Commons Sitting of 28 July 1876

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Deedes, esquire, for the Eastern Division of the County of Kent.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Police (Expenses) Act Continuance* [268].
Report of Select Committee—Metropolitan Gas (Surrey side) [No. 384].
Committee—Elementary Education [155]—r.p.
Committee—Report—Savings Banks (Barrister)* [269]; Slave Trade* [270]; Saint Vincent, Tobago, and Grenada Constitution* [253]; Pollution of Rivers (re-comm.)* [272–276]
Third Reading—Juries Procedure (Ireland)* [261]; Superannuation (Unhealthy Climates)* [263]; Winter Assizes* [245]; Poor Law Rating (Ireland)* [156], and passed.
Withdrawn—Metropolis Gas (Surrey Side)* [204].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY (INDIA)—FURLOUGH AND RETIRING REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL JERVISasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, as in accordance with the Furlough Regulations of 1796, medical officers of the Indian Army who had serveda period of twenty years or upwards were entitled to reckon three years' furlough to Europe out of such period towards service for pension, and that by the Furlough Rules of 1868, Ch. 3, rule xxxiv., published by the Government of India, 10th November 1868, No. 1064, those officers were informed that—
"If an officer under the Furlough Rules of 1796 elects the present rules, his service for pension will be reckoned under the former rules up to 1st July 1868, and thenceforward under the rules of 1868"
—in consequence of which statement many officers did elect such Furlough Regulations of 1868 for the remainder of their service—he can explain the al-
6
teration made in Rule xxxiv. of the Regulations of 1868, republished by the Government of India 25th February 1874, No. 171, that—
"All periods of leave out of Indian limits taken previous to 1st July 1868 will be wholly excluded from his service for pension,"
and, how it came to be made retrospective in regard to those who had elected on the faith of the rules as published in 1868?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the Indian Army furlough regulations and retiring regulations are two distinct things. Under the retiring regulations of 1796 a certain minimum of years' actual service in India was required, and leave to Europe did not count as actual service in India. For instance, a man who had served 20 years, of which 17 were actual service in India, could retire upon a pension, not because he had 20 years' gross service, but because he had served 17 years actually in India. Under the furlough rules of 1854 and 1868 more favourable conditions were granted to officers, and a certain amount of leave of absence according to length of service was allowed to count "as actual service in India." An officer who, being under the furlough rules of 1796, elected the rules of 1868 would be in this position as regards pension—up to 1868 only his actual service in India would count towards pension, after 1868 a certain amount of leave of absence, according to his rank, would count as actual service in India. The question is rather a complicated one; but no alteration has been made in the rules of 1868, and the notice merely explains a previous notice.

PUBLIC HEALTH—IMPURE AND DEFICIENT SUPPLY OF WATER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BROWNasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been directed to the polluted condition of the water supply for domestic purposes in some of the rural parts of the Country, and what step he has or intends to take to remedy the evils?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman had been prevented the other evening from bringing that very important subject under the notice of the House, as he

  7
  should then have been glad to reply to him in greater detail than he should be permitted to do in answer to a Question. His (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) attention had undoubtedly been directed to the polluted condition of the water supply in some rural districts of the country—first, by the greatdistress occasioned by the Water Famine in 1874; secondly, by the constant Reports he had received as to the mischief arising from the inadequate supply of water and its polluted condition in some parts of the country; and thirdly, by a deputation of a very influential and important character, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). That deputation desired that the Government should appoint a Royal Commission on the subject. The matter had been very carefully considered, but they had come to the conclusion that no Royal Commission was necessary, as already they possessed ample information. The hon. Gentleman asked what steps he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had taken or intended to take to remedy the evils. He had passed two Bills through Parliament on the subject, in each of which greater facilities had been given to authorities both rural and urban for the supply of water. In 1874 powers were given for the purchase of water rights, and in 1875 those powers were increased; the sanitary authority being enabled to acquire those rights outside his district with a view to conduct water purchased elsewhere to places within their district. The rural sanitary authorities were rapidly awakening as to the necessity of exercising those improved powers. In the year 1873 no larger sum than £1,992 was sanctioned by the Local Government Office to be raised by loan in the rural districts; in 1874 that amount had increased to £16,628; in 1875 to £31,274; and in the current year, so far as it had gone, £23,000 had been sanctioned to be raised for the same purpose. These sums were large relatively to the necessities of different localities, some of which required only two or three hundred pounds. Further, he had framed and introduced the Pollution of Rivers Bill—the effect of which would be to give pure water to many rural districts. The amelioration of the condition of the large rivers would be a matter of more gradual progress.

OYSTER FISHERIES—HERNE BAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEMBERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, What course he intends to adopt with reference to the Reports of Mr. Walpole on the Herne Bay Oyster Fishery?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I have, as the hon. Members aware, deferred action in the matter of the Herne Bay Oyster Fishery pending the sitting of the Select Committee on Oyster Fisheries. Now that their Report has been presented, I have directed notice to be given to the Herne Bay Company that on the 30th of September next the Board of Trade will issue a certificate in accordance with the recommendation contained in Mr. Walpole's Report.

  THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY ACCIDENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has any information to give to the House respecting this accident; and whether, considering that this is the second fatal accident that has occurred to this train, he will consent to lay upon the Table the Report of Captain Tyler when it is made?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY:I have no information, Sir, to give the House about the Bristol accident beyond what has appeared in the papers. As soon as the news arrived Captain Tyler was telegraphed to go immediately to the spot, and I have a telegram from him that he went accordingly. The railway company sent me information, but nothing in addition to or differing from what the newspapers have given. I will lay before the House the Report I have got.

NAVY—H.M.S."THUNDERER."

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRIEVE (for Mr. ANDERSON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, in addition to the assistance of experts, he has arranged to allow the Gosport Coroner the expense of legal aid in the "Thunderer" case, so as to secure a complete and impartial inquiry?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that, as it had been found impracticable to arrange for the holding of

  9
  the inquest by any other person than the County Coroner, he had consulted his Colleagues as to the best course to be adopted, and it had been determined to place funds at the disposal of the Coroner to enable him to secure the attendance of a legal assessor, in addition to the professional assistance already granted as far as regarded a scientific knowledge of boilers. That had been communicated by letter to the Coroner, but with a notification that the choice of the assessor must lie entirely with him, so that the Government might have nothing to do with the inquiry.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CONSTABULARY GRANTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, How much money has been granted under the 38 and 39 Vic., c. 48, above the amount expended on the constabulary for the previous year?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that, so far as he could at present ascertain, the amount expended in the financial year 1875–6 was £1,205,245, and the grants for the present year 1876–7, were £1,241,472, showing an increase of £36,227.

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 27th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. RATHBONEmoved, in page 5, after Clause 12, to insert the following Clause—
  (Conditions of contribution to day industrial schools.)
  "The conditions of a Parliamentary" contribution to a certified day industrial school shall conform to the standards for the time being in force for the purposes of a Parliamentary Grant to public elementary schools; but they may vary the amounts of the contributions to be made in respect of such standards respectively.
  "Any conditions made by a Secretary of State for the purposes of contributions to a day industrial school shall be laid before Parliament in the same manner as minutes of the Education Department."
  New clause (Conditions of contribution to day industrial schools,)—(Mr. Rathbone)—brought up, and read a first time.
  10
  On Question, That the clause be now read a second time?
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he was requested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), to state to the Committee that he thought this would be a very good and useful clause. One defect of the present system was the want of similarity between the education given in industrial schools and in ordinary schools. The clause would give some security that these industrial schools would be used not only as refuges, but for the purposes of education.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he should be glad to accept the clause of his hon. Friend, both because he understood it met his views and the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had given much thought to this question, and because he thought some such provision was desirable, as he was himself anxious that a strict hand should be kept over these schools, so that they should be as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh had said—bonâ fide educational establishments, and not merely refuges for neglected children. It was possible, however, that the clause would need, on further consideration, some alteration in its wording; if so, it must be understood that he was free to make it on the Report.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,whilst assenting to the clause, must counsel the House to exercise the greatest caution in the matter. He must repeat, he was greatly afraid that these schools would be abused and would involve the country in great expense.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,said, he was of opinion that the wording of the clause would not carry out the intention of the Mover.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read the second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREmoved, in page 11, after Clause 29, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Religious education in schools supported mainly by Parliamentary grants and school fees.)
  "Wherever in any school the income derived from voluntary contributions and endowments shall not, on the average of two successive years, amount to one-sixth part of its total income, including the school fees and the Parliamentary grant, the Education Department shall give

  11
  notice to the managers of such school that it shall thenceforward be a condition of any Parliamentary grant to such school that no religious catechism or religious formulary which if distinctive of any religious denomination shall he taught in such school, and from the date of such notice no Parliamentary grant shall be made by the Education Department to such school unless such condition is fulfilled."
  The clause he had to submit appeared to be a necessary consequence, he might say a logical consequence, of the clause which the noble Lord added to the Bill last week, by which all restriction upon the Parliamentary grant to denominational schools was removed up to the extent of 17 s. 6d. That clause was, in his opinion, a most serious departure from the principle of the arrangement of 1871. The principle of that arrangement was clearly laid down by his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) in 1870, and was as follows:—"First, that the grant from the Education Department should be given only for secular results; and, secondly, that under no circumstances should the public grants be allowed so to operate as entirely to supply, together with the school pence, the sum necessary to support those schools, without there should always remain a void which must be filled up from private contributions, and without which, failing other sources of assistance, those schools would no longer deserve the character of voluntary." With this object the restriction upon the Parliamentary grant was inserted in the Act of 1870, which had now been repealed by the noble Lord. The restriction did not appear to have been wholly successful, as certain free schools had been enabled to escape through it, but their number was so inconsiderable that they might be neglected. Now, the effect of the noble Lord's clause, started upon the Committee at the last moment, would be enormously to increase the number of schools, which being called voluntary, and which being really denominational, would in future be wholly supported by Parliamentary grants or by school fees, and which would be able wholly, or nearly so, to dispense with private subscriptions. The object of his clause was to provide that such schools, when they ceased to be voluntary in the sense that they were no longer supported by private contributions, but were dependent, wholly or mainly, on State aid and school fees, should be no longer entitled
  12
  to the privilege of a voluntary character; that they should no longer be permitted to be denominational, but that they should come under the operation of the clause in the Act of 1870, which applied to board schools, and which went by the name of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), and that they should be compelled to be undenominational. Before, however, he dealt with the argument in favour of this course, he must be permitted to say a few words in proof of the statement he had made that the result of the noble Lord's clause would be to enable a large number of schools to dispense with voluntary contributions. In the first place, he must remind the House of what they were doing by this Bill. The object and purport of the Bill was to fill the empty benches of the denominational schools throughout the country, and especially in the rural districts. As a rule, these districts were now fairly supplied with schools. The schools were there, the teachers were there, but the benches were half empty. By the compulsory clauses of this Bill they hoped to add at least one-third to the number of children in average attendance at these schools. But if they added one-third to the number of children in average attendance, they would increase the Parliamentary grant and the school fees by one third. Then, again, they had given power to the Guardians to pay the school fees for parents who were too poor to do so. They had left to the managers the full power to raise the school fees, and this, coupled with the compulsory powers of attendance, would undoubtedly enable the managers to screw up the school fees. During the last five or six years already there had been a tendency to screw up the school fees, and in Church schools they had risen from an average of 7s. 11 d. to 9s. 2d. Lastly, they had done away with the restriction upon the Parliamentary grant up to 17 s. 6d. The present average grant on attendance was 12 s. in Church schools; those who were better acquainted than he was said that it might fairly be expected that the grant would rise to 15 s. What he said was, that the joint operation of all these measures would be enormously to increase the financial resources of the denominational schools, and to render a great

  13
  proportion of them practically independent of voluntary contributions. Let him take an average Church school in a rural district. Five years ago such a school relied in about equal proportions on the Parliamentary grant, school fees and voluntary subscriptions, and each of these amounted to about 8s. per head on the average attendance. During the past five years the Parliamentary grant had already risen greatly in proportion to the other two, and the school pence had also risen. The present proportions were, voluntary subscriptions, 8s. 4d.; the school fees, 9s. 2d.; and the Government grant, nearly 12 s. If they added one-third to the school fees and to the Parliamentary grant, they would obtain a sum of 7s., which was nearly the amount of the voluntary subscriptions, and with the increased Parliamentary grant, and with the power of raising the school fees, would practically dispense with the necessity for subscriptions in a large number of schools. Another way of looking at it was this—the total amount of the voluntary subscriptions for all the voluntary schools was £470,000. If the compulsory powers of this Bill were successfull, and if the average attendance in rural schools was raised to the same level as at Leeds and Birmingham, 600,000 children would be added to the average attendance in the rural schools, and 600,000 children meant an addition to the revenues of the denominational schools of £240,000 in school fees, and £330,000 to the Parliamentary grant, a total of £570,000, without any consideration of the addition to the grant by the removal of the restriction or the possibility of increasing the fees. He contended, therefore, that it was clear beyond all question that the resources of the denominational schools would be vastly increased by the Bill, and that a very large proportion of them would be able to dispense with voluntary contributions. It seemed to him that voluntary schools could claim a title to the name on two grounds—First, if the attendance was voluntary; Secondly, if they were supported by voluntary contributions. And so long as they were voluntary in this sense, they were entitled to teach what dogmas they thought fit; and it might be worth while for the State to assist them in teaching secular subjects. But when they ceased to be voluntary
  14
  in either sense, when attendance was compulsory, when they no longer relied mainly on voluntary contributions, they were no longer voluntary schools in any true sense of the term, they were practically State schools; they ought to be subject to State control; the State could not support them without being responsible for the religious doctrines taught in them; and for the same reason which had induced Parliament to forbid the teaching of any catechism or dogmatic theology in the board schools, it ought to interfere with the religious teaching of these schools. He had always felt utmost difficult to justify the proposal to compel Nonconformists to send their children to schools of a denominational character, even when such schools were supported by voluntary contributions; but how vastly increased the grievance was when these schoolswere wholly or mainly dependent on State aid and on school fees. He asked hon. Members whether they could expect that this system could last, or whether it would not give rise to an agitation to which that against church rates alone would compare. What he proposed was to provide beforehand for such cases£to deal with so-called voluntary schools, which might hereafter cease to be really voluntary schools, in the same way as board schools were now dealt with, and to provide that where the subscriptions did not amount to one-fourth part of the total income of the school, the Cowper-Temple Clause of the Act of 1870 should at once apply to the school, and that it should be a condition of the Parliamentary grant that no dogmatic theology should be taught in such schools.
  Clause (Religious education in schools supported mainly by Parliamentary grants and school fees,)—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  VISCOUNT SANDONobserved that there was one fundamental error in the statement of the hon. Gentleman, a statement he had often to contest—namely, that the Bill would apply principally to rural schools. It would not, and for this reason£ that the attendance was rather better in the country

  15
  than in towns, as he had shown over and over again; and the hon. Gentleman entirely overlooked what he had often called attention to before—namely, that the voluntary schools had a great claim to be considered in a different category from the board schools, not only because they received no aid from the rates, but because their supporters gave their in valuable voluntary management and oversight, and, even if there were no annual subscriptions, there was virtually a large voluntary contribution in the buildings themselves, on which a sum—estimated at about £13,000,000 sterling£had been spent from voluntary sources, besides the cost of annual maintenance and repair—the State having contributed less than £2,000,000. Again, the proposed change would affect board and voluntary schools exactly alike, and it should be remembered that there were a large number of struggling board schools in various places where the pressure of the education rates was much complained of, owing to the requirements of recent legislation and of the Department. With respect to the proposed clause, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that last night he announced, on the part of the Government, that they would not interfere in any way with anything that touched upon the religious question, and that announcement had been cordially received by both sides. The clause now proposed involved the religious question, because it would alter altogether the conditions of the Conscience Clause and of the Cowper-Temple Clause. Her Majesty's Government considered the religious question outside the four corners of the Bill, and he must, therefore, while prepared to answer the arguments of the hon. Member, adhere to the determination he had so expressed.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the noble Lord had a perfect right to pledge the Government to any particular course; but he had no right to say that on that side they ought not to propose or discuss any clause which they regarded as following legitimately from Amendments or clauses which had been already agreed to, even if it did touch upon the religious question. The Government had by the 13th clause of the Bill virtually given up voluntary schools. They would become mere adventure schools, supported by Government subventions. That clause would have a
  16
  most corrupting effect upon the localities, the schools would be converted into State schools, and he thought that the children in such schools had a right to protection under the Cowper-Temple Clause.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that the working men of Warwickshire had a strong feeling with respect to religious teaching, and prized nothing more dearly than the reading of the Holy Scriptures. He could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Reading, but protested against the decision of the Government to exclude religious teaching from their consideration, as he was of opinion that all education would be worse than useless if the youth of this country were not taught their duty to God as well as to man.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that for different reasons than those assigned by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), he could not support the clause. Its effect would-be to deny religious instruction to the poor schools and give it to the rich. The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Vicount Sandon) had, in the proposal, an excellent opportunity here offered him of injuring his enemy the Nonconformist, by accepting the clause and then laying the blame upon the hon. Member for Reading, for he (Lord Robert Montagu) believed that the majority of the British and Nonconformist schools would suffer from its adoption.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could not accept the declaration of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, that the decision to which the House had come on the previous night with respect to religious teaching was highly satisfactory to that House. Were those who insisted upon the reading of the Holy Scriptures to be treated as adopting a formulary? He did not like the manner in which they were proceeding. They were proceeding in the dark. What would be the result of giving State aid to denominational schools, without any guarantee on the part of the Government as to what the definition of "denominational schools" would be? It would be equal to concurrent endowment. He was not prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Reading, although he thought it went a good way in the direction of solving the

  17
  difficulty that had arisen upon the subject. He regretted that the clause of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford was not accepted. He was not indifferent to the value of the blind principle of compulsion in places where there might be only one school; but, as an advocate of religious liberty, he thought that in such cases some guarantee should be afforded that no religious teaching should be forced on the child contrary to the convictions of the parent.
  MR. RICHARDsupported the clause of the hon. Member for Reading. The objection which the Nonconformists had to sending children to denominational schools not subject to the school boards was that they were liable to be taught the Church Catechism. He did not wish to speak with disrespect of any formulary which had been adopted by any religious Body; but whatever might be the feeling of hon. Gentlemen opposite with respect to the teaching of the Church Catechism, the Nonconformists had a strong feeling against such teaching being forced upon their children. The answers returned to a circular issued by Mr. Bousted to about 300 Nonconformists of all denominations in Wales, showed that the feeling against the teaching of the Church Catechism was overwhelming. They believed that it taught a priestly and sacramental form of religion.
  MR. FAWCETTdeprecated the "cavalier" way in which the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had treated the able speech of the hon. Member for Reading. The Opposition had not raised the point under discussion, it was the Government who had forced it upon hon. Gentlemen upon that side of the House. They had a right to demand that there should be some guarantee that the religious education to be given in schools which had ceased to be voluntary, should be the same as when they were really voluntary. He contended that unless the Amendment were accepted the clause would, as had been observed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), practically establish concurrent endowment. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would never have thought of bringing forward his clause, if the Government had not absolutely and fundamentally altered the principles and
  18
  conditions on which voluntary denominational schools should exist in future. The object of the Bill was not simply to establish the principle of compulsion, but to give additional assistance to voluntary denominational schools. But by Parliamentary grants you virtually gave them a public character, and the object of the Amendment was, that where school was supported by the public money, it should not be allowed to teach peculiar religious Catechisms or formularies. That was a true principle, and he would support it. Any institution, be it a school or anything else, which was supported by public money, ought to have public management forced upon it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was quite aware that at present some few schools were supported partly by fees and by grants, but these schools were dealt with as school-board schools, and it could not but be expected that if the Government proposed to turn voluntary schools into State schools, that there should be a demand for State management. The Government made no answer to that argument last night, and to-day the only answer that had been given was, that last night there was an agreement that the religious question should not be discussed. Now, if there was such an agreement—and he did not know that there was—it was that no fresh religious question should be discussed. This religious question was imported into the Bill by the clause that had been passed, and especially by the manner in which it had been passed, and the strong form it had assumed. He could understand the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon) not wishing to have the question discussed, but that did not absolve him from giving an answer to the hon. Member for Reading.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould not undertake to say that there was any agreement on the previous night that the religious question should not be discussed, but there was a division which indicated the sense of the Committee upon the subject. The position of the Government was this—if the proposed clause were accepted, it would be enlarging the scope of the Bill. They would be bound to consider whether the clause did not impose arbitrary conditions on managers. In fact, they would

  19
  have to re-open the whole question. By so doing they would let in a variety of topics that could not possibly be considered.
  MR. J. K. CROSS,in supporting the clause, said they might ask who would be masters of the voluntary schools when those schools ceased to be voluntary and became denominational? The whole system of teaching and instruction would be altered, and while work might be increased school fees would be diminished. There was no doubt that public money would be applied for denominational teaching; but in his opinion the educational instruction, judging of the past, was very defective. Questioning the children categorically, their answers were very unsatisfactory.
  MR. WHALLEY,who spoke amid considerable interruption, said in moving to report Progress, that he did so out of deference to the impatience—he might say the legitimate impatience—of the Committee. He begged to offer as a reason for the Motion that the Amendment appeared to raise an entirely new question upon which it would be well that the Committee should have time to consider. It was that there should be some reasonable publicity given to the manner in which under this Bill public money was to be expended. ["No, no!"] If he was wrong, the observations which he made might, perhaps, be useful in reference to some other Amendment. The Government by the Bill were placing the clergy of the Church of England in an entirely new position before the law and the country. The clergy, in former times, kept the country as "a preserve" for their own benefit, but they did not instruct the children; beyond impressing them to do no harm. They were not allowed to think. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had taken his seat, because the observations he was making were worthy of his attention. Under what circumstances, he asked, were the clergy to be invested with the new authority proposed by this Bill? Under no justifiable authority that he knew. Under what circumstances were they now to be placed in a position to receive and be supported by local rates? Why, the clergy now did not really know their own opinions, and they did not even know each other's opinion. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"]
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLrose to Order, and said the Question the hon. Member was speaking upon had nothing to do with the clause under the consideration of the Committee. Surely the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were equally applicable to the case of "the unfortunate nobleman at present languishing in Dartmoor prison" as to the clause under discussion.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough was not addressing himself to the clause at all, but justifying his Motion to report Progress; and it would be as well if he would confine himself to the Motion, for many of his remarks appeared to be wholly irrelevant.
  MR. WHALLEYthanked the hon. Gentleman for his correction. The clergy of the Church of England—["Divide, divide!"]
  MR. E. J. REEDrose to Order. He was always anxious that the hon. Member should obtain a hearing in the House; but the time of hon. Members ought not to be wasted in this way by their having to listen to remarks having nothing to do with the subject-matter before the House.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again call upon the hon. Member for Peterborough to address himself directly to the question before the Committee.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he considered that new questions had been started by the raising of the discussion. He would not, however, trespass longer on the Committee, and would submit his Motion that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whalley.)
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, there was an anxious desire on both sides of the House to conclude the Bill that day if possible, so that they might approach other important questions, and also take a survey of their general position, and make such arrangements which he hoped would meet with the approbation of the House. He had hoped, therefore, that such a Motion as that proposed by the hon. Member for Peterborough would not have been proposed. He need not point out to the House how unreasonable it was, and he trusted to the good sense

  21
  and spirit on both sides of the House to support the Government in carrying on the business of the country.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERalso appealed to the hon. Member for Peterborough not to put the House to the useless trouble of dividing upon his Motion.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was willing to withdraw it.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the Motion had been only brought forward in consequence of the impatience shown by hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. If it was withdrawn he hoped that the interruptions which caused it would not be renewed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MUNDELLAbelieved that if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had been in the House when the hon. Member for Peterborough was subject to such interruptions, he would have excused the Motion which had been made, for he believed there was no one who wished more than the right hon. Gentleman that every hon. Member should have a fair hearing. With reference to the question before the House, he feared they were going to stir up a real religious difficulty, which would lead to agitation of the worst kind. He was afraid that by the adoption of the last two clauses the Government had given life and vigour to the Birmingham agitation. Why should there be an exception in favour of schools that could earn their own endowments? The money here was given open-handed, and Parliament was not to be informed what was to be done with it. The result would be that in many cases it would turn out that the money went to pay the choir, or was applied to purposes which ought to be effected by voluntary aid. He protested against granting money for which no account was rendered. If a school were State-supported it ought to be under State management and control. He feared they would be landed in a religious difficulty, respecting which every hon. Member, whether on the one side or the other of the House, would be called on by his constituents to give an account. He should like a Return which would show the total expenditure of every school in the country.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 185: Majority 74.
  MR. A. BROWNmoved, after Clause 30, the insertion of a clause giving the same power to local authorities with regard to educational endowments as school boards now had under the 13th section of the Act of 1873, and that if a school board were subsequently formed in accordance with that Act, such educational endowment should be transferred and managed by such school board.
  Clause (Local authority to have same powers as School Board with regard to educational endowments,)—(Mr. Alexander Brown,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  VISCOUNT SANDONpointed out that the House had already pronounced its opinion upon the proposition in the division upon the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). The Government then stated that it was a proposal they could not entertain.
  MR. A. BROWNsaid, his clause referred to endowments only, and not to the management of schools.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 187: Majority 79.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved in page 13, after Clause 37, to insert a new clause, providing that the managers of any school in receipt of an annual grant from the Education Department should annually produce an account showing in detail the income of such school from all sources. The object of the clause was to inform the localities how the managers of schools spent the fees received from the parents of the children.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he had carefully inquired into the matter, and he found that all the information required by the clause was supplied now to the Department as a condition of the Government Grant. The adoption of the clause would depart from the principle laid down by the Government, to which they attached, great importance, that the

  23
  local authorities should have nothing to do with the internal details of the schools which were under voluntary management. He could not assent to the clause. He intended further on to move an Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur), which would, to a certain extent, remove some of the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Reading.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the question raised was an. important one, but it would not be well to press it at that time. His hon. Friend had better renew the subject on Report, after the clause of the hon. Member for Leicester had been disposed of.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,on that assurance, begged to withdraw the clause. He could assure the noble Lord that he did not wish for the interference of the local authorities, but simply to enable the parents to see the accounts, and if any other mode of publishing the accounts could be devised, he would not adhere to his proposition.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. A. MILLSmoved a new clause, providing that every school district which provided accommodation in public elementary schools for all children between the ages of 5 and 13 years inclusive, resident in such a district, should be deemed to have provided sufficient school accommodation within the meaning of the Education Act of 1870. As a Member of the London School Board, he felt they had in some instances provided too much accommodation for infants. In Germany and Switzerland the limit of school age was from 5 to 13 years of age.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, if the question of the amount of school accommodation to be required by the Department were raised, they would at once find themselves in a great sea of difficulties. The requirements of the Department had nearly all been issued to the country by the Department on a certain basis; and to accept this clause would unsettle all the arrangements made throughout the country. He trusted, therefore, his hon. Friend would not re-open this matter.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEYGATEmoved the insertion of a new clause, providing that any
  24
  alteration of rules should be construed to refer to the same rule under the Act of 1870, for which it was substituted. Its object was to prevent the raising of the question of the creation of a school board in any district more than once in three years. He instanced the case of a parish in which there had been an agitation for the establishment of a school board once a year during the last six years, and he thought the same check should be put on frivolous and wanton contests of that character as was put on contests for the dissolution of school boards by the Amendment which had been previously adopted at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Reading.
  MR. HARDCASTLEsupported the clause, and said that it would prevent the frequent agitation of educational questions.
  MR. DODSONhoped that the Government would not accept the clause.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that by the Bill they were creating an educational authority in every parish, and bound by law to see that the instruction of no children was neglected, and that this would diminish the temptation to indulge in wanton contests for the establishment of school boards where they were not wanted to supply schools, but only for compulsory powers to fill them, as an inexpensive existing authority would be already on the spot to do the work. The question raised by the clause was, no doubt, one of importance; but if they once entered upon it, its discussion must occupy many hours. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the clause. If the evils of which his hon. Friend complained continued, and extended to many districts, it might perhaps be well hereafter to provide by a separate measure for the purposes contemplated by his hon. Friend.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he was so confident of the justice of the proposition that he could not consent to accede to the proposition of his noble Friend.
  Clause negatived.
  Mr. A. M'ARTHURmoved a clause to repeal the last paragraph in Clause 23 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, and to insert in lieu thereof a clause providing that every school transferred to any school board should in all matters

  25
  relating to its maintenance and management be deemed to be a school provided by the school board, and any religious instruction given to scholars attending the said school between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the afternoon on any days in which the schoolhouse was in use by the school board should be only such as the Act permitted to be given in a school which had been provided by a school board. His object was to prevent such transferred schools from continuing purely voluntary schools.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the Education Department had no control at present in such cases. As far as possible provision had been made to meet the hon. Member's views; but the clause brought up a large number of religious questions which could not then be discussed, and he hoped it would not be pressed.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved the following clause, which, both in an industrial and an educational sense, was, he thought, of very great importance:—
  (Employment and education of children in factories, &c.)
  "Whereas by sections fourteen and fifteen of the Workshop Regulation Act of 1867 provision is made respecting the education of children employed in workshops, and it is expedient to substitute for the said sections the provisions respecting education of the Factory Acts of 1844 and 1874, Be it therefore enacted, That sections thirty-one, thirty-eight, and thirty-nine of the Factory Act of 1844, and sections twelve and fifteen of the Factory Act of 1874, shall apply to the employment and education of all children employed in factories and workshops."
  Such an alteration would, he believed, make half-time education effective.
  THE O'CONOR DONsupported the clause.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to accept the clause, subject to some modification on the Report.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to be added to the Bill.
  MR. BROGDENmoved the addition of a clause to compel the Education Department from time to time to publish a list of efficient schools, whether
  26
  receiving Government grants or not, such lists to be conclusive evidence that the schools not included therein are inefficient.
  VISCOUNT SANDONhoped the hon. Member would not press his clause for the reason that it would put upon the Department an amount of work which it could not well undertake. To carry out the clause, the Department would, have to inspect all private adventure schools, of which there were supposed to be some 40,000, with 120,000 scholars, in the large towns alone. An inspection of the kind would be a very delicate one to undertake, and in many cases it would destroy, by direct Government action, the livelihood of the persons who owned private adventure schools, which would lead to serious difficulties. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would be content to leave the private adventure schools to the sure but slower and more indirect action of the Bill, which, as it confined certificates of school attendance to certificated efficient schools, not kept for private profit, must tell upon these schools; and, more than this, as sufficient instruction for the Standard certificates was only likely to be obtained in good schools, there would be an additional reason why the bad private adventure schools would be forsaken by the parents. The good private adventure schools would, he hoped, hold their own. He thought they would be a valuable element of variety in our school system, would tend to prevent a dry uniformity, and would be useful as competitors, and give parents a larger choice.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the insistance upon a certificate would have the effect of extinguishing these private venture schools naturally, and in the meantime it was not desirable to prevent free trade in schools.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DISRAELI,in moving that the Chairman report Progress, suggested that the House should meet to-morrow at 12 o'clock, in order to conclude the Committee on the Bill. If this was done, the debate on the Turkish question could be proceeded with on Monday next, on which day it would also be in his power definitively to inform the House as to what, in the view of Her Majesty's

  27
  Government, should be the course of Public Business.
  MR. DODSONwished to know whether, in the event of the House sitting to-morrow, any business other than the Education Bill would be taken?
  MR. DISRAELIreplied that only the Education Bill would be taken.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress.
  On the Motion of Mr. DISRAELI, resolved, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till To-morrow at Twelve of the clock."

BISHOPRIC OF TRURO BILL.— [BILL 185.]
(Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
BISHOPRIC OF TRURO BILL.— [BILL 185.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into consideration."—(Mr. Assheton Cross).
  MR. BIGGAR MR. BIGGAR rose, and was speaking upon the Bill, when—
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate was adjourned.
  The remaining Unopposed Business having been taken, and
  It being now Seven of the clock the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—

HARBOURS OF REFUGE—THE NORTH EAST COAST.—RESOLUTION.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOT,on rising to call attention to the deficiency of Harbour accommodation on the north east coast of England; and to move—
28
"That the great loss of life and property annually occurring to our shipping on the north east coast of England shows that there is a deficiency of adequate harbour accommodation in that district; and this House urges on Her Majesty's Government the construction on that coast of a suitable Harbour of Refuge and for strategic purposes,"
apologized for bringing the question forward at so late a period of the Session, but he had sought in vain for an opportunity during the last four months, and would, gladly have surrendered to the Government the present evening, which he had obtained by ballot after many trials, had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer given a more favourable answer to the Question which he had put on the preceding evening, and which he had put purposely in order to avoid being obliged to proceed with the present Motion. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the construction of such a harbour as the case required must be a matter of private enterprize, and come out of local funds and the pockets of individuals, he was constrained to go on, as he considered such a mode of treating a national question was not at all satisfactory. Nor should he be doing his duty to those brave men whose lives were daily jeopardized by the state of things existing on the North East Coast, and who had committed their case to his hands, if he did not persevere with his Motion. The Committees of the House of Commons had from time to time considered the subject of our national harbours. From one of these, in 1844, had proceeded the works at Dover, Holy head, and Alderney, and in 1853 that very question of the unprotected condition of the East Coast had undergone ample discussion. This last Committee recommended more ample accommodation for shipping on those shores; but as the exact site for a harbour of refuge was not within their province, they advised the appointment of a Royal Commission, which was accordingly formed in 1858, and was composed of men of distinguished ability and experience in the naval and military services, the Chairman being Admiral Sir James Hope. The Commissioners sat for several months, from August, 1858, till the end of February, 1859, during which period they examined more than 400 witnesses, men of every grade in the seafaring life, and of great experience in nautical affairs, and

29
they ultimately issued their Report on the 3rd March, 1859. In the course of that Report they urged most strongly the disadvantages to which the North East Coast of England was exposed from various causes; from the iron-bound character of the shore, being not indented with bays which might afford a shelter to shipping in tempestuous weather, but being perfectly straight for many miles from the Tees to Flam borough Head; from the existing harbours along the coast being only tidal, and therefore not accessible at low water; and from the violence of the prevalent winds which blew steadily on shore from the North East. From these considerations the Commissioners advised the construction of an ample harbour of refuge at Filey, where the Brigg presented ample natural advantages, and where the surrounding cliffs would, afford every facility for its formation. The Report further adverted to the large and increasing loss of life and property occurring annually off the North East Coast. The hon. Baronet proceeded to remark upon the enormous trade and commerce in the shape of exports from the various ports in Northumberland, Yorkshire, and Lincolnshire, the annual exports from the Tyne, Tees, and Wear, amounting to £15,000,000, and the annual exports from Hull alone amounting to £38,000,000, making a total of £53,000,000, being one-fifth of the exports from the whole United Kingdom, and the shipping annually sailing from and arriving at those four ports actually exceeding those sailing from and arriving in the Thames and Mersey combined. In the Newcastle and Durham coal fields, in 1873, 90,000 men were employed, whose annual wages amounted in the aggregate to £7,000,000 sterling. Then, as regarded the Tyne, there were in that river alone in 1873, 103 ships built, with a tonnage of 64,933 tons, and 7,000 men employed in shipbuilding. In 1873, between the Tyne and Humber inclusively, there were 74,447 ships entered, withal tonnage of 16,460,000 tons. Passing from the vast commerce and trade of those regions to the sad list of casualties to ships, he might mention, in the outset, that the loss of ships from unseaworthiness was as nothing compared with the losses and wreck by tempest. The history of these casual-
30
ties was to be found in The Wreck Register, which, as hon. Members knew, was annually presented to Parliament in June. The Register of 1876 had not yet been presented; he therefore cited from the one published in June, 1875. In that book he found that in 1875 there were 4,259 ships lost all over the world, with a tonnage of 911,000 tons; and this list exceeded that of 1874 by 2,068 ships. Of these 4,259, 3,380 were British ships, and 3,590 out of the whole number of 4,259, were lost "on our English coasts," which, as they knew, from the narrowness of the seas and rapidity of tide, were very greatly exposed to sudden and violent storms and tempests. Of the 3,590 ships wrecked on our own coasts, 461 were total wrecks, but only 33 of these from unseaworthiness in the vessel. They had been passing an Act to protect our sailors from unseaworthy vessels; but how equally, if not more important to provide against calamity which no skill or act of man could prevent, except by providing safe places of refuge in time of tempest! Now, he would proceed to mention a most remarkable fact—namely, that out of 3,590 vessels wrecked on our English and Scotch and Irish coasts, 1,660, or nearly one-half, came to grief on the North East Coast of England. In the year 1875, 920 lives were lost in the shipping on our coasts, the average loss of life being upwards of 800. The annual loss of valuable property on the North East Coast was considered to be £1,500,000; while in two gales only, which occurred in 1854 and 1857, 138 ships were lost, and £110,000 invaluable property. That would not be surprising when, as the Commissioners' Report stated, often 1,500 vessels were seen in Yarmouth Roads at a time, and 500 off Flamborough Head; and in a heavy gale from the North East these would have to run up northward for the Firth of Forth, or southward to Harwich or the Thames, to avoid being driven on shore. The westerly gales were most frequent on the Southern and Western Coasts of England; but, here, the casualties for 1875 were only 977 on the West Coast, and 549 on the South Coast. He held in his hand accounts of casualties from one or two of the north-eastern ports, and he found at Great Yarmouth in the 16 months from 1st January, 1874, to 30th April, 1875, there were

31
116 casualties to shipping, involving the total wreck of 22 ships, and 39 persons drowned or killed; while at Lowestoft, where, as at Great Yarmouth, the piers and harbour had been considerably improved, but the accommodation was at both places still very defective, the casualties amounted to 165. These facts plainly demonstrated the great difficulties our brave sailors, unsurpassed in hardihood and seamanship by any in the world, had to contend with; and that the words of Sir John Coode, one of our most eminent marine engineers, at the lecture he lately gave at the United Service Institution, were most fully justified when he said that "the great want on our shores at the present day was an adequate harbour of refuge on our North East Coast." In this opinion he had been supported by Admiral Sir William Hall—who had written an able pamphlet on our national defences—Admiral Collinson, and other distinguished naval officers, who also gave it as their opinion that such a harbour was most needed also for strategic purposes. The hon. Baronet then read an extract from an essay by the late Dr. Wynter, published in The Quarterly Review in 1858, in which he urged that—
"the appalling loss of life and property occurring every year on the North East Coast demonstrates the absolute necessity which exists for establishing on that most exposed and frequented position of our coast such a shelter as the sailor has a right to expect in time of need."
So far as to the commercial aspect of the question, on which he had dwelt so fully that no time remained for its strategic consideration—which he must very slightly touch upon, having already trespassed so long on the attention of the House. But it should be remembered that at the present time we had actually no place from the Tyne to the Thames where an iron-clad, if disabled or requiring to coal or water, could go in. The German Navy had very greatly increased lately, and the Government of that great Empire had, ever since 1858, been constructing, at vast expense, a noble harbour, most strongly fortified, at Wilhelmshafen, in the Bay of Yayde, at the mouth of the river Weser, where their iron-clad fleet could lie safely, and go in to refit without fear of being attacked. In 1870 the French fleet lay
32
outside, and could not touch the fleet within. Up to 1869 the Germans had spent £1,500,000 on Wilhelmshafen, which was necessary to them, as it might happen that if shut up in the Baltic in time of war, or during the winter season, their other harbours of Kiel and Dantzicmight be of little use to them. Would England begrudge spending money—a rich country like our own—to defend our commerce, and form a basis of defensive and offensive operations for our fleets, when they found Germany, Russia, and other countries making such great and rapid advances in maritime power and resources? Why, look at Cherbourg, where an enormous French fleet could ride at anchor in perfect security, and the piers and batteries had been constructed at a cheerful cost of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000! while, on the other hand, we were building magnificent ships, and when they were built we found there was no place to receive them. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had, he must say, astonished him by an argument used, last year when a discussion took place relative to a harbour at Lundy Island. The right hon. Gentleman objected to harbours being constructed by Government, because, he said, they would not pay. Such an argument was, he must say, hardly worthy of the abilities of his right hon. Friend. Did Portland pay? did Holy-head pay? did Plymouth pay? Certainly not as a 3 per cent investment; but they paid most profitably in the preservation of the lives of our gallant sailors, in the protection of our property and fleets, and in the increased prosperity and security of our common country. In conclusion, he urged strongly upon Her Majesty's Government the prompt and serious consideration of this most important question. Local ports and harbours could be established or improved by private enterprize, but such a harbour as the North East Coast required could only be made at the national expense. For no purpose could the nationalpurse be better resorted to, or our own money be better used, than in the strengthening of our national defences, and in the lessening of those numerous dangers to which the trade and commerce, on which our superiority as a nation so material depended, was now most unnecessarily exposed.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,who had given Notice of an Amendment to the effect that it was expedient that there should be further inquiry as to the best mode of practically and successfully carrying out the various harbour projects, said: I very readily rise to second the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), not because I concur in the essential part of the Motion, which urges the Government to incur at once a large outlay for a new harbour on the Yorkshire coast, but because I wish to have a debate on the important subject of how to be able to construct with success the many much needed coast harbours; for, agreeing as I most fully do with the hon. Baronet in respect to thereat deficiency of harbours, I cannot think that we ought to supply that want by urging the Government to enter into new constructions of harbours in our present state of distrust as to the works being successful. As a mere money question the construction of harbours is advisable; for the annual loss of wealth to the nation by shipwrecks, is, if capitalized, fully equal to a capital of from £30,000,000 to £50,000,000. Then, again, as to the way to prevent the many losses of lives now occurring on our coasts, we do not regard the spending of money on land for sanitary improvements, for better dwellings, for good water, for providing purer air, or for a variety of purposes conducive to the saving of lives and prolonging of life amongst our people living in towns on land, but we disregard our poorer but hardy sailors and fishermen on the seas, and allow many to be annually lost by reason of the want of proper and sufficient harbour accommodation. Then, again, look at the question in the light of commercial gain. The extension and improvement of our harbours would enlarge and extend our commerce, thereby greatly increasing our ships and multiplying our seamen. Then as regards our fisheries, we have only to provide ports to which our fishing boats can find safety from the storms along the coast to insure a great increase to our fishing vessels, and consequently to the hardy and persevering fishermen, who are so willing to toil for large additions to our food, if they can only be supplied with refuge from the gales which at present destroy so many of
34
these industrious men. We are all thoroughly alive to the importance of multiplying our commercial and war vessels, and the numbers of sailors on board, but few are alive to the wealth which the sea would yield if we multiplied our fishing vessels and fishermen. I do not specially advocate the openings for profit afforded by the seas that wash the rugged coasts of the county which I represent, because I desire to see all our coasts fairly considered by the Government; for though I know that the coast of my county has hitherto not been so treated—in so far that other parts of Scotland in counties favoured by the Scotch Fishery Board have had money spent on their harbours, whilst Kincardineshire has been neglected—yet I desire now, in mentioning the neglect, to use this as a plea for asking the Government to act in future in a fair and impartial spirit to all parts of the United Kingdom. I can confidently urge that within 30 miles of the coast of my county there is a bank on which fine fish in enormous quantities can be caught, and would be obtained if our fishing boats could run to a port in the county by the sea shore, after being exposed to the storm for a few hours. I fully believe that the wealth that could be gained by fishing that bank would more than equal the value of the produce from all the lands of the county. That this is not without some considerable support may be shown by the remarkable success of the fishings at Frazerburgh. There the fishings are said to equal the rental of that part of the county in which this new harbour is situated, and that the value of land in the neighbourhood has largely increased, to the great gain of the proprietors. I have often heard, even in this House, that the formation and improvement of harbours is a duty that ought to be undertaken by private individuals, or corporate bodies, for their own gain or advantage. I am quite willing to assent to that view, provided those parties knew how to carry on these harbour works, with some better prospect of deriving their gains than they now have. But Government has already proved, by their great failures in their attempts at harbour construction, that it is not wise for individuals to follow the Government example and fail as disastrously with as great losses of capital. The discouragement caused by the Government's failures at Alderney, at Jer-

35
sey, at Ramsgate, nay, even at Dover, at Wick, at Anstruther, at Port Patrick, at Dunbar, and in several fishing ports on the coast of Scotland and Ireland, and in other places, must first be removed before private enterprize can be expected to face the risk of loss which has been there seen. It is useless and idle to repeat a truism, that private capital can and ought to be employed on such works; and so it will, and in an abundance that would astonish Europe, provided the private capitalists had as fair a certainty of not suffering the total losses of invested money as has the Government. The sole object of the Amendment of which I have given Notice, but which I am prevented by the Forms of the House from moving, is to induce Government to enter upon an inquiry as to how harbour works can be carried on without the certainty of the great failures which have so frequently happened in the undertakings of Government. I ask the Government to undo the mischief which these blunders have caused. I ask the Government to enter upon a great inquiry of national importance. We find no hesitation in employing Commissioners, not only in the United Kingdom, but abroad, in order to investigate into many subjects of far less importance than harbours. We find Commissioners of every kind employed at the public coat to find out how the people of this country can be benefited by improvements of every and many varied kinds of ordinary affairs of life—Royal Commissions at the public expense, on water, gas, coals, food, art, education, science, and innumerable other affairs, and though thousands of minds are engaged in these inquiries, yet we never hear of the story told in this House and outside the House that the subject of harbours is entirely one for private enterprize, without any such aid from Government as is so readily extended to every other branch of knowledge bearing on the ordinary concerns of the people. I could enlarge on this my favourite question of harbours, for I have tried to obtain some knowledge of the subject, and have advanced sufficiently far in my inquiries in being able to say that I know and appreciate the necessity of much more knowledge than we at present possess. I urge the Government to supply this great want, not alone by investigating into the causes of the many failures, with but few
36
successes at home, but by having the harbours abroad examined, and the successful and unsuccessful works ascertained, with all the causes of either failure or for good results. We have much to learn along the coasts of the Mediterranean; we there find many harbours of peculiar forms, adapted to the positions on the extensive coast of that inland sea. We there find the science of using materials which has descended to the present races from the old people, evidently from the Carthaginians, and then we have the harbour designs of engineers of old times, which have in many instances been a great success. We have in modern times also harbour works which, have been successful. I could particularly name Bona in Algeria as a place where an outer and inner harbour has been made by the French with a remarkable degree of success, and at palace in Algeria not so important as is the capital of my own county, Stonehaven. These are the inquiries which Government alone can undertake; no private individual can possibly be expected to incur the expense, or devote the time required for this work. Then, again, the means of access to foreign harbours can only be obtained by the influence and by the officers of Government; more than that, our war vessels must be employed to visit the various foreign ports and examine with impartiality their maritime fitness. Even now there is a great harbour in the course of construction on the coast of Holland, known as the North Sea Harbour, with a great canal successfully completed leading to the wealthy city of Amsterdam; it faces our shores, and should a powerful nation obtain the use of that harbour, it would afford refuge for vessels of large size. Few there are in this country who know of its formation; but though a commercial harbour for Amsterdam, yet its importance can be judged of when it is known that the canal which connects Amsterdam with the coast is already formed; and its vastness may be judged of by knowing that it has 27 feet of water. The success of this harbour is therefore of material importance, not only in respect to the great increase of national power it will give to Holland and Germany, but as a specimen of a work commenced on a shore exposed to gales and to seas of as much severity as fall on our own coasts. As I have promised the hon. Member

37
for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) to afford him an opening for bringing on his important Motion, I feel that my time is come for ceasing my suggestions. I urge the Government to weigh them fairly and considerately; they are given, not to support any particular project, but for the sake of many projects for many harbours along our extensive and exposed coasts. The success in forming harbours which I anticipate from the inquiries which I advise being made will not only add to our commercial greatness, but will give a strength and a power to the defensive means of the nation. The shipping of the country will be increased, and our seamen and fishermen largely multiplied, and, above all, by new harbours being constructed, we shall save property, and the lives of our people; these are two inducements of such importance as cannot fail to commend the subject to the economist and philanthrophist.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the great loss of life and property annually occurring to our shipping on the north east coast of England shows that there is a deficiency of adequate Harbour accommodation in that district; and this House urges on Her Majesty's Government the construction on that coast of a suitable Harbour of Refuge and for strategic purposes,"—(Sir Eardley Wilmot,)
—instead thereof.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, they were all agreed that they ought to do everything they could to reduce loss of life at sea; but the question was, whether the Motion proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for South "Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), and seconded and opposed at the same time by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) was the right mode of meeting the difficulty, or whether the method on which the Government and the country had for many years made up their minds was not the preferable one. The question had been mooted for 20 years past, sometimes before Committees, sometimes by private Members, and propositions had been made sometimes for establishing harbours of refuge here and there, and sometimes for providing them all round our coasts. Every kind of proposition on the question had been taken up
38
in that House, and even the same hon. Members had made contradictory propositions regarding it from year to year. Last year, the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had been as urgent in urging priority of claim for a harbour of refuge at Lundy Island as he now was for one in exactly the opposite direction. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), on the other hand, wanted them to consider how they should carry out all the various harbour projects, whether for commerce, fisheries, refuge, or offensive and defensive purposes. He (Sir Charles Adderley) would not argue which was the right way of proceeding in relation to harbours, but he thought he could show that Parliament, representing the country, had long since made up its mind how to act. Hon. Members constantly referred back to the Report of 1859, but they seemed to forget that after the presentation of that Report, Lord Palmerston induced Parliament to take action on that Report and to pass the Harbours Loan Commission Act, which gave facilities to localities throughout the Kingdom to make or improve their own harbours by the aid of Government loans on easy terms. That plan had now been acted on for many years, and he thought they had established the principle that the way to make harbours adequate to the wants of the shipping of the country was not for Government to take upon itself to construct them, but aid those who knew most about what was necessary, and had the most interest in maintaining their harbours when constructed. All experience was in favour of acting upon the principle so laid down by Parliament 25 years ago. The moment it was found that Parliament intended to act upon it the people set to work and constructed for themselves, with the offered loans, works which equalled in magnitude and rapidity of construction any works that had been done in the New World, and exceeded them in solidity. The trade left to its own judgment, instead of multiplying mere harbours of refuge, took to improving their ships, and the result had been that the old rotten sailing colliers had been replaced by steam colliers, and the number of wrecks had been correspondingly reduced. He trusted that the House would not assent to either of the Mo-

39
tions on the subject before it, which would be no benefit, but rather injurious to the mercantile interests, while they were antagonistic to the spirit of the country. He, however, admitted that, although Her Majesty's Government should not undertake the construction of harbours themselves, they should continue to give every facility by loans to those who were desirous of making harbours for themselves. It was always suspicious when proposals were made for public money to be granted for local purposes. There was something primâ facie objectionable in Government being asked to spend Imperial money for local purposes. If the localities immediately concerned did not care to execute those works themselves, surely it was not for Parliament to tax everybody else for them. Moreover, if those interested in the establishment of those harbours were to construct them for themselves, the work would be far better done than if performed by the Government, and there would be a fair probability that the harbours, when constructed, would be properly maintained. Commerce would know best where commercial harbours were wanted, and how they should be made; and, where there was no commerce, there would be no persons interested in maintaining harbours. Several national harbours had been constructed by the Government, but some of them even had not been maintained since, and he need only point to the case of Alderney harbouras a lamentable instance of the way in which public money had been thrown away in the attempt on the part of the Government to construct harbours. In the case of Holyhead, owing to a change of plans during the construction of the works, a concave surface had been exposed to the sea; and in the case of Alderney, the decision had been come to, to let the sea wash away the remaining wreck of works that had cost £1,500,000 to construct. While fully admitting the necessity for the Government to construct naval harbours for national purposes, he could not call upon Parliament to provide money, except by way of loan, for any other harbours, and he believed that the best security for life and property would be to leave it to the commercial classes to provide, improve, and maintain at the seats of commerce, our mercantile harbours. If the
40
Government were to undertake the construction of harbours for commerce, fisheries, and refuge, two questions would arise, the first where they should begin, and the second where they should end. On the whole, he must oppose both the Motions which had been brought forward.
MR. J. COWENsaid, he knew the House was anxious to engage in discussion on an important colonial question, and he would not stand between them and that debate more than a few minutes. As, however, he represented a constituency which was as deeply, perhaps more deeply, interested in this question than any other, he might be permitted to express his obligation to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) for having brought the subject before the House. The Royal Commission which sat in 1859, if he recollected rightly—he spoke entirely from memory—recommended that the Government should give a certain amount of money for the purpose of forming national harbours of refuge at given points round the coast. They also recommended that assistance should be given to different localities for the formation of commercial harbours. This assistance was to be regulated according tithe commercial importance of the places, and the amount of money the localities chose to invest in improving their harbours. To some places the Commission recommended that Government should supplement the local expenditure by a grant of one-third, and tooters of one-fourth the amount of money spent by the local harbour authorities. The only persons in this country that had complied with the conditions laid down by the Commission for securing Government help were the River Tyne Commissioners. They had expended a large sum of money in improving the estuary of the Tyne and the navigable channel for a considerable distance. The water on the bar was now three times the depth it formerly was, and the consequence was that the Tyne now was really a harbour of refuge—the only one on that part of the North East Coast. The Government, however, had not carried out the recommendation of the Royal Commission in this respect, because they had given the Tyne Commissioners no monetary assistance. They

41
had even not been as generous with them as he thought they might have been, by lending them funds at a moderate rate of interest. By the Act of Parliament referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the Public Works Loan Commissioners were empowered, with the sanction of the Government, to lend money to harbours on moderate terms. The help the Tyne Commissioners had got from Parliament had been comparatively insignificant. One other remark he wished to make was this—the circumstances of the North East Coast were entirely altered since 1859. A complete revolution had taken place, not only in the harbours of that part of the country, but also in the shipping and the size of the vessels frequenting them. It would, therefore, he thought, be unwise for Government to act strictly now upon the recommendation of the Commission that sat and reported 18 years ago. By change of circumstances and lapse of time many of the recommendations made at that time would not only be injudicious, but positively injurious. He thought, however, the Government might consent to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), and agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to supplement the labours of the Royal Commission, and put Parliament and the country in possession of the latest information respecting this important national question. While he supported that suggestion, he could not help expressing concurrence with the views of the President of the Board of Trade, who naturally shrank from investing any large sum of the Imperial Revenue in national harbours of refuge, with the ill success which had heretofore attended experiments of that kind before him. But more liberal help to commence harbours of refuge, where the localities had expended considerable sums of their own money, by loans, on easy terms, was what he thought the Government might wisely do.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

BARBADOES—SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONDITION.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. E. JENKINS,on rising to call attention to the social and political condition of Barbadoes, with special reference to the recent disturbances in the island, said, he should, but for the fact that he was precluded by the Forms of the House, have moved for an Address to the Crown praying for an inquiry into the working of the Constitution of Barbadoes, the operation of the laws, especially relating to taxation, education, vagrancy, and the proximate or remote causes of the recent disturbances. He had been induced to submit the Motion to the House in consequence of the grave questions that had lately arisen between Governor Hennessy and the oligarchy of the island—using the word oligarchy in no offensive sense, and he desired to approach the question in a judicial spirit. He hoped that other hon. Members would follow his example, neither committing themselves wholly to the Governor nor to the oligarchy which governed the community. In 1870 he had visited Barbadoes and seen the prosperity which existed there. Out of 107,000 acres 90,000 were under sugar cultivation, and were cultivated in a manner that was perhaps superior to what could be found in any other part of the world. This was due to the population exceeding 1,000 to the square mile, and hand labour was consequently brought to bear upon the land. In that island very grave questions had recently arisen. On the one hand there were the interests of a population of nearly 180,000 to be considered; and whatever their ideas and prejudices might be with regard to Governor Hennessy they ought to discuss the subject in a generous spirit towards a young man who had been placed in difficult position. On the other side there was an oligarchy that had existed for 200 years, which presented claims for sympathy which naturally arose from their having successfully carried on a government for so many years. Whatever might be thought of the rights and wrongs of both sides, in the Papers that had been presented on the subject, Governor Hennessy had put his case in a clear, dignified, and comprehensive manner, whilst the planters had stated theirs in a heated, incoherent, passionate,

43
and irritating manner, calculated to create a prejudice against them. Two questions presented themselves for consideration—first, with regard to the social and political constitution and circumstances of the island; and secondly, as to the Imperial question of confederation, which, no doubt, contributed, directly or indirectly, to the recent disturbances. In the Correspondence the two were so inextricably mixed up that it was difficult to estimate exactly the influence exerted by one or the other, butte one re-acted on the other. It would not be necessary to discuss the merits or demerits of the question of confederation further than to say the Governor had been anxious to carry out reforms which both himself and the Colonial Office deemed to be necessary, and for which there was undoubtedly much need. The population of Barbadoes was 180,000, with only 1,279 electors out of 30,000 adult persons. The franchise consisted of £20 freeholders and upwards; leaseholders of £200 value, and a rental of £32 10 s. per annum of our currency. One firm alone held mortgages over half of the estates of the island, which were said to exceed £1,000,000 sterling, and the land might be said to be in the hands of what in America would be called a "plantocracy." No doubt the island had—as it had been stated—"a glorious and a liberal charter," at a time when the Whites only were acknowledged before the law to have rights, and when they held in subjection a large number of slaves. There were now 46,000 agricultural labourers in the island, 30,000 of whom were employed in producing sugar, leaving a large excess of unproductive labour in the island. Out of the 180,000 persons only 18,000 were sufficiently well off not to mind very much what taxation was imposed on food, leaving 162,000 to whom it was a matter of serious consequence. The natural result had been a great reduction in wages, whilst on the other hand the price of sugar in the world's market had been so low as scarcely to leave a profit, however large the yield might be. The consequence had been to bring down wages in the labour market, and produce vagrancy and crime. In 1872 the gaols of the island were overcrowded, and out of 256 boys then in prison only 28 had received any sort of instruction. With such in-
44
tense and helpless poverty incendiarism was a natural result of the want that existed. In 1873 there were 68 fires; in 1874, 16; and in 1875, 141; and Governor Hennessy mentioned the case of one boy who had been sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment for setting fire to a sugar field, whose previous conduct had been so bad that he found himself unable to do anything to limit the term of incarceration. He also found in prison boys seven years old who had been convicted and sentenced for the crime of incendiarism. What was complained of was not only the low rate of wages but the injustice done by managers in the stoppage of wages. An appalling amount of squalid misery existed, and concubinage became the rule, as the people could not afford to buy the clothes in which to get married. As a consequence, infanticide prevailed to the extent of 1,000 children every year. Owing to the carelessness of the Legislature the prison accommodation was insufficient, and the reports especting the lunatic asylums were simply horrible. Education was imperfectly provided for; taxation was unfair in its incidence, the general fund, for instance, being charged with a subvention for the highways which ought to be kept in repair by the planters. The persons who were most interested in improving the condition of affairs had no representation in the Government, and no means of bringing influence to bear upon it. It could not be surprising, then, that in 1863 riots took place and the troops were called out, that the same thing occurred in 1872, and that in 1875 there was plundering and rioting, a proclamation had to be issued by the Governor, the provision grounds were attacked, and a watchman was shot. In 1868 Governor Rawson was sent out to carry into effect a policy of confederation. He left the island, however, before he had been able to do so, and Governor Freeling succeeded him as Acting Governor for a few months before the arrival of Mr. Pope Hennessy. The planters and estate agents exhibited great disquietude at the prospect of confederation. That policy had been carried into effect in the Leeward Islands, and there was a strong feeling in Barbadoes that it had been effected by official influence, and had not been fairly carried. In July, 1875, there were disputes between Governor Freeling and the Assembly,

45
and altogether there had been a good deal of agitation antecedent to the arrival of Mr. Pope Hennessy, and any one coming from the Colonial Office was looked upon with suspicion. About October, 1875, Mr. Hennessy arrived in the island as Governor, finding it, as described, in a state of excitement. From the reputation he had acquired in similar positions, and which had preceded him, he was popular with all classes, and met with a very warm reception. Within the next two or three weeks, as would be seen by the Papers, some things were done by the new Governor which could not, perhaps, be altogether approved of; but whatever occurred during the first two or three weeks ought not to be too harshly charged against him. For instance, he complimented the House of Assembly in terms which he was afterwards obliged to retract. On the 7th of December he brought the question of confederation before the Legislative Council, and at his suggestion it was arranged that a conference should take place between Representatives of the Assemblies of all the islands on the subject of confederation. It was at that time that Lord Carnarvon sent him his celebrated telegram cautioning him not to proceed too fast, and today great respect to the feeling and constitution of the country. A message was sent to the Assembly on the 22nd of January, and they passed resolutions in which they declared that they could not consent to become one of a confederation, but that they were willing to consider the suggestions which had been offered by the Governor. There was one thing which excited considerable feeling, and for which the Colonial Office, and not the Governor, was responsible. He was directed in the Letters Patent to divest the Legislative Council of its executive functions, and to create an executive body which should be responsible directly to the Governor. This change he (Mr. Jenkins) admitted was necessary, but it had a serious effect on the minds of the oligarchy. It was also evident that at this time the planters, or some persons connected with the planters, endeavoured to frighten the negroes against confederation by stories which were untrue—for instance, that it would lead to the re-introduction of slavery. The Defence Association was formed, and shortly
46
afterwards the Governor went down to the Assembly and made the speech which had since become famous. However injudicious that speech was£ a speech directly contradicted by a subsequent proclamation—England must feel that Governor Hennessy meant simply that confederation would open a larger field of labour—a view which had been stated by Governors before him. The result of this was a "flare up, "which exhibited itself in the form of speeches and articles in the newspapers, so incoherent that one scarcely knew what to make of them. Meetings were held by the Defence Association in various parts of the island, and at length the firing from a pistol and the wounding of a person for the purpose of intimidating an excited mob, led to the outbreak of a riot, which continued until it was found necessary to call out the troops, and telegraph to neighbouring islands for further assistance. The origin of the riots undoubtedly was the excitement created by these confederation meetings held in the various parishes working on the minds of the people, aided by the fact that there were large numbers of persons in the island who were vagrants, and were ready to take advantage of any row to plunder the well-to-do people. It was a singular circumstance that not a single person was killed by the rioters, notwithstanding that there were some of the rioters killed, 30 or 40 wounded, and a large number taken prisoners, and this circumstance was, he thought, an indication that there had been a certain amount of panic among the planters, and that it was the re-action from that panic which had caused the deaths which had occurred. There would, he felt sure, have been absolute cruelty inflicted but for the coolheadedness of Governor Hennessy, who undoubtedly had persistently set his face against the various representations which had been made to him in that direction. For instance, he had been urged by a lieutenant colonel in Her Majesty's Service to take to flogging. In another letter, he was advised that hanging would be a good thing; and in a third, he was recommended to train a gun down the streets of Bridgetown. Whatever, then, might be thought of his conduct in the earlier stages of these proceedings, he had subsequently, at all events, shown a decision of character

47
which was worthy of the favourable recognition of the House. He would further point out that when the rioting had subsided, the Legislature absolutely proposed to discuss the question of the Governor's recall. This step was proposed in the midst of the excitement following the riots, and it was only by using a very strong influence that Mr. Hennessy was able to stop that dangerous proposal. The Governor declared that the animosity exhibited against him was so great that again and again the slanders which had been uttered with regard to him were repeated, and he also stated that the state of things was such that he dared not dissolve the Assembly and issue writs, as he knew it would lead to a renewal of rioting. Whatever they thought of Mr. Hennessy's conduct, they must do him the justice to well weigh the fact that he had been acting in a time of great excitement. One thing was clear—namely, that things in Barbadoes could not be allowed to remain as they were, and he put a case before the House for inquiry. They had not sufficient evidence before them to enable them to form a judgment on the matter. He neither fully exonerated the Government nor censured the planters, but they must have a full inquiry, for grave charges had been made against the Governor, and there were many matters to be investigated, which could only be brought out by a Commission appointed by the Government. Whatever the result, one thing was certain—namely, that the present Constitution of Barbadoes was doomed. A Constitution which might be suitable in a time of slavery could not exist with anything like proper and just government at the present time. Therefore, if he had been able to move his Resolution, he should have not asked for inquiry merely upon the ground that justice might be done between a Governor and a community with which he was at variance, but upon the ground also that it was absolutely necessary to consider whether it was desirable that the existing Constitution of Barbadoes should be continued. Although the House could not come to any Resolution on the subject, he thought Her Majesty's Government would agree with him that an inquiry into the condition of the Island was absolutely necessary; and he trusted they might look forward to the time when reforms would be in-
48
troduced into Barbadoes, the result of which would be that the island would be not only outwardly prosperous and flourishing, but the abode of a free, happy, and contented population.
MR. THORNHILLsaid, he must at once emphatically contradict the assertions of the hon. Member for Dundee, that the condition of Barbadoes was anything like what the hon. Member had described. He (Mr. Thornhill) had received a letter from a clergyman on the island stating exactly the contrary. He maintained that the planters were fully sensible of their responsibility in respect to the education, peace, and happiness of the negro population. There was no doubt a redundant population in Barbadoes, and that created misery and distress, and he should like to see a well-devised system of emigration brought into play to put an end to such a state of things. With reference to the telegrams which passed between the Earl of Carnarvon and Governor Hennessy there could be no doubt the Governor had considerably falsified facts, and that they contained gratuitous pieces of incorrect information. The truth, it would appear, had to be forced out of him, and, if it had not been for the private telegrams received from the island, and which led to the Home Government taking action, the country would never have found out the true state of the case. The question now arose, could the people of Barbadoes get on with a Governor who was not on good terms with the better classes of the population? He had excited an excitable people, and he had not acted in that reasonable and careful manner which they might have expected from him. He (Mr. Thornhill) thought they could not, and he therefore hoped another Governor would be substituted for him.
MR. J. LOWTHER:said, it was only necessary to have listened to the two speeches delivered to find out that there were two sides to this question. It would be his good fortune to agree with a certain amount of what had fallen from both hon. Gentlemen; but he would also have to express considerable difference from both. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) had recounted various historical circumstances connected with the island of Barbadoes, which it would not be necessary to touch upon seriatim. He would take up the

49
hon. Gentleman at his last point—namely, the disturbances that broke out in the spring of the year. The first thing to be noticed in connection with these disturbances was the various charges which were bandied about between the Governor, the Assembly, and the Planters' Defence Association. He would first deal with the charges brought against the Governor, a great many of which might be described as paltry, but there were others which, if proved, would have called for serious notice. For instance, it was alleged that Mr. Hennessy entertained at his official residence persons of the Negro race who were not exactly the proper subjects of a Governor's hospitality. Of course, the House would see that it was impossible for the Colonial Office to lay down regulations as to the mode in which a Governor's hospitality ought to be exercised; but he felt bound to say that if the charges made on this point had been true there would have been occasion for some surprise, if not alarm, in the island. However, he was happy to be able to state that Mr. Hennessy denied those charges. Another allegation was that Mr. Hennessy had deliberately falsified the telegrams he despatched to the Home Government, underrating and occasionally suppressing facts. Mr. Hennessy's accounts, no doubt, differed from those of the West Indian Committee, but striking a fair balance, the truth would probably be found to lie somewhere between them. Mr. Hennessy might not have been informed of the full magnitude of the events which occurred, while the Committee, probably, was misled in the opposite direction. The House, he was sure, would readily give credit to both parties for a sincere desire to get at the truth. But two charges of a more serious nature were made against Mr. Hennessy—one being that he personally encouraged agitation against the Assembly of the island in favour of federation, the other that he made certain objection able observations in a speech. He might state at once on the first point that Mr. Hennessy entirely denied that, either directly or indirectly, he was in any way responsible for the agitation which prevailed, and there appeared to be nothing in the Blue Books to justify any one in doubting his word. With regard to the second charge, relating to the speech of the 3rd of March to the
50
Assembly, it was certainly to be regretted that Mr. Hennessy should have made use of certain phrases which, in a community like that of Barbadoes, were calculated to cause considerable uneasiness. No doubt, however, he used them without fully realizing their import, and it was unnecessary unduly to dwell on them. Passing on to the time when the disturbances unfortunately broke out, he was glad to find that the conduct of Mr. Hennessy left little to be desired. Mr. Hennessy apparently acted with promptitude and energy, and, beset though he was by conflicting counsels, maintained great coolness of judgment and presence of mind. He had the misfortune to be surrounded by not very discreet friends, some of whom had been already alluded to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Thornhill), who had more particularly referred to one gentleman (Sir Graham Briggs). Now, this gentleman was not a public servant, he was happy to say, and it was not incumbent upon him (Mr. Lowther) to attempt to explain what he must admit was most unwise conduct on his part. This mischievous agitation about Confederation, in which a legal adviser of the Government was said to be mixed up, could not be too strongly reprobated. If, however, Mr. Hennessy was unfortunate in his friends, he must be congratulated upon having such opponents as he had. The Colonial Office had received innumereble letters and telegrams from various persons connected directly or indirectly with the island, and with a few exceptions he was bound to say that the tone adopted by those who opposed Mr. Hennessy had been as indiscreet or more so than that of those friends to whom he had referred. For instance, an application was made to the Secretary of State on the strength of a private telegram, uncorroborated by any authenticated details, for the instantaneous removal of Governor Hennessy. That was an appeal to which no Secretary of State with any sense of justice could for a moment listen. He had now mentioned the charges which were made against Mr. Hennessy; he had not hesitated to indicate where he thought his conduct had not been discreet, and at the same time he had stated, and he hoped he had made it clear, that Mr. Hennessy had triumphantly acquitted himself of the more serious accusations brought against him, while, moreover, his conduct during

51
a trying emergency had been all that could be desired. He now came to the charges which had been brought against the Assembly, the planters, and the Defence Association; and with regard to the first the Assembly of Barbadoes had been charged with systematically neglecting the interests of the population of the island. Their financial arrangements were alleged to be most defective, the prisons to be in a most deplorable condition, the police system tube very unsatisfactory, and the Assembly had been accused of omitting to make proper provision for correcting those evils. Those charges, he was afraid, had been proved against that body. He was happy, however, to be able to say that the latest information which the Government had received led them to hope that as regarded the prisons the Assembly would enter upon the necessary reform. He might observe that several suggestions had been made by Mr. Hennessy in the Assembly which that body had not felt itself able to concur in. Among them was a suggestion that it should energetically grapple with the question of emigration—a matter of serious importance in all over-crowded communities. He thought that the over-population of Barbadoes could only be met by a system of emigration to the neighbouring islands, and it was to be hoped that the Assembly would soon devote its attention to that subject. One point which Mr. Hennessy pressed upon the Assembly had reference to the fact that four weeks' notice to quit was the condition under which agricultural labourers held their tenancies. Mr. Hennessy quoted a passage written by one of his predecessors strongly condemning that system—a passage which he confessed he had read with feelings that he could hardly venture to describe to the House. It suggested that the proprietors had it in their power to effect an important reform in that matter by granting leases in perpetuity to the tenants. Now, the labourers in Barbadoes for the most part inhabited houses, such as they were, of their own building, and erected on the land of their employers. He understood that at one time the proprietors on certain estates erected dwellings for their own labourers, but that that system had fallen into disuse, because that which had been intended to do duty as a roof was made to serve as fuel,
52
and the labourers now erected dwellings for themselves on their employers' ground. But the idea of granting leases in perpetuity to labourers to dwell on an estate on which from circumstances they had ceased to labour was a most extraordinary one. It was only right to add that Mr. Hennessy, further on, said he shrank from the strong measure that his predecessor recommended of granting leases in perpetuity, which would in his judgment be an invasion of the just rights of property; but as an equitable and efficient remedy he should submit to the Legislature a proposal for abolishing the four weeks' notice to quit and substituting a much longer notice. Hon. Members would know from their own experience that the length of notice to labourers on English farms was about a week or a fortnight, and he therefore saw no reason why the length of notice in Barbadoes should be extended beyond its present limit—namely, four weeks. It was only right that the Assembly of Barbadoes should be made fully aware of the view of the Home Government upon this point. With respect to compensation being made to the tenants for what were termed unexhausted improvements which they had effected with the consent of their landlords, the Legislature might fairly enough take that into consideration, care being taken not to interfere with the sacred right of freedom of contract. But as to the idea of interfering by legislative enactment with the arrangements between employer and employed on the estates, he thought that was a notion which it would be most unwise to allow to go forth as having the approval of Her Majesty's Government, since their influence for good would be seriously diminished if they were to be suspected of any sympathy with Communism. The subject had not been overlooked, and his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had lost no time in telegraphing to the Governor of Barbadoes to take no further action with reference to proposals bearing on the relations of landlord and tenant. With regard to the alleged obstructive tendency of the Assembly, he hoped that that body had learnt wisdom by recent events, and that they were now disposed to effect some necessary reforms. The hon. Member for Dundee had spoken of a re-constitution of the form of government in Barbadoes.

53
For himself, he (Mr. Lowther) confessed he did not follow many hon. Gentlemen who appeared to have a preference for despotic forms of government. A good deal had been said about an oligarchy. He presumed that oligarchy meant the government of the many by the few, and he confessed to having no objection on principle to that form of government. Whether the suffrage in Barbadoes was capable of extension was a question on which at present he should not like to offer an opinion; but it would be necessary to take care that by any efforts in this direction the property and intelligence of the community should not be swamped by the negro vote. Other questions had been touched upon in the course of the debate. Something had been said about federation, but he did not wish to enter into a full discussion of the question at that time. He thought it matter of regret that the Assembly had not seen their way more distinctly upon this question, though, if they thought it would affect the rate of wages, or the price of food, they had a right to protect themselves, and he could not wonder at their objecting to anything of the kind; but it had now been fully explained that federation had no such object, and he trusted that a plan which promised improvement in the present system of government would be adopted. He trusted that no spirit of intractability would be shown, and that the Legislature of the colony would of their own will take steps for the effecting of such reforms as were necessary. It would be a matter of regret to the Home Government if they were compelled to adopt a line of action opposed to the love of Constitutional principles and the aversion to interfere with established institutions to which reference had been made. Reference had also been made to the absentees. He had looked into the question as far as he had been able, and he believed that, so far from the absentees being the worst landlords in the island, to a certain extent they were the best. He would remind the House that many of these estates had been held by the same families for generations, and the system of absentee proprietorship had been connected with the institutions of the island. He happened to know one case of a Nobleman in this country, whose
54
estates were admitted to be the best managed in the island. He believed it was also a mistake to suppose that the fact of certain properties in the island being mortgaged to persons resident in this country did any practical harm to the colony, for it was not the fact that such mortgagees were persons of usurious tendencies. He had observed with regret some reflections which had been east, in the Correspondence on the Table, upon one particular firm which he believed to be wholly uncalled-for; and with regard to the gentleman named Mr. Thomas Daniel Hill, he felt bound to say that if this irritating controversy had been conducted in all quarters in a similar spirit, matters would have now stood in a far more favourable position. As it had been his duty to speak in terms of censure of almost everybody connected with the island, he was glad to be able to mention the name of one gentleman who at any rate thoroughly deserved the thanks of the Government and the House. He meant Colonel Clarke, who deserved all praise for his conduct throughout these troubles. As far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, he might say at once that they had no intention of appointing any Commission, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, to inquire locally in the island into the questions which had been brought forward. His noble Friend the Secretary of State was prepared, on be half of the Government, to undertake the sole responsibility of dealing with the matter; and he was of opinion that the appointment of a Commission to inquire locally would probably cause a renewal of controversies which had been happily laid aside and re-open heart burnings and recriminations that had been abandoned. Further, it had been decided after full consideration that it was not the duty of the Government to recall Governor Hennessy. To recall a Colonial Governor was, under any circumstances, a measure of a very serious character, in that it was apt to reflect discredit upon the person recalled, and to cause those who had opposed him to conclude that they were altogether in the right. On the whole, his noble Friend did not think that, under existing circumstances, it would be wise to recall the present Governor of Barbadoes. But

55
if in the course of time a favourable opportunity for a transfer or exchange between Mr. Hennessy and the Governor of another colony should arise, of course that would be a matter which would be fully considered by his noble Friend the Secretary of State. At present, however, it was not his noble Friend's intention to take any step in the matter. Now, it had been his painful duty to distribute, perhaps rather freely, a certain amount of blame among many people in connection with this matter. He hoped he had done so with as little unfairness as possible. While he had been obliged to speak in terms of depreciation of some gentlemen who had conducted this agitation against Mr. Hennessy, he had also felt himself compelled to speak with regard to some minor matters in candid terms of the conduct of the Governor. He had, however, the satisfaction of being able to state to the House that it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Hennessy had fully cleared himself of the more serious portion of the charges brought against him; and it was an especial satisfaction to him that a gentleman who had occupied a very honourable position in that House, and who had distinguished himself in Parliament, had an opportunity, of which he was confident he would avail himself, of earning distinction yet again in the Service of the Crown.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was glad at the conclusion at which Her Majesty's Government had arrived in regard to this matter, for it was the conclusion to which he himself should have come from the evidence of the Papers on the subject—namely, that the conduct of Governor Hennessy in very difficult circumstances had been such as on the whole to deserve the confidence of the Government and the House of Commons. There had been much excitement as to his acts, and for several weeks the charges against him were constant and numerous; but they would all probably feel, with the full evidence before them, that as the hon. Member opposite (the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies) had said, those charges had dwindled down to very small dimensions. In point of fact, it was quite clear that Mr. Hennessy had shown great moderation, courage, and discre-
56
tion, and that if he was in any way to blame it was for mistakes in point of management or prudence which almost any one might have fallen into. Many of us recollected what had happened in a neighbouring colony some years ago, and it was impossible to read the accounts of the excitement in Barbadoes and of the panic which had prevailed there without a feeling of gratitude to the man who had saved us from horrors which might have readily occurred. Any blame that might be attached to Mr. Hennessy was, upon investigation, diminished to a few remarks which were contained in his speech; and if he had had to make that speech over again he probably would not have used the same words. When we came carefully to read the speech which had been so much found fault with, it would, he thought, appear a very natural, though not a very prudent, one. Mr. Hennessy had gone out knowing that one of the objects of the Home Government—an object, too, with many preceding Governments—was to obtain, if possible by the goodwill of the colony itself, confederation. Mr. Hennessy was convinced, he thought rightly, that confederation would be for the advantage of the colony, and what he stated was simply this—that in all probability it would have a good result upon the whole social condition of the people. In one way, for instance, the encouragement of emigration—it might have that result. If they had to inquire further into this matter he must say there certainly was evidence in these despatches that there was an agitation in the island against the proposal for confederation, and to that agitation might fairly be traced the disturbances that followed. He could not say less with regard to Mr. Hennessy. He had always sat opposite to that Gentleman in that House, and had not always agreed with him in opinion; but he felt great pleasure in bearing his testimony that one who had been an honour to the House of Commons and to Parliament had not disgraced himself, but, he must fairly say, had distinguished himself by his conduct in this matter. As to the Constitution of the colony, he could hardly understand from the hon. Gentleman thunder Secretary of State whether the Home Government in-

57
tended to mate any alteration. One alteration they had suggested with regard to the Council. To that suggestion, he believed, was very much owing the opposition with which the Governor had been received, and no doubt that was an additional reason why the Home Government should sympathize with Mr. Hennessy. He confessed he could not but agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) that there was great danger to good government in the present Constitution of such a colony as Barbadoes. He did not know that he should have used the word oligarchy, but he could hardly join in the criticism of the term by the Under Secretary of State. Certainly one remark which the Under Secretary made seemed to show that there must be a feeling at the Colonial Office that the Constitution as it now existed was not the best of all Governments, or he would not have given the excuse he did for their dislike to confederation. No doubt there was a redundant population in Barbadoes, and that, consequently, wages were very low; and no wonder therefore that federation was disliked by the Assembly if supposed likely to raise the rate of wages. That was an illustration of the danger and difficulty of governing a numerous colony by an assembly chiefly representing the employers. He should have been glad if the Under Secretary could have informed them of the manner in which Lord Carnarvon intended to deal with these difficulties. He had every confidence in Lord Carnarvon's colonial policy, and his great desire to be just to all parties and races under his sway, and he felt certain that, although he was not prepared to inform the House, through the Under Secretary of State, of the actual measures he was going to take, he must initiate some change in the Constitution, and not leave the island in its present position. He was glad the Government had come to the conclusion that it would be unjust and impolitic to remove Governor Hennessy.
COLONEL MUREsaid, he was glad that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) refused the demand of the Committee from Barbadoes, that Governor Hennessy should be withdrawn; but he
58
regretted to find that the Government did not intend to institute an inquiry through a Royal Commission. The fact that there was a party in London trying to press their views upon the subject on the Government showed that all controversy in the island had not been laid aside. Much of the evils that had recently taken place was owing to the pushing of confederation on the colony, although the noble Earl had said he did not wish it until its inception came from the Legislative Body of the island. At that moment the island was in a most unsatisfactory condition. There was a great deal of pauperism and vagrancy there, and a large proportion of the respectable population were in direct variance with the Governor, and demanding his recall. He (Colonel Mure) was opposed to his recall on the demand of any individual; but the fact of the demand having been made showed an unsatisfactory state of things. One thing was clear, that further inquiry should take place.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he was a personal friend of Governor Hennessy, and that he had received a letter from him in which he solemnly denied that he said or did anything in any degree to sanction or encourage the disturbances that had taken place there. Governor Hennessy had been placed in a very exceptional position, and had a most delicate and difficult duty to perform. In the first place he had to promote confederation, and next to make some alteration in the constitution of the colony. He had to reconcile the oligarchy of the Whites to the Natives, who were reduced to a most miserable state of pauperism, and were greatly oppressed. Any Gentleman who had read the Blue Books must have seen that under these difficult circumstances Governor Hennessy had shown along with good intentions great prudence and discretion. It was to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government would allow him to retain his present position. A man in such a position should be supported by the Government in the honest discharge of his duty, and he was rejoiced to find from the discussion that Governor Hennessy had not done anything unworthy of his position.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthought that some injustice had been done to the

59
Legislative Assembly of Barbadoes in the remarks which, had fallen from some hon. Members.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.