becoming permanent paupers, and thus costing the State far more than it would cost to make them useful members of society. He also urged that the parents of these children paid rates and taxes like other people, and yet they, who most required. State aid in the education of their children, could receive no State aid at all and obtain no education for them, because no provision was made for such education. When the Act of 1870 was introduced, it was alleged that provision was intended to be made for the education of every child in England. If this were so, why should these two classes be unprovided for? Experience had shown that voluntary assistance alone was not sufficient to cope with the matter.
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he felt a strong desire to benefit these poor children, but the question was how the expense should be defrayed. He had devoted a long time to the consideration of the subject, but had not been able to see his way to the solution of the difficulty. The care and education of pauper children who were blind or deaf and mute devolved upon the Guardians, and there were admirable private institutions for others, supported by voluntary subscriptions. He hoped the Committee would not enter on these large outside subjects in discussing an Education Bill.
  MR. MUNDELLAexpressed his disappointment with the answer of the noble Lord, and hoped that he would

  1665
  still consider the propriety of giving the local authority a permissive power to educate this class of children, who, of all others, had special claims upon the sympathies of the country. He believed that in Sheffield provision was being made at the present moment for the education of these children.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, the London School Board had taken the subject up, and if it could be done under the present law, he did not see the necessity of a permissive clause in this Bill.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, if school boards had the power, why not extend it to the local authorities?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, Guardians could already pay for the maintenance of pauper children of this class in special institutions; but it was a very large question whether local authorities should practically take charge of all those unfortunate children, whether of the pauper, or non-pauper class.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEreplied that he wanted some provision for the education of mutes who were not paupers and whose parents contributed to rates from which they could now receive no benefit, on the ordinary principle of securing the education of all children capable of receiving it, Government itself having, as he contended, clearly conceded the principle of such education. It was very hard to be told—as he was practically now being told—that the Poor Law authorities had nothing to do with this class, whatever the Education Department had; and when in turn he appealed to the latter Department, to be then told that no provision could be made by this Bill, especially as he (Mr. Wheelhouse), as would be well recollected by the House, had already more than once endeavoured to pass a Bill which he thought then, and still continued to think, would have solved the difficulty had it been accepted.
  MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, these children had as much right to education as any other class, and something was already being done for them in Scotland.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKobserved, that the House was about to take a great deal of trouble and spend much money for the children who could see, and they therefore might take a little pains and go to some expense for the unfortunate children who were blind.
  MR. MUNDELLAappealed to the noble Lord to consider the question upon the Report.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhoped the noble Lord would not by his sympathies be led into a course which would divert the Bill from its primary object as an educational measure.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that the Government had a keen sympathy for these poor children, but they could not do everything that was wanted in one Bill. The subject had been considered by the Department, but they did not see their way clearly to make provision for these children in the present measure.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 223: Majority 169.
  MR. MUNTZmoved, in page 4, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Expense of providing industrial school may, with consent of Home Secretary, be spread over a term of years.)
  "Where a School Board have incurred or require to incur any expense in providing an industrial school, they may, with the consent of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, spread the payment over such number of years not exceeding fifty, as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State, and may contract a loan for such purpose in the same manner as if the said industrial school were a public elementary school; and for this purpose the provisions of section ten of 'The Elementary Education Act 1873,' shall be held to apply to such loan, and the First Schedule of 'The Public Works Loans Act, 1875,' shall be held to include such work."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the principle of this clause was acted upon by school boards at present, only the proposal of the hon. Member made the manner of carrying it into effect clearer.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. PELLmoved, after Clause 21, to insert the following Clauses:—
  (Dissolution of School Board where no school house or site, and district has sufficient public school accommodation.)
  "Where application for the dissolution of a School Board is made to the Education Department by the like persons and in the like manner as an application for the formation of a School Board, under section twelve of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,'and the Education Department, are satisfied that no school and no site for a school is in the possession or under the control of the School Board, and that there is a sufficient amount of public school accommoda-

  1667
  tion for the district of the School Board, the Education Department may, after such notice as they think sufficient, order the dissolution of the School Board.
  "The Education Department by any such order shall make provision for the disposal of all money, furniture, books, documents, and property belonging to the School Board, and for the discharge out of the local rate of all the liabilities of the board, and such other provisions as appear to the department necessary or proper for carrying into effect the dissolution of the board.
  "The Education Department shall publish the order in manner directed by 'The Elementary Education Act, 1873,'with respect to the publication of notices, and after the date of such publication or any later date mentioned in the order, the order shall have effect as if it were enacted by Parliament, without prejudice nevertheless to the subsequent formation of a School Board in the same school district. All bye-laws previously made by the School Board shall continue in force, subject nevertheless to be revoked or altered by the local authority under this Act."
  (Provision where School Board possesses any property or has incurred liabilities.)
  "An application for the dissolution of any such School Board as aforesaid shall, if the School Board possesses any property or has incurred any liabilities, he accompanied by a draft scheme, passed by a resolution of the ratepayers in the like manner as the resolution for the application was passed, for the transfer of such property and liabilities to, and the future management of the school by, such authority or body of persons as may be willing to undertake the same on terms to be mentioned in the scheme.
  "The Education Department shall take the application and scheme into consideration, and may make an order allowing the same, with or without modifications, and containing provisions for the dissolution of the School Board, and if necessary for the vesting of the property of the School Board and the discharge of their liabilities out of the poor rate of the parish, and for the issue of precepts for that purpose to the overseers by the board of guardians of the union within which the parish is situate, and such other provisions as may appear to the Education Department necessary or proper for carrying such scheme into effect, or they may make an order disallowing the application and scheme; but an order allowing any such application and scheme shall not come into operation until three months from the date of such order, nor shall such order come into operation at all if within such period of three months a resolution is passed by the ratepayers, in like manner as the requisition of a parish to guardians for the purposes of this Act, to the effect that it is not desirable that such order should come into operation."
  MR. MUNDELLAopposed the clauses on the ground that they were re-actionary. He could scarcely think that the hon. Member was in earnest in proposing them, because some of the most valuable
  1668
  school boards in the country were those which had no schools under them. If the Government adopted them, hon. Members on that side of the House would feel justified in using every resource in their power to resist the Bill.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONexpressed a hope that the Committee would not allow itself to be deterred from passing the clause by the threat of obstruction which had just been held out by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). He (Mr. Egerton) thought that hon. Members on his side of the House could not justly be charged with being re-actionary, as not only had the Act of 1870 been passed, as a compromise, in a very different form from that in which it was introduced, but the example had been set by some hon. Members opposite, who had not ceased disturbing the Settlement of 1870 by agitating for the compulsory formation of school boards. He thought they were justified, when the time came, to review the whole subject, after an experience of six years, in attempting to remedy the defects of the former Act by every means in their power.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment that had been proposed. It would not be easy to make an alteration in the existing law more likely to have an ill effect on the cause of education. School boards had enormously increased the amount of education all over the land. They represented hard work as well as devotion to the cause of education, and they had regard to the old municipal principle and greatly encouraged education in the districts in which they were established. They could not have done the good which they had done without exciting some opposition, and the Amendment would subject them to an incessant agitation against their very existence, which must weaken their hands and make it difficult for them to do their work. He could not conceive a greater delusion than the idea that there was any necessary connection between school boards and secular education. The great hope for education was that it should be fastened upon the municipal action of each place, and that the inhabitants should feel that it was their business and duty to promote it, and that they ought to elect bodies for the performance of that duty.
  THE O'CONOR DONdid not see the objections to the clause in the same light as his right hon. Friend. This clause would not apply to cases where sufficient provision was made for education. These school boards were called into existence when there was no other local machinery for enforcing education; but now other local bodies had powers similar to those of school boards. If the proposals contained in this clause were adopted the school boards would not be done away with, and it was only in cases where they had not been successful that the provisions of the clause would apply. He trusted the Government would not reject the clause.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, it was right that where it was found that a school board was not wanted, power should be given to get rid of it. He believed that applications had been made to the Education Department, but the answer had been, "No, the school board is there, and it is eternal." Why should such boards be continued when they did not serve any useful purpose? In many cases school boards had been originated from merely party motives, and without reference to the professed object. There were, he believed, many school boards which did their duty well; but, on the whole, he believed there was great dissatisfaction throughout the country, and it was time to give the public power to dispense with them when they did not fulfil the objects for which they were appointed. He could not conceive what there was in this proposal to excite a feeling of alarm.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHTsaid, he was surprised to hear an hon. Member opposite say that this proposition was not at all of a re-actionary character. He was sorry that hon. Gentlemen did not understand what they were supporting. The right hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken had told them the whole story. He condemned school boards because he thought that they were not sufficiently religious, although he admitted that in some cases they were not doing so badly in regard to religious instruction. It was quite clear that if there was any force in his argument he would want to carry it much further, and propose the dissolution of all school boards. ["No."] That was the clear tendency of his argument. Could there be anything more absolutely and completely re-actionary as
  1670
  regarded the Act of 1870? The Parliament of that day had municipal corporations and Boards of Guardians all over the country, and if they thought proper they could have adopted the recommendations of this Bill and have given school powers to committees of corporations and Boards of Guardians; but they thought it much wiser to have a special board for the purpose, and that special board was the School Board. The hon. Member said there were 530 school boards without schools.—[Mr. Pell: 530 where they have no schools.]—There were a great many of these school boards which had not been at work sufficient long to provide the schools which were necessary in their district. There were many other school boards who had not thought it necessary to build schools because they could take them over all ready. In Rochdale, where he lived, the school board had not had occasion to build a single school, though it had been in operation since the Act of 1870, but it had taken over several schools. These schools were under board management, and were practically board schools. If they adopted this clause they would hand over the powers of the school board to committees of corporations or committees of Guardians; but these would not have power to take over schools. It would therefore be a great misfortune to take away the boards. The right hon. Member who spoke last said there was great dissatisfaction throughout the country with the working of the school boards. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD: I do not think I said that. On the contrary, I said that there were school boards which discharged their duties well.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHTsaid, it was clear from the cheers which had been raised on the benches around the right hon. Gentleman that he (Mr. Bright) was not alone in his conception of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Bright) did not think that it was possible to prove that there was any great dissatisfaction, any general dissatisfaction, or any dissatisfaction worth while to name in connection with school boards. There might be Gentlemen who complained of the rates. Hon. Gentlemen had for the last five or six years exercised their political influence in stimulating hostility to the rates. Though there might be a feeling

  1671
  of that kind, there was a general admission that the institution of school boards was the right thing for Parliament to do, and was one of the best things Parliament had ever done. It might be admitted that there were many school districts which would rather like to get rid of school boards, and run their chance of whatever might happen, to save a halfpenny or three farthings on the rate, and under this clause they would have the whole question re-opened in every district where the smallest minority was dissatisfied. Was it worth while, was it necessary to try and overturn—for what was the real object of this clause—the system which Parliament deliberately adopted in 1870, which was in concurrence with all that they had done with regard to their municipal institutions, and which, he held, had worked admirably throughout the country? The enormous value of the school boards had been shown by the statements of the noble Lord, and he confessed he was astonished, considering how much hon. Members were now prepared to support public and national education, that an attempt should be made to overthrow that system which was deliberately established in 1870, and which the universal concurrence of opinion throughout the country and all the facts and figures before Parliament had shown to be so good. He would undertake to say—without desiring to state what hon. Gentlemen opposite would say was a menace or an expression of undue indignation—that he believed if the clause were to pass it would be felt throughout the country by the warmest supporters of education that a great blow had been struck against the Act of 1870, and that the noble Lord had, in obedience to influences which he ought to have resisted, consented to what he ought never for a moment to have thought of surrendering. He hoped the Government Bill might do the good which the noble Lord expected. He (Mr. Bright) was not what might be called a fanatical supporter of very strict and rigid compulsion. He sometimes was of opinion that there were persons so enthusiastically in favour of education that they worked—he did not wish to call it their hobby—because it was a great wish for the public good which actuated them—but he sometimes thought they were too strenuous in urging a compulsion
  1672
  which might be very unwise, and almost oppressive. He did think they had adopted a system which had produced great good, and from which the next generation would gather enormous fruits, and he hoped the noble Lord would not assist in strengthening prejudices which, in obedience to the interests of the country, he ought to the last resist.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTwas rather surprised that the right hon. Gentlemen, with all that clearness of perception he generally displayed in that House, had failed to appreciate the real question before the House. It was not that school boards should be got rid of absolutely and compulsorily. He could not support a clause having that object in view. He agreed that the Act of 1870 had done a great deal of good, and the school boards in many places had proved of inestimable value; but if the majority of the ratepayers should come to be of opinion that a school board had done its work, or that it would be better for the parish that it should be dissolved, why should they not have power to get rid of it, it was simply a question for the ratepayers.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRhad no doubt that school boards at present produced a good deal of agitation in the election of members. What was proposed to be substituted would increase that agitation ten-fold, for minorities in the course of time became majorities, and they would have another fight, and thus there would be an incessant agitation throughout the country for school boards or no school boards.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he had listened to the discussion with great interest, and he did not think that was one of those occasions on which it was necessary for any one to get excited. If the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) thought they were going to abolish school boards, he could understand his feelings; but the Government never entertained any such idea, and they would not think of assenting to it. There was no reason, however, why the place which had once elected a school board should be saddled with it for all time. If they wanted to get rid of it they ought to be allowed to do so, and to act otherwise would be to go contrary to all their English ideas of reform. The result would be that if this power were not granted in the Bill that the minority

  1673
  would govern, the majority, and they would compel people to elect a board they did not want to elect. He held they ought to consolidate and strengthen existing local authorities, whether they were Boards of Guardians, Improvement Commissioners, or Town Councils. He might illustrate what would happen if a remedy were not applied by relating a story of what happened to him soon after he came into office. An hon. Member opposite came to him in great perturbation, and said that in his little village of about 200 or 300 people they had elected a school board and put a school under it, but they had got tired of this, taken away the school, but they could not get rid of the school board. "There it is," said the hon. Gentleman, "and they all attack me for having set it up in the village." The Act of 1870 did not give any power to deal with the case; but at last the members of the school board absented themselves for six months from the board, so that all the notabilities of the village were disqualified for all time from sitting on a school board again. When the three years expired, however, they had to go through the farce of an election, and they had to work the Act although opposed to compulsion. Having adopted the principle of popular consent in governing all these matters as the basis of the Act of 1870, he did not see how in opposition to popular feeling they could persist in upholding machinery which had been already superseded. The first part of the proposal of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was one deserving of the greatest attention. He was not afraid of being told that this was a reactionary measure, for it was no such thing. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to the fact that he (Viscount Sandon) had defended school boards. He had done so, but it was not necessary that he should champion unnecessary school boards. Two years ago he had stood up for many school boards in the exercise of the principle of compulsion, and he had resisted the attempt to forbid a locality to have a board which desired it. What he said was this, that the popular voice that created the board should have the power to dissolve it—but only in case the board had no school of its own, and, in short, no duty to perform. The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) seemed to
  1674
  think that the Motion involved a complete dissolution of school boards, but that was not the case. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the thing must be worked gradually; but was greatly surprised to hear him speak so warmly in favour of the present school boards. He was not at all surprised that the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) should have done so, because school boards were his own creation, and he (Viscount Sandon) admitted that they had done a great deal of good. He would remind the right hon. Member for Birmingham that in the year 1873 he had condemned the mode of electing school boards, and added that no free breeze of public opinion passed through them, but only the unwholesome atmosphere of sectarian exclusiveness. That was important testimony. He (Viscount Sandon) confessed that although he stood up for school boards where they had work to do, and had done it in Sheffield, in London, in Liverpool, and in several other places he could not put his hand upon then, yet if he found that there were some boards in the country which the ratepayers wished to get rid of, and where the existing local authorities would carry out the work better, he should not think the proposal of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire could be fairly objected to. The Government were prepared to accept the first part—but only that—of his hon. Friend's clause.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHTexplained, in reference to his speech delivered in 1873 that his objection to the mode of the election of school boards was confined to the cumulative vote. He regretted that the noble Lord had attempted no reply to the objection he (Mr. Bright) had made, that the authority which would be substituted in all places where school boards would be abolished would be an authority that could not build a school if one was wanted, and could not take over any school which the authorities connected with that school might think it desirable to hand over to a public authority. The noble Lord was proposing to substitute a partial and incompetent power for that which was competent and impartial, and on that account the Committee should not support this Amendment, which, so far, was clearly re-actionary.
  MR. C. HOWARDthought it would be a great misfortune if they were to impose the task of dissolving school boards upon persons appointed for a very different purpose, and who might be very fit to perform the duties connected with the vestry or country district for which they were elected, but who might not necessarily be most interested in conferring the benefits of education upon their neighbours.
  SIB HENRY JACKSONsaid, that although the Amendment had stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) for some time, it had only just been accepted by the Government. It was, therefore, to some extent a surprise upon the Committee and the country, and as it was desirable that the Committee should have longer time to consider it, he moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Jackson.)
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that at that hour he would not oppose the Motion. He wished to repeat that the Government had only accepted half the Amendment—namely, that which allowed a school board to be dissolved where they had no school. The other half of the Amendment they had refused to adopt.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
  POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.
    [BILL 186.] SECOND READING.

      ADJOURNED DEBATE. [22nd June.]
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHproposed that the Bill should be read a second time pro formâ, and added that he would then place upon the Paper certain Amendments which he believed would meet the objections to it which had been raised on behalf of the manufacturing interest.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think that this course ought to be assented to, and therefore he moved that the debate be further adjourned.
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,whilst sympathizing with the President of the Local Government Board in his desire to pass the Bill, could not agree that what he proposed would be a proper way of dealing with so important a subject. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think it was only a matter affecting a few manufacturers, and that because he had made an arrangement with them, the nature of which was not known, the House had no further concern in the question. The Bill, however, was one involving the interests of the public. It proposed to create a new local authority, as if we had not enough of local authorities already. That was a principle which the House ought not to assent to without further discussion. In his opinion, it was utterly impossible that a question of so much importance could be treated in that manner.
      MR. DILLWYNprotested against the House being now asked to assent to a measure which had been re-modelled in conformity with some Lobby arrangement.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmaintained that the course proposed by his right hon. Friend was not an unreasonable one, unless there was a desire on the opposite side of the House to obstruct the Bill. This matter had been long under the consideration of Parliament, and a very considerable amount of time and attention had been bestowed upon it. Objections to the Bill had come from a particular class of persons in the country, the Government had endeavoured to meet these objections; and all that was now asked was that they should simply place upon the Table the Bill in the form in which they intended to proceed with it.
      MR. GOSCHENreminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer that very little time had been spent on the Bill in the way of debate and discussion in that House. If the Government chose to give precedence to the Prisons Bill over this measure, they could not fairly charge the Opposition with wishing to obstruct Public Business.
      MR. RIPLEYremarked that the President of the Local Government Board was willing to grant such concessions as would tend to make the Bill beneficial to the country, at the same time that it would not injure manufacturers; and he therefore trusted that the debate might not be adjourned.
      MR. TENNANTtrusted that the Bill would be read a second time, its principle having been repeatedly discussed.
      MR. MACDONALDsupported the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
      Motion agreed to.
      Debate further adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  CATTLE DISEASE (IRELAND) BILL.
  [BILL 94.]
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  CATTLE DISEASE (IRELAND) BILL.

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th May.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Mr. BIGGARasked, Whether, since there were Amendments to this Bill, it could be proceeded with now, after half-past 12?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it was quite competent to proceed with the Bill.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that many Irish Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had expressed themselves as willing that the Bill should be proceeded with that evening.
    On Motion, That Clause 5 (Effect of order) stand part of the Bill?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, this Bill was not at all called for. It was only supported in Ireland by the large graziers and cattle salesmen, and it would injure the interests of small farmers. As this clause would put the Bill in operation by means of the Poor Law Guardians, he would move its rejection.
    MR. BUTTsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken in thinking that the large graziers in Ireland wanted this Bill. It had been seen in Ireland that it would be of great advantage to them if they could establish confidence in England in the store cattle exported from Ireland. This would be the result of the Bill, and he was especially anxious that one of its objects—the establishment of an efficient inspection at the ports of debarkation in Ireland—should be attained. This might lead to the abolition of inspection in English ports. He had some Amendments himself, which he would reserve,
    1678
    on the Report. He thought that the cost of this inspection should be borne by some general fund, and not at the expense of the unions.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHassured the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Biggar) that there was no intention on the part of the Government to place on the Boards of Guardians the duty of paying Portal Inspectors, though he did not know that he could hope for aid from the Imperial Treasury. The powers given to the Boards of Guardians were distinctly powers in addition to those already possessed by the Lord Lieutenant.
    THE O'CONOR DONnever liked this Bill, and in Ireland there was no demand for it. The greatest hope he had in regard to it was that in nine-tenths of the country it would be a dead letter.
    MR. MURPHYconceived that the Bill would achieve for Ireland a vast advantage in restoring confidence in Irish cattle in English markets. Six hundred thousand cattle were annually imported into England from Ireland, and Englishmen would be satisfied if they knew that in Ireland the same precautions would be adopted under this Bill as were now adopted in England.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 6 agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Appointment of Committees).
    Mr. BIGGARobjected to the authority therein given to Boards of Guardians to delegate their powers, and moved an Amendment accordingly.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHassented to leaving out the Proviso, if the feeling of Irish Members was against it.
    Proviso struck out.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Clause 8 (Appointment of Inspectors and other officers).
    On the Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Amendment made authorizing the Boards of Guardians to revoke appointments of Inspectors, but requiring them after such revocation to make another appointment so long as required by the Lord Lieutenant.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 9 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

    1679
    Clause 13 (Mode of payment of compensation).
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved, in page 5, line 5, after "union," to insert—
    "Provided always, That in case it is proved to the satisfaction of said Chief or Under Secretary that any animal in respect of which compensation has been paid by the treasurer of any union was, within seven days immediately preceding its slaughter, brought into such union solely for the purpose of being shipped to some place out of Ireland, or sold at a fair, and that the owner or person in charge of such animal has not been guilty in relation to such animal of any act in contravention of any order, regulation, or licence made or granted under the principal Act or this Act, then such Chief or Under Secretary shall, by order, direct payment to such treasurer out of the moneys for the time being in the Bank of Ireland, to the credit of the Cattle Plague Account, of the whole of the moneys certified to have been paid by way of compensation in respect of such animal."
    Proviso agreed to.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHpromised to consider before Report the subject of the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. Butt's) clauses, providing that the Bill should not extend to animals brought into Irish ports for being again exported there from, and for the regulations as to exportation of animals.
    Preamble agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  TOLL-BRIDGES (RIVER THAMES)
  (re-committed) BILL—(Bill 219.)
  (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur, Sir James Clarke Lawrence, Mr. Forsyth, Sir Henry Peek, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Sir Charles Russell.)

  TOLL-BRIDGES (RIVER THAMES)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. SPEAKER: My opinion having been asked whether this Bill could properly be proceeded with, seeing the extent of the alterations made in the Bill by a Select Committee, I have to state, for the information of the House, that it has been held that the Amendments made to a Private Bill by a Select Committee ought not to be so extensive as to constitute a different Bill from that which has been read a second time by the House. This is not a private
    1680
    Bill, but as affecting private interests, it has been dealt with as a quasi-private or hybrid Bill. It cannot be questioned that the Amendments are of a very extensive character; for the Preamble and the clauses have been completely changed, and both in form and substance it is a new Bill. But the circumstances under which this Bill has been considered by the Committee are peculiar. Early in the Session a Bill was introduced for throwing open the Metropolitan Toll Bridges. But the second reading of this Bill was postponed to a later period; and, in the meantime, the whole subject-matter of the Bill was referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. When that Committee had reported its recommendations to the House, the Bill was read a second time and committed to a Select Committee, nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection. To this Committee were referred the Reports of several Committees on the subject, including the Report of the present Session recently made to the House. These circumstances are certainly exceptional. The House deferred the second reading of the Bill until it had received the Report of its Committee, and in committing the Bill to a Select Committee seemed to indicate the scope of the Amendments to be considered by a reference to previous Reports. This proceeding was indeed in the nature of an instruction to the Committee, which permitted a greater latitude of Amendments than is generally allowable. In view of these special circumstances, the House may probably not consider that the Committee has so far exceeded its powers as to require the withdrawal of the Bill. There is, however, a question affecting the Standing Orders which ought not to be overlooked. After the first reading the Examiner reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with. The Committee has since made Amendments affecting private rights and interests, and I would suggest, for the consideration of the House, whether the Bill as amended should not be referred to the Examiners to inquire how far the Standing Orders have been complied with in the Amendments made by the Committee.
    Order discharged.
    Bill, as amended, referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to inquire whether the Amendments involve any infraction of the Standing Orders of the House.
    Leave given to the Examiner to sit and proceed forthwith.

    PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. William Henry Smith, Bill to amend "The Public Record Office Act, 1838," ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Henry Smith and Mr. Attorney General.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 262.]

    CIVIL SERVANTS SUPERANNUATION (UNHEALTHY CLIMATES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. William Henry Smith, Bill to make further provision respecting the Superannuation Allowance to be granted to Civil Servants serving in unhealthy climates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Henry Smith and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 263.]
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.