Commons Sitting of 4 July 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Truro Chapter [234].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Corrib (Galway) River [225].
Select Committee—Report—County of Hertford and Liberty of Saint Alban Act (1874) Amendment.
Committee—Report—Commutation of Tithes * [222].
Considered as amended—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) [224]; Idiots, &c. (Ireland) [149]; Marriage Preliminaries (Scotland) [86].
Third Reading—Epping Forest [228], and passed.
Lords Amendments considered—Monuments (Metropolis) (No. 2) [140].

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA—CRIMINAL LAW—THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Under secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the apparently extreme severity of punishment to which certain prisoners were sentenced by the High Court of Madras on the 25th of April last, as reported in the "Overland Athenæum and Daily News" of the 27th, viz., Syed Ahmed, convicted of picking a pocket, sentenced to "two years' rigorous imprisonment and to receive fifty lashes;" Yagen, sentenced for stealing out of a carriage one of the carriage moons and a book, to "three years' rigorous imprisonment;" Syed Mahommed, convicted of breaking into a house and stealing two cloths, to "two years' rigorous imprisonment and fifty lashes;" and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, the newspaper to which the hon. Member refers states the punishment to which these three prisoners were sentenced, and also, as it seems to me, the reasons for its being of a severe character. The first prisoner admitted three previous convictions, the second four, and the third two previous convictions. In these circumstances there is no intention of making any further inquiry into the matter.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SANITARY CONDI TION OF ASCOT.—QUESTION.
  MR. WALSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Commission appointed to inquire into the sanitary condition of Ascot has made any Report on the subject; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board contemplate taking any action on that Report, and whether he will lay the Report upon the Table of the House?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, the inquiry into the sanitary state of Ascot had been made, not by any Commission appointed for the purpose, but by an Engineer connected with the Local Government Board. The inquiry was of a very delicate and difficult character, and took a long time. Although ordered 12 months ago, the Report had been made only a few days ago, and he had not yet had time to consider it. It was not usual to lay such Reports on the Table, but he should have no objection to do so in this case. The Report would be referred to the local authority when he had had an opportunity of forming a decision upon it.

  WAYS AND MEANS—ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he will state to the House the provision required for the additional expenditure proposed since the Budget?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the House will see that there would be no object in my making a statement with regard to the effect of additional expenditure on the finance of the year until I am in a condition to state the amount of the Supplementary Estimates likely to be required; and this hardly could be done till the conclusion of the negotiations at Berlin. But I am led to hope that these negotiations are now so far advanced, that I may expect in 10 days or a fortnight to be able to make up the accounts and to make a statement in the House very shortly afterwards.

  THE FOREIGN OFFICE—OCCASIONAL WRITERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  758
  Whether it is consistent with the rules of the Foreign Office that writers, engaged at wages by the hour, should be employed in connection with, secret and confidential documents, such as the Memorandum of Count Schouvaloff and Lord Salisbury of the 30th May; and, if not, under what circumstances Charles Marvin was so employed?
  MR. BOUBKE: Sir, I will answer the first part of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman in the negative. As to the second, I would say that as the whole matter is the subject of a judicial investigation still pending, it would be contrary to precedent and injurious to the public interests that any explanation of the circumstances should at this moment be made to Parliament.

ARMY—NATIONALITY OF ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can give the number of English, Irish, and Scotch Officers respectively in Her Majesty's Service holding at present the appointment of Adjutant in a Yeomanry Regiment or Volunteer Corps, and the proportion of Irish Officers in Cavalry and Infantry of the Line to that of other Nationalities; and, if he will explain why by the last official Army List forty-four Adjutancies of Volunteer Corps are at present held by Officers whose regiments are in a different sub-district, thereby disregarding the third consideration mentioned in the reply of the 27th ultimo as determining such appointments?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I have not been able, although I have made inquiries, to ascertain the numbers requested in the first part of the Question. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will move for the Return—I doubt whether it will be worth while finding—I shall be happy to produce it. With regard to the second part of the Question, it will be necessary to follow up the personal and military history of all the officers who are referred to. I am not able at the present time to give, the information; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will repeat the Question when I have obtained the information, I shall be happy to give it.

  MILITARY FORCES OF THE CROWN— THE RESERVE MEN.—QUESTION.
  MR. RATHBONEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has made arrangements to allow the men called out in the Reserve to return to their families and work as soon as peace shall be secured at the termination of the present meeting of Congress?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, as I understand it, the object of Lord Cardwell's Act, or one of its objects, was that Reserve men when called out should not be detained with the Colours longer than might be necessary. I am not able to answer the Question further. Perhaps, if the hon. Member repeats his Question at some future time, I may be able to be more explicit.

  POOR LAW—THE BASINGSTOKE UNION CASUALS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SPINKS (for Colonel NAGHTEN)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, with a view to reduce vagrancy, he would recommend an uniform task for casuals in the different unions, such as is now enforced in Basingstoke Union?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that under an Act passed in 1870, a uniform task was set out for casuals in the Unions in all the rural sanitary districts in the Kingdom. In some places some variation had been allowed in that task, and if it was found to have produced satisfactory results, there would be no objection to re-view or re-cast the general Order: but the circumstances of Basingstoke, which was specially mentioned, were very different from those of most other places, and he was afraid, therefore, the Order in force there would scarcely be applicable to other Unions.

  MEDICAL REFORM—BILLS BEFORE PARLIAMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can inform the House what course he proposes to take with reference to the Medical Act Amendment; whether, considering the great differences of opinion which exist on the question of medical reform, and the late period of the Session at which we have now arrived, the various Medical Bills standing
  760
  for Second Reading for Thursday 11th July, he will consent to refer the whole question to a Select Committee, in accordance with the petitions of various medical bodies; and, if so, whether he will take an early opportunity of moving for the Committee, so that the inquiry may be actually started this Session, and, having obtained the full attention of the medical profession during the Autumn, may be resumed early next Session under the most favourable circumstances?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the whole question of medical education and reform has been thoroughly discussed by the many and various deputations visiting the Lord President and myself; and, in our opinion, although there is a certain discrepancy of opinion among the various interested bodies upon minor details, the main question presents no difficulties that may not be satisfactorily settled when discussed. I may add that the objects of all the Bills now before Parliament on the subject are the same and can be covered by the Government Bill. The only question not yet ripe for legislation is that of a re-construction of the Medical Council with a view to the direct representation of the general body of practitioners. This matter does require further consideration, but need not in any way prevent the passing of the Government Act this Session. We must, therefore, decline to entertain the proposal of referring our proposals to a Select Committee, for we feel sure that if time will permit of their discussion we may reckon upon the assistance of the House in helping us in carrying reforms so earnestly desired by the great majority of the Medical Profession.

ARMY—OFFICERS OF ARTILLERY AND ENGINEERS—ARREARS OF PAY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State in Council has yet arrived at any, and, if so, what decision with regard to the claim for arrears of pay by Majors of Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, recently reported on by a Select Committee of this House?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, the Report of the Select Committee has been

  761
  considered by the Secretary of State in Council, and a telegram has been sent to the Viceroy, which, with the permission of the House, I will read—
  "Parliamentary Committee on Artillery and Engineer Officers' Arrears of Pay recommend payment of all arrears less 200 rupees monthly when in receipt of contract allowances or less special command allowances for heavy or garrison batteries. I have concurred. All claims from Officers at home will go to India for check. I wish the claims settled on this basis as expeditiously as possible."

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL FEES.—QUESTION.
  MR. PELLasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, before giving consent to the weekly fee prescribed by a School Board, the Education Department cause inquiry to be made in the School Board District as to the ability of parents resident therein to contribute towards the elementary education of their children; and, if so, by whom such inquiry is conducted on behalf of the Department; whether it is made on the spot, and from whom information is sought; further, what special circumstances are held to justify the consent of the Department to so low a fee as one penny per week; whether in such cases any written statement of reasons is made to the Department; and, if so, whether he would lay upon the Table of the House some or all of such statements so far as relates to the London School Board Schools?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, before assenting to the weekly fees proposed by School Boards, an inquiry is always made by the Educational Inspector of the district, the inquiry is made on the spot, and information is sought for from those whose opinions or experience are likely to throw light upon the condition of the neighbourhood. The circumstances vary so in each district, that it would be difficult to lay down any absolute rule as to the sanction of low fees. Speaking generally, the fees are regulated by the requirement and social condition of those for whom the schools are provided. A written statement is made to the Department before their sanction is given. I have not yet had time to look through the statements relating to the London Board Schools; but if my hon. Friend will confer with me, I will see how far we can give him information upon the subject.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS COMMIS SION—LOSTWITHIEL.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Paymaster General, Whether, as Chairman of the Municipal Corporations Commission, his attention has been drawn to an abstract of accounts dated 31st December 1877, from which it appears that the Corporation of Lostwithiel have charged—out of a total expenditure for the year, amounting to £413 19 s. 4d., and largely in excess of their net income—a sum of £114 7s. 6d. for "Expenses relative to inquiries of the Royal Commissioners on Unreformed Corporations;" and, whether the Commissioners have repaid to the witnesses who attended before them from Lostwithiel to give evidence on behalf of the Corporation the expenses of their attendance, as no such repayments are mentioned on the corresponding side of the above-mentioned abstract of accounts?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: No, Sir; I knew nothing of this abstract before the hon. Baronet gave me Notice of his Question, because the evidence with respect to Lostwithiel was taken last year, and the Commissioners have, throughout their inquiry into these Corporations, examined, as far as possible, for obvious reasons, the accounts issued before the appointment of the Commission. This Lostwithiel balance-sheet shows that had it not been for expenses caused by our inquiry, the expenditure would have been considerably within the income. The Commissioners have paid the witnesses from Lostwithiel according to the Treasury scale, which allows only for travelling expenses and loss of time. There must have been heavy charges incurred in the preparation of the voluminous accounts and papers furnished by the solicitor of the Corporation. Such charges would be distinct from the personal expenses of witnesses, and unless included in the £114 7s. 6d., which does not seem probable, would, of course, not be entered on the other side.

  CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OF FENCES) BILL.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government has determined upon any method for subjecting the

  763
  Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill to a full and complete revision; and, if so, whether he will state what course is intended to be pursued?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I shall be obliged if the hon. and learned Gentleman will repeat the Question this day week, by which time I hope to be able to answer it.
  MR. RATHBONEasked Mr. Attorney General, If he would cause the explanatory Memorandum on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, by Sir James Stephen, which appeared recently in the "Times" newspaper, to be printed as a Parliamentary Paper, and circulated to Members?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER), in reply, said, that, before the hon. Member's Question had appeared on the Paper, he had determined to print as a Parliamentary Paper the Memorandum referred to.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—IRISH LAN GUAGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, and cause to be printed, a Copy of the influentially signed memorial recently presented to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, in favour of placing the teaching of the Irish language on the voluntary and results programme of the National Schools, under the same conditions as that of Latin, Greek, and French?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I have no objection to present the Memorial. The most convenient course would be for the hon. Gentleman to move for it and take it as an unopposed Return.

PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. GOSCHENasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is prepared to make a statement to the House as to the order in which he will proceed with the several Bills which he has introduced?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, it had been the intention of the Government that the Valuation Bill, which, after Whitsuntide, stood first on the Notice
  764
  Paper, should be completed in Committee before any progress was made with the Highways Bill. The House was aware that on Friday afternoon, from accidental circumstances, it became convenient, not only that the Speaker should leave the Chair, but that considerable progress should be made in Committee with the Highways Bill. That having been the case, to-morrow (Friday) would probably be sufficient to complete the Committee on the Highways Bill, which it was proposed to take at 2 o'clock. The Highways Bill now contained provisions which would conflict with some provisions of the County Government Bill, so that if the Highways Bill passed it would be necessary to move that the Order for the County Government Bill should be discharged. The Valuation Bill would be proceeded with after the Committee on the Highways Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government intend to proceed on Monday with the Contagious Diseases Animals Bill, for which day I believe it now stands? I understand, with reference to the Business to-morrow, that the Government intend to proceed with the Highways Bill. I should be glad to know whether that will be the first Business? I would take the opportunity of repeating to the Government the request that they will give to the House all the information they are able to give with regard to their intention as to Business; because I think on one or two recent occasions Business has come on unexpectedly, while Business that was expected to come on was not taken. I do not know whether it was our fault or not, but I find there is considerable ignorance as to the fact that it was the intention of the Government to take the Education Estimates to-day. I appeal to the Government to give all the information in their power as to their intentions.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, perhaps the House would be informed when it was proposed to take the Admiralty and War Office Bill?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he should be glad to know whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Inclosure Bill?
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked, When it was proposed to take the second reading

  765
  of the Irish Intermediate Education Bill, which stands for third reading in the House of Lords to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think the various Questions which have now been put strikingly illustrate the great difficulty under which we labour with regard to fixing the order of Business. There are a number of measures with which we have to proceed; some are of considerable importance, but the discussion on them, if reached, would not occupy any inordinate length of time. For instance, the Inclosure Bill, to which reference has been made, and the Admiralty and War Office Bill, and others to which I might refer. We have been putting these Bills down night after night in the hope that in the course of the evening opportunity might arise for taking them and proceeding with them; but the time has been spent over the Orders which stood first, and we have found it exceedingly difficult to proceed with these Bills. I am constantly asked by Members who take an interest in one or the other Bill to put them down as the First Order for this day or that day; but if that were done, it would interfere very much with the Business which we otherwise desire to proceed with. I am sorry to learn from the noble Lord that there is any surprise on the part of the Members of this House as to the Education Votes being taken to-night. I think I publicly stated this two or three nights ago, and the Notice has been on the Paper for two days. With regard to what is proposed to be done, my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has already stated that we propose to take the Highways Bill as the First Order at the Morning Sitting to-morrow. With regard to Monday, we propose to take the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. I am not able to say positively what Business we shall be able to proceed with on the Tuesday and the following days, but there is the remainder of the discussion on the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, which we had hoped might be concluded in one sitting, but which still remains—with, however, only a small amount of work to be done. There are the Admiralty and War Office Bill and the Inclosure Bill, which we are anxious to get forward, if possible; but I do not like to make promises, because if you
  766
  make a promise you may find afterwards that the arrangements for one Bill clash with what can be done with regard to others. With regard to the Question put to me by the hon. Member for Limerick as to what day we propose to take the second reading of the Irish Intermediate Education Bill, I would remind him that Thursday, the 11th, has already been promised for the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and the earliest day, subject to that arrangement, which can be appointed for the Bill to which the hon. Member refers is Monday, the 15th instant. If any change could be made between the one Bill and the other, it would be acceptable to the Government.
  DR. CAMERONreminded the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to what he had said as to the Roads and Bridges Bill, that that measure was to be taken that night. Was he to understand that the Bill would be taken after Supply?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope we may be able to take it after the Estimates to-night.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EPPING FOREST BILL— [BILL 188.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Noel.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  MR. FAWCETT, in rising to move—
  "That the Order for the third reading of this Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted, in order to insert an Amendment in Clause 30, to provide for the representation of the Metropolitan Board of Works on the Committee of Management,"
  said, that nothing was farther from his mind than to do anything which might be considered hostile to the City, and no one was more anxious than he was to pay a tribute of gratitude to the successful efforts made by the City authorities with regard to the preservation of Epping Forest to the people. There were, however, many people who took an interest in the preservation of the Forest

  767
  long before the Corporation took it up, and if it had not been for the services of those people there would not now have been any part of the Forest to be preserved. He did not found his action on any Party question. He believed that the first Gentleman who interested himself in the matter was the Conservative Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford). He did not wish, in the slightest degree, to take away from the City the absolute supremacy in the management of the Forest. By Clause 30 the whole of the Forest was vested for ever in the Corporation of the City of London as Conservators; they would, in fact, be the possessors of the Forest, and what he proposed was simply to give the people of London outside the limits of the City some voice in the management of the Forest—not a controlling voice—because if this proposal was carried out the position would be this—The Corporation would have the Forest absolutely vested in them, and would nominate 12 of the committee of management, whilst the commoners and the Metropolitan Board of Works, as representing the inhabitants outside the City, would each nominate four members. If his Amendment were adopted, the City would still be left with absolute control, having 12 out of 20 members on the committee of management, or certainly three times as many as the whole of the rest of London put together. He was not going to say one word in opposition to or defence of the Board of Works. All that it was necessary for him to say was that the Board of Works was the only body which could represent the Metropolis as a whole. It appeared to be assumed that the Corporation of the City of London paid the whole of the money in question out of their own pockets; whereas the fact was that the money spent hitherto, and what would be spent in future under the Bill for purchasing the rights of the lords of the manor, was not money which could in any sense be considered to belong to the City, but was money provided by taxes which fell upon the inhabitants of London at large. The money had to be provided by the corn duties, which fell upon every inhabitant of the Metropolis. The Metropolitan Board of Works, therefore, as representing the outside districts, ought to have a voice in the management. It might be asked, what
  768
  could four members possibly do against 12? Well, in the first place, there was a principle involved in the question. What he wanted to assert by his Amendment was that Epping Forest did not belong to the City, but had to be administered for the whole of London, and that the whole of the Metropolis should be represented on the managing committee. It was quite possible that the City might do things—prompted by the best feelings—which would not be in accordance with the feeling of those outside the City bounds. For instance, he would refer to what was said the other evening by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk). The hon. Member said—"Pass the Bill, be good to the City, and the City in return will give you some great civic entertainment in the Forest"—the most alarming thing in the future, so far as the Forest was concerned, that he could conceive. If the City thought that, in order to repay the public for the generous appreciation of their effort, they should organize some great civic entertainment, and bring round the Lord Mayor to it with his coach-and-six, it was only fair that the rest of London should have some opportunity of saying whether the Forest should not rather be left to its own seclusion. There might be people who desired to spend a quiet day in the Forest, and probably the last thing they would desire to encounter would be a great civic entertainment. He would rather see the Forest left to its own seclusion, and that civic hospitality should confine itself as heretofore to the regions of the Mansion House and the Guildhall. It was said that it might be invidious to propose that there should be a representation of the Metropolitan Board of Works on the committee of management, as they and the Corporation were not on the most harmonious relations; but it had been his good fortune to be present when the two bodies met in convivial fraternity; and, if one-tenth of the compliments which the Metropolitan Board paid to the City were to be accepted, and if one-twentieth of the compliments which the City paid to the Metropolitan Board were to be accepted, we must come to the conclusion that the feeling they entertained of all others was that they should be brought into closer association in order that they might more fully appreciate

  769
  those admirable qualities which the one discovered in the other. If a selection was not to be made from the Metropolitan Board of Works for representation on the committee of management, from what body was it to be made? It could not be from all London or from the School Board, and when the selection was made from the Metropolitan Board of Works it was made from the only body which at the present time exercised any sort of municipal authority, and from a body which had already been intrusted with the control of most of the open spaces around London. He had not brought forward his Amendment in the slightest degree at the suggestion of the Metropolitan Board, or, indeed, with the previous knowledge of any of its members. He brought it forward not simply in the interests of the Metropolitan Board, but in order to assert the principle that Epping Forest belonged to the whole of London. This Forest having been saved by money which had been contributed, to a great extent, by the whole of London, and as money was to be spent upon it which was to be contributed by the whole of London, it was only fair and right that London should have a voice in the management. He, therefore, trusted the House would not refuse the moderate representation which he proposed for the districts lying outside the City.
  MR. GOSCHENwas proceeding to address the House, when——
  MR. SPEAKERasked if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to second the Amendment?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir, on the contrary.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEseconded the Amendment, but pointed out that when he brought the subject forward the other night no proposal was made for a representation of the Metropolitan Board of Works, as he had only raised the general question in favour of the public being in some measure represented on the committee of management. He thought that London generally should be represented, and, therefore, he seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "be" to end of the Question, in order to add the words "recommitted, in order to insert an Amendment in Clause 30, to provide for the representation of
  770
  the Metropolitan Board of Works on the Committee of Management,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he rose early to answer the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett); because the subject had already, on more than one occasion, been discussed in the House. The history of this struggle had been stated oftener than once. As far back as 1864 this question of dealing with Epping Forest was raised by the then Secretary to the Treasury, and in June of that year he applied to the Metropolitan Board of Works by letter, asking them to consider whether they could not take up the subject with the view of treating it under their powers for the preservation of commons in the interests of the public. In October of the same year, after careful consideration of the whole case, they refused to accept any responsibility in the matter, and stated, in answer to questions put to them by the Treasury, that the area in question was wholly beyond their jurisdiction, and that they had arrived at the conclusion that the case was not one which their powers enabled them to deal with, or with which they could advantageously interfere. That seemed to have been the opinion of the Metropolitan Board of Works until the time when a right hon. Gentleman opposite carried against the Government a Motion for an Address to the Crown in regard to the preservation of Epping Forest as an open space. What had happened since 1871? Since that year the City of London had come forward as champions of Epping Forest as an open space. They had done something more than that. They had expended money in the purchase of the freehold rights of the soil, with the view and under the condition of keeping that freehold soil open for the benefit of the public, and they had done this previous to any attempt to make them Conservators of this space. And when he came to the discussion which had taken place during some years before the Epping Forest Commission, which was appointed in 1871, he found the Metropolitan Board claiming to be heard as

  771
  being constituted authorities. The Epping Forest Commissioners went into the case, and decided absolutely against them and in favour of their rivals, the City of London, on this particular question. The hon. Member for Hackney had laid great stress on this particular point that the money by which these freehold rights had been acquired, and by which, under the clauses of this Bill, the City proposed to deal with the further purchase of the rights still unacquired, was money raised in grain dues on the whole town; and that, therefore, the whole of London should be represented in the management and expenditure of that money. But what had been the history of that money in the past? Up to the present moment that money had been raised from the inhabitants of the town generally, and it had been decided up to the present time that it should be administered by the City of London and not by a body representing the whole of the inhabitants. There had been no suggestion that the Corporation had not dealt properly with the money, and that, therefore, the Metropolitan Board should have a voice in the matter. He could not see, therefore, why such a proposal should be brought forward now, when the question had already been decided on more than one occasion by the Epping Forest Commissioners against the Metropolitan Board of Works——
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the question decided by the Epping Forest Commissioners was not that the Metropolitan Board should have no representation, but as to whether the whole management should be intrusted to the City or to the Metropolitan Board. The question of a joint representation was never brought before the Commissioners.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was afraid that the hon. Member for Hackney had not considered the Report of the Commissioners so carefully as he had done himself. What they decided was that the representation should consist of the Corporation of the City of London, with the addition of certain Verderers who were named. The Metropolitan Board of Works was not considered at all in reference to the matter. He could not deduce from the arguments of the hon.
  772
  Member any reason why it should now be thought necessary to amalgamate with the City of London for the management and expenditure of the money any fresh body. What he had formerly stated in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was the only answer he could give now. The Government had carefully considered the question, they had determined on all they facts submitted to them, and on the evidence and Report of the Commission, that the proper constituent body for the future management of the money was a body formed as between the representatives of those who had hitherto spent the money in the interests of preserving the Forest as an open space and the representatives of those inhabitants who as commoners had a distinct existing right to the open space itself. These were the representatives who had been selected by the Government as the future managers; and, in these circumstances, he asked the House not to re-open the question by entertaining any proposal for the introduction of a fresh element, which he certainly thought was entirely foreign to the purpose in view.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he could quite endorse what had been said by the hon. Member for Hackney as to his having brought forward the Amendment without consultation with the Metropolitan Board of Works. Although he was Chairman of that Board, he had been so much taken by surprise in the matter, that he had not had any opportunity of communicating on the subject with his Colleagues. When the question was before the Epping Forest Commissioners, the Metropolitan Board made certain other suggestions besides that relating to their claim to be the proper authority for the care of the Forest as an open space—namely, as to a deer park, shooting licences, and other matters. Some of these suggestions were adopted by the Commissioners, although others were not considered desirable. The Commissioners certainly did not think it right that the Metropolitan Board should be brought in as an authority. As to what the Secretary to the Treasury had said regarding a change of mind on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Metropolitan Board was not singular in that respect, and so august a body as the House of Commons itself sometimes changed its decisions, At any rate,

  773
  having already been intrusted by Parliament with the care of open spaces in the interests of the public, the Metropolitan Board of Works considered that they were the proper body to undertake the management of Epping Forest, and it was on that ground that they sought to be heard before the Commissioners. In supporting his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, he did not wish in any way to detract from the credit due to the City for the exertions it had made and the public spirit it had shown in this matter; but, as the money was provided by the whole Metropolis, the Metropolis ought to have some share in the representation, though the City was to have the largest share. If, then, it should be the pleasure of the House to give four representatives to the Metropolis, he could answer for the Metropolitan Board that they would endeavour to choose the best men.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, though there was a good deal in the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, and though he had himself pressed on the Government the propriety of giving some representation to the Metropolis, he did not think the proposition before the House, on the whole, either expedient or wise. We could not altogether dissociate this question from the previous action of the Metropolitan Board. In 1864, the Government offered the management of the Forest to the Metropolitan Board, and to concede the Crown's rights to it; but the Metropolitan Board declined to have anything to do with the affair, and in the following year, when an important deputation waited on the Chairman, he said that the matter was entirely out of his jurisdiction. In 1869, for the first time, the Metropolitan Board made the astounding proposition that Epping Forest should be divided equally between the lords of the manor and the public. That was a scheme which prevented those who advocated the rights of the public from having any sympathy with the Metropolitan Board on the question. In 1872, when the grain duties were continued to the City of London by Act of Parliament, it was proposed that the fund arising from them should be used exclusively in preserving the open spaces of the Metropolis; but the Metropolitan Board objected to the City spending any of the
  774
  money on open spaces within the Metropolitan district. Looking to past history, he considered that the introduction of members from the Metropolitan Board of Works, as delegates of an Assembly which itself consisted of delegated vestrymen, into the management of the Forest, would produce an element of confusion rather than the reverse. He should like to have seen some representation of the people in the management; but, as the proposition before the House was not the best mode of dealing with the subject, he should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had mistaken the argument of the hon. Member for Hackney. It was not the Metropolitan Board that his hon. Friend wished to see represented, but the inhabitants of the Metropolis generally, and the Metropolitan Board was the only body which could in any sense be said to speak for them. In his opinion, the Metropolitan Board required a good deal of improvement; but the real question was, whether the inhabitants of the Metropolis outside the City should have any sort of representation in the body about to be formed? It was desirable that those who enjoyed the Forest should be represented. He should be the last to disparage what the Corporation of the City had done to obtain the Forest for the people; but they could not in any sense of the word be said to represent those who would use it, because those who lived within the City were those who would least use the Forest. Besides, the people of the Metropolis outside the City had the right to representation from another point of view—they very largely contributed to the fund which would maintain the Forest.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would address himself almost exclusively to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down—namely, the claim, arising from the finance of the matter. It had been said that this money came from the Metropolis at large. The grain duties belonged from time immemorial to the Corporation of the City of London, and in 1872, with the consent of Parliament, they made an arrangement which he would explain. The metage duties reached about

  775
  £50,000, but only £14,000 went into the pocket of the Corporation; the rest was spent on collection. There was great waste. The City then consented to give up the rights of metage it had enjoyed for a small tax; and, whereas formerly it had the exclusive right to the employment of the fund, in 1872 it agreed that the money should be applied for the purpose of preserving open spaces outside the Metropolis. The Metropolitan Board, which now put itself forward as the representative of the public, not only claimed no share then in the management of the fund, but said distinctly they did not wish that any portion of the money thus raised from the taxpayers of the Metropolis should be spent on preserving open spaces in the Metropolis. That was an extraordinary bargain, and they had foregone the right of interfering with that money now. He would only detain the House to say that it was rather late in the day—at the third reading of the Bill, after the Forest had been rescued and the battle won—for the Metropolitan Board of Works which had taken no part in the struggle, to put forward such a claim as that urged by the hon. Member for Hackney.
  MR. COOPEsaid, the proposition to include the Metropolitan Board of Works in the management of Epping Forest was—he might almost say—a monstrous one. They had done nothing to save the Forest from being inclosed by individuals; on the contrary, they had specially declined the suggestion of the Government to take the matter into their own hands and do something in that direction. He thought his excellent Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) might fairly have declined to accept the proposal as made by the hon. Member for Hackney. The Corporation had behaved with true nobleness of spirit in this matter, and had expended large sums in the promotion of this great public object. In these circumstances, he hoped the House would reject the proposal by a large majority.
  SIR. ANDREW LUSKsaid, he did not think the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had shown much generosity on the present occasion. The City of London had commenced this struggle in 1871, when there were no funds available but their own, and they
  776
  had spent more than the grain duties would ever recoup. Now that the struggle had been happily concluded, the City of London would rather not have the assistance of the Metropolitan Board. The Metropolitan Board had already a great many parks to manage. Besides, they had the floods to control; and they had not yet managed the floods.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he hoped it would be remembered that the whole policy of the Metropolitan Board had been not to take any interest in or help forward the movement for the preservation of Epping Forest; whereas the Corporation had always taken a patriotic and public-spirited view of the matter. By adopting the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney, they would certainly not encourage the Corporation to engage in similar good work for the future.
  MR. HOPWOODcontended, that the population of London outside the City should be as adequately represented on the Board as the City itself.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 209; Noes 49: Majority 160.—(Div. List, No. 194.)
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREinquired whether Sir Arthur Hobhouse, who was nominated as Arbitrator under the Bill, had consented to serve? He might take that opportunity of remarking that the appointment was one which would give satisfaction.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had already announced in the Select Committee that Sir Arthur Hob-house had accepted the office of Arbitrator, and his name accordingly appeared in the reprint of the Bill.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time (Queen's Consent signified), and passed.

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

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION CODE— NATURAL SCIENCE.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, in rising to move—
  "That it would be desirable to modify the Code of Education by adding Elementary Natural Science to the subjects mentioned in Article 19, c. 1,"
  said, that by natural science he did not mean anything difficult or abstruse, but simple explanations of the ordinary phenomena of nature, and of the world in which they lived. According to the provisions of the clause just referred to, the sum of 4s. per scholar was granted if the classes from which the children were examined in Standards II. to VI. passed a creditable examination in any of the following subjects:—namely, grammar, history, elementary geography, and plain needlework. It was evident, in these circumstances, that no other subjects could practically or would be taught to any extent in elementary schools. In the whole of England and Wales, according to last year's Report, out of 3,100,000 children in their elementary schools, history, geography, and grammar formed part of the examination of more than 1,000,000. This was in itself, no doubt, a matter of congratulation and a very considerable improvement. Nevertheless, it was obvious that under the existing regulations, all other subjects were very much discouraged. To prescribe any exact course of education to be followed in all elementary schools, independent of circumstances, was a mistake. Having too long left education entirely unregulated, they had now gone to the other extreme, and taken it almost entirely out of the hands of local bodies, the control being practically centred in Whitehall. Under this and other clauses, the Code of education laid down such minute rules as to what was to be taught that school committees and even schoolmasters had little voice in the matter. The best men would gradually cease to serve on School Boards if they were deprived of any voice as to the education to be given. It must be a mistake to prescribe an exact canon of education until we were quite sure what system was the best; but on this point the highest authorities were much divided. The Education Department practically excluded science. But the Committee of
  778
  this House, which sat in 1868, under the presidency of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson), strongly recommended that "elementary instruction in the phenomena of nature should be given in elementary schools." Again, the Royal Commission presided over by the Duke of Devonshire reported that in their opinion instruction in the rudiments of physical science should form a recognized part of the school course. He could quote numerous high authorities in support of the same opinion, but was reluctant to occupy the time of the House. Dean Dawes, for instance, and Mr. Henslow, who founded two of the most excellent of village schools, attributed much of their success to the introduction of elementary science. He (Sir John Lubbock) did not ask for anything difficult or abstruse, or beyond the power of a child's comprehension; but simply desired that they should be instructed in the simple every day phenomena of nature, such as the causes of day and night, heat and cold, summer and winter, the reason why the moon had phases, and not the other heavenly bodies; the difference between planets and stars, the causes of eclipses and tides, the composition and ordinary properties of air and water, and the characteristics of soils; in chalk districts, dwelling especially on chalk, in coal countries, on coal; the simple forces, the lever, pulley, wheel, screw, and wedge; the ordinary rules which regulate health; to which he should also like to add some knowledge of the commoner objects by which children were surrounded. These matters should be treated in a very simple and easy manner, and would become within the comprehension of children extremely interesting to them. Their education was at present entirely bookish, and the contact with things, with actual objects, would prove extremely beneficial. He could prove to them by the most abundant testimony from many of their best schoolmasters and of their most able school inspectors, and by the actual cases of schools in which the experiment had been tried, that science properly taught was most instructive and delightful to children. He was not proposing to make science obligatory; he only wished that an option should be given to school authorities: that a knowledge of the elementary facts of nature should in our elementary schools be

  779
  put on the same footing as history, geography, and grammar. Last year, new conditions and limitations were, in the Scotch Code, attached to the teaching of science subjects, not because they were too difficult, but on the express ground that they were learnt by the children too easily and quickly. This change of front seemed to be founded on the Report of the Board of Education for Scotland. Hitherto, science had been discouraged on the ground that it was too difficult. In Scotland, nevertheless, it had proved so interesting to the children, that it began to force its way into the schools, and the Board at once took alarm, and recommended new conditions unfortunately adopted by the Department, in order to discourage it. If children learnt the amount prescribed so easily, surely the proper course was to demand a little more? Mr. Matthew Arnold, whom he had hitherto supposed to be of a different opinion, had, in his last Report, expressed himself as follows:—
  "I should like to see what the Germans call naturkund knowledge of the facts and laws of nature added as a class subject to grammar, geography, and English history. I would require the teaching of all four as class subjects in every elementary school to all scholars above the Third Standard, girls as well as boys. For the Second and Third Standards I would have grammar as at present, and, in addition to grammar, the element of nature kund."
  Perhaps Mr. Arnold's proposal might be at present impossible, because their teachers had not yet received the necessary training; but the course now proposed would prepare the way for its adoption eventually. Some high authorities were of opinion that history and grammar, as taught in their elementary schools, were by no means suited to occupy the exclusive position now assigned to them. Of history, what was taught in elementary schools was little more than lists of dates, and kings, and wars; and it might be a serious misfortune that they accustomed their children to regard war as almost a normal state. As to grammar, the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), in a speech made in connection with an educational institution, said—
  "If there is any lad here who is engaged in learning grammar, I will undertake to say that he will say it is the very driest and most unpleasant study that any person ever put himself to. When I was at school, which is a long time
  780
  ago, we learnt a grammar written by Lindley Murray. Lindley Murray's grammar had a great reputation then, and, for anything I know, has yet; but if it has, I pity the lads that have to learn it—there are no end of rules and no end of examples, rules within rules, and exceptions of all kinds; and I have now a feeling of utter confusion in my mind in endeavouring to understand all the rules of Lindley Murray's grammar. My opinion is that it is very difficult for any person who reads well-written books, and understands them, not to acquire a very competent knowledge of Grammar."
  Göethe, also, he might mention in passing, had expressed a very similar feeling. Surely such opinions, from such authorities, were entitled to very great weight? He did not, however, ask that grammar should be excluded. He merely wished that it should not be put in such a position as to exclude other subjects. He only asked that school authorities should be allowed the option. Moreover, even supposing that the Amendment he had ventured to move was adopted, and that a school elected to give a certain amount of instruction in natural knowledge, this need not by any means exclude any of the existing subjects, because some might be taken up for one part of the school course, some for another. But even supposing that all educational authorities were agreed upon an ideal system, still to impose one identical course on all schools alike would even then be undesirable. As regarded the upper Standards, at any rate, some consideration should be given to locality, and the education given in a village school would naturally differ, in some respects, from that given in a school situated in a great city. Was it not advisable that some reference should be made in some schools to the staple industry of the district? This could be done, and made interesting to the children, without being in the nature of technical instruction. In their great mining districts, useful knowledge might be imparted which would be found valuable in after life. It was not unreasonable to suppose that if their coal miners had been fully impressed in their youth with the nature of fire-damp, many of the disastrous explosions so destructive to human life would have been avoided. The idiosyncrasies of the masters also ought to be considered, one man being peculiarly fitted to give instruction in a particular subject, while another was better qualified to deal with a different branch. Surely, then, to lay down such

  781
  minute rules in the Code was a great mistake? It was, moreover, remarkable that the Government, to a certain extent, admitted this, because they did not impose on Scotland or on Ireland the same system as on England. The Scotch people were continually objecting to their system of education being reduced to what they described as the "low level" of England; but he should like to know why English boys and girls should not be taught the same subjects as children in Scotland? He did not know whether he should be told it was not desirable to modify the Code again; but even if we admitted that it would not be desirable to adopt any Resolution which would impose additional obligations or requirements on schools, the objection did not apply to such an alteration as that now proposed. He asked nothing new of the schools, of the Education Department, or, indeed, of anyone. His Resolution was entirely permissive in its character. If school committees did not notice the change, or did not care to avail themselves of it, no harm would be done. They would only give them an option, which they might use or not, as they thought best. Their eloquent countryman, Mr. Ruskin, had truly said that—
  "The whole force of education, until very lately, has been directed in every possible way to the destruction of the love of nature. The only knowledge which has been deemed essential among us is that of words, and next after it of the abstract sciences, while every liking shown by children for simple natural objects has been either violently checked or else scrupulously limited to hours of play, so that it has really been impossible for any child earnestly to study the works of God, but against its conscience; and the love of nature has become inherently the characteristic of truants and idlers."
  Hitherto he had urged this Resolution on educational grounds; but he should like to say a few words on another aspect of the question. There was always, in every country, a tendency to, and a danger of, centralization. The advantages of each step in this direction were obvious; the dangers, perhaps, all the more perilous, because they were below the surface. Their municipal institutions were a great bulwark of their Parliamentary liberties; local self-government was an almost necessary training for Imperial self-government. From this point of view, also, it seemed very important that the power of local
  782
  authorities should not be unnecessarily curtailed. He had attempted to show that the Code in its present form laid down unnecessarily minute rules for the conduct of schools, that one branch of human knowledge was practically excluded, that the highest educational authorities were still divided in opinion as to the best course to be pursued, that the Amendment now proposed was permissive in its character, and that it simply gave to local authorities a power which, until recently, they possessed, and which there was no allegation that they in any way abused. The introduction of science would make their lessons more interesting to the children—what Ruskin said of ornament applied equally, perhaps more, to education—
  "The right question to ask is simply this—Was it done with enjoyment, was the workman happy while he was about it? So he would say of education—Was the child happy while he was about it?"
  He would appeal to Her Majesty's Government not to hamper education unnecessarily, or to exclude one great branch of human knowledge from their elementary schools. Education was not a mere matter of schools, forms, and registers; it was not enough to force children into the schools; they must induce them to learn when they were there. He believed that the knowledge which their children would acquire by the introduction of elementary science would not only be useful in itself, but that it would render their lessons more interesting, and, therefore, make them more instructive. In that belief, he commended his Amendment to the favourable consideration of the House.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it would be desirable to modify the Code of Education by adding Elementary Natural Science to the subjects mentioned in Article 19, c. 1,"—(Sir John Lubbock)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that he had understood that his hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock) intended to make the same proposal this year which he had in former years

  783
  submitted to the House—namely, that the so-called extra subjects, or specific subjects of the Code should be increased in number by the addition of a larger proportion of scientific subjects. Although he had a general sympathy with the hon. Baronet's object, he had not felt sure that that proposal had been the best mode of promoting this object; and he had, therefore, not been strongly in favour of it. He preferred the plan advocated by Mr. Matthew Arnold, in his Report, as Inspector of Schools, for 1876, and he was glad to find his hon. Friend now adopting that plan, and proposing in his Motion to add some elementary science, not to the extra subjects in the 4th Schedule of the Code, but to the grammar, geography, and history, taught as class subjects in the higher Standards under Article 19, C. i, of the Code. His hon. Friend had referred to Mr. Matthew Arnold's Report. He (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) would state a little more completely to the House what were Mr. Arnold's recommendations. He began by rejoicing over the introduction of the class subjects, which had done away with the notion that everything beyond certain minima of reading, writing, and arithmetic, was an "extra subject." He went on to say a special word in favour of grammar, as an exercise of a child's wits, whereas much of his other instruction was but an exercise of memory, pointing out that grammar was always included, even in French elementary education. He (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) had been sorry to see a speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), depreciating grammar as a subject of elementary instruction. Now, grammar was one of the few subjects at present taught that would give something like a scientific training to a child's mind. But everything, of course, depended on the manner in which grammar was taught. Hon. Members possibly thought, having learned little or no English grammar themselves, that it need not be taught to a child at an elementary school. But they must not forget that they had all learned Latin and Greek grammar, and thus had acquired the principles of the science of language. Mr. Arnold went on to advocate class-teaching above the Third Standard, as distinguished from preparation
  784
  for certain Standards of Examination, and to suggest that such class-teaching should include not only grammar, geography, and English history, but also what the Germans call naturkunde—elementary knowledge of the facts and laws of nature. Those were the proposals which he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) desired to support. During the past year he had studied the system of an elementary school in a small town in Germany. He found that there was no practical difficulty in teaching these naturkunde to every child above a certain age. Each child was supplied with a reading book, in which all that it was deemed necessary to teach the child in history, geography, natural history, and natural philosophy, was contained. They received simple instruction as to the plants, animals, and minerals of the locality, and as to their uses, their cultivation or extraction, and so forth. The principal phenomena of nature were explained to them; they were taught something of such machines as the steam-engine, and fire-engine, and telegraph, and of common instruments—the thermometer, barometer, &c. He did not think that instruction of this kind could be pushed very far in their elementary schools; but the present proposal of his hon. Friend was the right one, and he had much pleasure in supporting his Motion.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he was always in favour of education, and had done his utmost to promote it; but he feared the school boards were going a little too fast, and making the cause of education unpopular. As chairman of a school board, he found that there was a growing difficulty with the parents of the children, whom it was difficult to convince that all this education was necessary. Many parents in agricultural districts had an idea that if their children were taught in such subjects as elementary natural science they would never be any good for the farm. A very respectable farmer said to him the other day—"I pay £6 every year for the education of these boys, and here is one of them, 13 years of age, and the first thing he does is to take up a newspaper, and if I tell him to get on with his work, he snubs me by telling me he knows more than I do." The farmers objected to the very name elementary natural science, and he hoped whatever the Government

  785
  might do, they would not make such teaching compulsory. They were, he was afraid, going on too fast in that direction, and it would be better to allow the older generation to die off before they pushed education much further. He recommended, therefore, that they should proceed more slowly in this matter for the present. If there wore any boys in an elementary school who desired to obtain a better education, let it be provided for them by voluntary subscriptions and in other schools, and not in the board schools and at the expense of the rates.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONagreed that scientific instruction should form part of the elementary education in their schools, and that it could be taught without going into anything of an abstruse nature. Though the Inspectors of schools did their work thoroughly and well, their University training usually prevented them from having much knowledge of natural science, and he wished for the appointment of competent Examiners as well as of competent teachers. The great number of alterations made in the Code had been mentioned in the debate, and had rendered it almost impossible for the noble Lord to object to one more, which, if it resulted even in the reconstruction of the Code, would do no great harm. Before the House consented to the first Vote in the Estimates, the noble Lord ought to tell them how Scotland would be placed after the present system, which came to an end in a few weeks, had disappeared.
  MR. RAMSAYremarked, that the speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies) afforded an illustration of the fact that the people generally, who were interested in the education of the young, approved of the progress made in the schools; while there were many who objected to that progress, because the young people made a show of their education at times. He could only say if that was the case, there must be a great defect in the education of people who made such objections, for it was not often that anyone could say that a person was over-educated. However highly a person might be educated, it did not incapacitate him for manual labour; and if the whole population of this country was educated highly, it would not benefit manufactures only, but also agriculture. There was no branch of industry which required the attention of scientific men
  786
  and the application of science more than agriculture. Knowledge was power, and if the people were raised by a higher education, the country would be largely benefited. But this question was dealt with in different parts of the country according to the sentiment of the population. An hon. Member had complained that a certain class of the people were opposed to the teaching of such subjects as the hon. Baronet proposed; but he would assure the House that the sentiment of the people in the North was different. The people in Scotland raised no such objections to children being taught those sciences, and the labouring poor were proud of the education of their children when they had capacity to distinguish themselves in the schools. And he was of opinion that it would be well to interest and educate children by means of lectures and addresses from the teachers, as it would fit them to proceed with the higher subjects in after years. In Scotland there was altogether a different sentiment in regard to this question than existed in England, and a different ideal was entertained as to what constituted a good education. In Scotland there was a considerable number of scientific institutions where specific subjects were inculcated, and in many of the schools there they taught mechanics chemistry, animal physiology, light and heat, physical geography, and botany. Any of those subjects, if taught in a popular way, were calculated to interest the young. ["No!"] An hon. Member said "No;" but he (Mr. Ramsay) had had considerable experience in schools, and that experience had led him to see that it very much depended upon whether the teacher was fitted to communicate such instruction to the young in such a manner as to enable them to benefit. With regard to Scotland, he would ask the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council if he would favour the Scotch Members by stating how and in what manner the education of Scotland was hereafter to be managed? He was not prepared to stand there to advocate that the action of the Board of Education in Scotland should be applied to England. On the contrary, his contention was that the system adopted in the respective countries should be duly considered by those who had the responsibility as to what results

  787
  were obtained, and whether those results were such as each country might expect in return for the large sums of money paid out of the Imperial Treasury. But he wished the noble Lord to inform them what was to be the future Board to administer Scotch education. In the Education Act it was provided that, at the expiration of the powers and duties of the Board of Education, the whole of those powers and duties conferred by the Act of 1872 should devolve upon the Department. But he wished to say that they had no knowledge of what the Department was. The noble Viscount the President of the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon) was unable to answer the question except by saying that they had never met. Now, he thought that a body who never met must be a body of a very peculiar description, and one which the people of Scotland could hardly be expected to look to with much deference or respect. He was informed, however, that it was too much to say that the Department never met, as there had been a meeting lately, when the Lord Advocate was present, and was appointed——
  MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the question of the constitution of the Board of Education of Scotland is not the subject before the House.
  MR. RAMSAYapologized to the House if he had made any irrelevant remarks. He simply wished to say that the administration of the Education Department came on as the first Vote on the Estimates down for to-night; and he considered it expedient, before the House was asked to vote any money, that some information on this point should be afforded to the House. That information, no doubt, they would get at a future stage; but he had thought it would be better that the Speaker should not leave the Chair, and that they should postpone the consideration of the matter until the noble Lord could give the information. He felt the matter to be one of considerable importance, but he did not make these remarks in any way antagonistic to the executive of the Department. He would take a subsequent opportunity of expressing his views, without trespassing further at the present time upon the attention of the House. He would say this, however, that while approving of the highest
  788
  possible education being given to all the population of the United Kingdom, he felt that the teaching of elementary natural science might be introduced with benefit. But until they could get the children generally to take advantage of education in the higher Standards of the Code, there was little to encourage him to look forward to the teaching of the subject proposed by the hon. Baronet.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had so well stated the case in favour of his Motion that there was very little to be added to his arguments. Although, hitherto, he had himself felt considerable doubt in respect to that Motion, he confessed that he was now entirely inclined to support it. He had in previous years understood that the hon. Baronet wished to make the teaching of elementary natural science more or less compulsory in all schools. He did not think that they had yet got to that point. He sympathized a good deal with what the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies) had said in reference to the prejudices they had to encounter; but those prejudices must not altogether prevent them from legislating where legislation was necessary or desirable; and he did not think they could afford to say they would not educate their children because the farmers were ignorant. The boy who snubbed his employer because he could read a bit out of a newspaper and his employer could not was hardly likely to be made more uppish by learning a little geography. The fault of such bad manners would probably arise not so much from what the boy had learnt as from what he had not learnt. But if they said all the children were to be taught elementary science, they would not, in the first place, get it done; and, secondly, they would frighten the ratepayers throughout the country. That, however, was not what the hon. Baronet asked for. As they had now come to the conclusion that, in order to obtain a certain part of the grant, the children in the higher Standards must pass a creditable examination in any of the following subjects:—grammar, history, geography, or plain needlework—all that the hon. Baronet asked was that elementary science should be put on a par with those subjects. There might be some

  789
  schools in which it was more desirable to teach elementary science than grammar, or history, or geography; and they ought to leave room for some choice on that point. He did not think he himself could pass an examination in even elementary science, and perhaps some other hon. Members might be in the same position. If so, they might be a little frightened by that proposal. For himself, however, he wished that he had been taught as much science as history and geography; and he did not think that as it would be arranged to be taught, it would be one whit more difficult to learn elementary science than to learn history or geography, and it would not be found so difficult as grammar. There might be parts of the country where it was desirable, if they went beyond reading, writing, and ciphering, that they should teach elementary science. Professor Huxley and other eminent scientific men had been considering how they could make the elementary facts of natural science easy to be acquired by children. His hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked them to take advantage of that. In some cases a master might be better able to teach elementary science than any of the other subjects, and why should he not have the option of doing it? There was no reason why that should not be put along with the other extra subjects. That would involve some alteration in the Standards, and the noble Lord could consult with those who were most competent to advise him as to how the thing could be best carried out. If the noble Lord did not at once accept the Motion, he hoped that he would not put it altogether aside, but would consider whether it might not be adopted at the next revision of the Code. In making that request, he was not suggesting that they should pester all the children's brains with more subjects. But he thought that, both as regarded the real knowledge it would give them, and as regarded their preparation for the callings in which many of them would have to earn their bread, it would be desirable to place the teaching of elementary science alongside of grammar, geography, and history.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone was, in substance, identical with those which he
  790
  had made on two previous occasions. The hon. Baronet had certainly succeeded in making a considerable number of converts to his proposals. The right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had admitted that he was prepared, to a certain extent, to support them. The speech of the hon. Baronet was characterized by his usual ability; but it was one thing to make an able speech and to support it by a number of plausible arguments, and it was another thing for a Member of the Government to accept a proposal which he had the responsibility of seeing carried out. It appeared to him, from the limited experience he had had of the Department with which he was now connected, that there were very grave difficulties in the way of adopting the present Motion. If the suggestion of the hon. Baronet were adopted, the teachers on the one hand, would have great difficulty in determining what subjects they should teach, and the Inspectors, on the other hand, would not be certain in what subjects the children were to be examined. So long as the system of payment by results was continued, so long must there be a considerable amount of rigidity in order to insure uniformity in the subjects in which the children were examined. But it ought to be borne in mind, in dealing with this question, that all the alterations which had recently been made in the Code were alterations which deliberately went in the direction of increasing the discretion of the teacher as to the subjects which might be taught, and the only limit upon that discretion was that which it was necessary to impose in order to render it compatible with the system of payment by results, which was based upon an annual examination. Therefore, before the House expressed an opinion in favour of the proposition of the hon. Baronet, it ought to consider what was now taught, and how far the suggestion of the hon. Baronet would upset the equilibrium of the present Code. In 1871, immediately after the Education Act was passed, the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone made a Motion to the effect that encouragement should be given by the Education Department to instruction in something more than mere reading, writing, and arithmetic. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford acceded in substance to his proposal, and

  791
  in the next year very considerable alterations were made in the Code. The Code had been in existence for several years, and had worked well; and therefore he thought the House should pause before adding to the already complicated regulations which it contained. History, geography, and grammar, had been added to the class subjects, in which all children above Standard II. were to be taught; and, although there were differences of opinion as to teaching grammar, he could not help thinking that that kind of instruction was necessary. He would not be so audacious as to allude to speeches made in that House; but observations of speeches sometimes made on other occasions led him to think that instruction in grammar would considerably improve the style of British oratory. In addition to these three class-subjects, there were 10 other subjects in which children above Class 4 could be examined, and could receive payments by results. It was impossible for the Inspectors to exactly know what were the subjects in which they would have to examine the children, and one of the first acts of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, after he became Vice President of the Council, was to make serious alterations in the Code. The hon. Baronet proposed to add natural science to the subjects of instruction. That would make a great alteration. It would be necessary, for that purpose, to re-model the whole of the Code. What was natural science? It was very well for the hon. Baronet to say that he did not mean anything difficult. At the rooms of the Royal Society, which was established for the promotion of natural science, he (Lord George Hamilton) found lectures had been delivered in biology, chemistry, natural history, mechanics, astronomy, mathematics, and botany. The subject was so wide, that teachers might give instruction in almost any conceivable subject, and unless the House was prepared to add very largely to educational expenditure, it would be impossible to add natural science to the subjects taught. Under these circumstances, although he cordially agreed with the greater part of the observations of the hon. Baronet, he could not accept the Amendment which he had moved. Its object was, undoubtedly, good. It was to give to the Code as much elasticity as possible, so
  792
  that children might be trained in some of the elements of knowledge which would be connected with their future occupation in life. He could assure the hon. Baronet that any proposal which in his (Lord George Hamilton's) humble judgment was practical would meet with no opposition from him; but when a proposal so wide as that which the hon. Baronet had made to-day was brought forward, he had no alternative but to ask the House to reject it; and he thought the hon. Baronet himself used one argument which justified him in rejecting his proposal. The hon. Baronet alluded to the great differences of opinion that existed amongst most eminent men as to the best course of elementary education. If, then, there was so great a doubt on that matter, was this the right time to make a great alteration in the Code?
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he was afraid the noble Lord had misapprehended the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. The noble Lord quoted the wide extent of science by stating the subjects of study on the part of the Royal Society. He must remind the noble Lord that the Royal Society was not a Society for the promotion of elementary science, but for the promotion of the highest investigation in the most abstruse sciences. The noble Lord, in saying that elementary science could not be added to the subjects taught because it covered so wide an area might as well have said that history, for the same reason, could not be one of the subjects taught. The noble Lord said it was impossible to introduce such subjects into the Code. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON: Without great alteration.] He (Mr. Lyon Playfair) could speak with a little knowledge on this subject, because the Education Department had been good enough to adopt several outlines of study for special subjects in science which he had prepared at their request. All that they required to do was to add to their Standard a little of elementary knowledge—he was not going to call it science—because it was the term elementary science which confused and frightened people. What was meant by elementary science? It was simply an intelligent acquaintance with the objects by which the poor children would be surrounded, perhaps, throughout their lives. He observed opposite him his hon. Friend

  793
  the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read). Now he, at least, would appreciate teaching agricultural labourers. Such knowledge would enable them to understand how crops extracted food from the air and from the soil. Farmers' children would be no worse if they learned how manure was damaged by letting ammonia escape into the air or phosphoric acid run off into the drains. The children of miners would be better if they were taught the properties of air, and of fire damp and choke damp. Accidents would be less numerous if such knowledge was prevalent. It was not less knowledge because it was made useful. His hon. Friend had done good service in drawing attention to the subject; and it was one of all the more importance that foreign Governments were giving practical effect to that which his hon. Friend suggested.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 37: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 195.)

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HERMON MR. HERMON rose to call attention to the inconvenience experienced by the public owing to the National Gallery being entirely closed to the public for several weeks each autumn, and to its being closed at too early an hour during some months of the year; to inquire whether it is essential that two days in each week should be set apart for students alone? and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, further facilities might be afforded to the public to view the magnificent collection."
  The National Gallery was, he said, according to present arrangements, inaccessible during the entire month of October. But that was a time when many thousands of strangers visited London, and they were naturally much disappointed at finding one of the prime attractions of the Metropolis closed against them. He saw no reason why the National Gallery should not always remain open until dusk, or why two days in each week should be wholly set apart for students. It was, of course, necessary, that on students' days steps should be taken to prevent too large an assembling of the general public; and
  794
  this could be done, without entirely excluding those who might wish to visit the Gallery, by making a small charge for admission on particular days. He did not think the public were sufficiently aware that we had a National Gallery. People saw soldiers about, and thought it was a barracks. If better means were taken to attract visitors, the attendance would speedily increase. Then there was the question of catalogues. About £500 a-year was paid into the National Exchequer for catalogues sold. The daily average of visitors to the National Gallery was only about 7,000, and not more than that number of catalogues were sold in a year. Instead of being sold at 1s. or 1s. 6d., catalogues might easily be supplied for 1d. a-piece. When The Pilgrim's Progress could be published for 1d., and the whole of Shakespeare for 2½d., surely catalogues could be afforded as cheaply? As to the closing of the Gallery in October, he found, on looking at the attendance at South Kensington, that October was by no means a blank month, the attendance there being larger for that than it was for some of the other months of the year. Every facility ought to be offered to the public for visiting the magnificent collection of pictures we had at the National Gallery, especially when it was remembered that the public bought the pictures and paid for them. There were pictures there which were unsurpassed in any Gallery in the world, and, for his own part, he would rather spend a day there than in any other Picture Gallery in Great Britain. He regretted that he was unable to take the opinion of the House upon the question which he had brought forward; but he hoped the Government would give attention to it.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYhoped the subject would be regarded by Her Majesty's Government in the same spirit in which it had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Preston. He entirely concurred with the three points in the hon. Gentleman's Notice—namely, that the National Gallery should be open for a longer time in the evening, that foreigners and others visiting London in the autumn should not be disappointed at finding the Gallery altogether closed, and that there was something unnecessary in the rule which excluded the general public from

  795
  the Gallery on two days in each week. As to the two days on which the students had the run of the Gallery, he might remark that in foreign countries pictures could be seen in numbers taken from their places, and distributed in the Galleries for the convenience of the students of art who desired to copy them; but the public enjoyed the sight of those pictures at the very time when they were under the eyes of the copyists. He was at a loss to imagine why such a practice could not be introduced among a people so easily regulated as the English. As to the hours of closing, especially in the summer months, he would urge that, as the House refused to admit the working classes to the view of pictures on Sunday, it ought to provide for their accommodation on week days. Further, he would observe that one part of the National Gallery might be cleaned while another portion was open to the public. For all these, reasons he thought the suggestions of the hon. Member for Preston were very reasonable, and he felt sure that if adopted by the Government, they would be welcomed and greatly valued by the public at large. He would suggest that similar provisions should be extended to the British Museum. On going there people were often met by the announcement that the Museum was not open on that particular day, except to students. In fact, he had been told so to-day; but he contrived with some friends to procure admission. Not a single student was to be seen, nor anybody hardly except the officials, one of whom was engaged in the harmless amusement of reading a comic weekly paper. Was it right that the British Museum should be closed for three out of seven days in part on the plea that the students must enjoy the place in seclusion; when, in fact, not a single soul was to be found there except the officials in charge of the building? Surely this was reducing the matter to an absurdity. In the days of the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) and the late right hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) they could expect no boon in the interests of art or science, and the Muses fled from the land. But under a Conservative Government—a Government which should be a Government of culture—they did hope and expect something more. He therefore trusted the Government would see their
  796
  way to making these collections, whether they were scientific, or artistic, or historical, more accessible to the public at large.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSentirely agreed in the spirit in which this question had been brought forward, and he was as strongly of opinion as the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon), that the greatest possible facilities should be given for the admission of the public to the National Gallery, and also to the British Museum. He had no particular proposal to make on the subject, but he promised that it should receive the attention and consideration of the Government. With regard to the two days set apart for students, he might mention that there were certain difficulties in opening the National Gallery to the public every day, in consequence of the great numbers of people who visited that institution; still, he did not say that the difficulties were insuperable, and certainly the question was well worth discussing. Another point was raised about the closing of these places too early in the afternoon. Of course, it was requisite, first of all, that the valuable treasures preserved there should be absolutely safe from fire. At the same time, he was free to state that it was well worth consideration whether, in summer time, when there was no occasion for either fires or lights, these places might not be kept open to a later hour, especially as large classes of persons who would like to see the collections were busily engaged during the day. On this part of the subject he could speak more strongly than on the other. The greatest care should be taken to give facilities to those who could see the collections both at the National Gallery and the British Museum in the day-time, after working hours, during the summer months. As to the closing of the National Gallery during several weeks in the autumn, although, of course, the places must be cleaned, and the officials must have a holiday, he thought that some arrangement might, perhaps, be made, so that the whole of the collections need not be closed at the same time. These were matters which, of course, must be determined in consultation with the Trustees, and he could not do more than say that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take care that they were considered in consultation with them.

EDUCATION GRANTS IN SCOTLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MARK STEWART MR. MARK STEWART rose to call attention to the recent practice of the Scotch Education Department in giving grants to schools, where such grants are not necessarily required for the education of the population of the parish or district in which such schools are situated. The hon. Member had a Motion on the Paper, which, however, according to the Rules of the House, he was unable to bring forward, as follows:—
  "To call attention to the recent practice of the Scotch Education Department in giving grants to schools where such grants are not necessarily required for the education of the population of the parish or district in which such schools are situated: and to move that, in the existing circumstances of education in Scotland, it is inexpedient to continue the practice of giving grants where not absolutely required."
  He said, that his motive in drawing attention to this subject was a very simple one, and one easily explained. It was well known that since 1872, when the Education Act for Scotland was passed, the whole of that country had been under school boards; and it had been one of the primary duties of these boards to see that proper and efficient schools were erected and maintained in every parish in Scotland. That had been done, at all events, in the whole of the Southern part of Scotland, and there were ample testimony and record, if necessary to produce them there, that the buildings which had been erected were very satisfactory. They were very large—indeed, he almost questioned whether they were not too large—because, while provision had been made for every child in a parish, it was a well-known fact that more than 10, 15, or even 20 per cent of children in many parishes could not possibly be present all at the same time. There could be no doubt, however, that the existing school arrangements, and the circumstances which had led to them, were such that there was ample accommodation. The regulations which had been laid down had been complied with by the boards; but this could not have been done without considerable trouble. There were difficulties connected with writing the Board of Education in Scotland, and then to the Education Department
  798
  in London, and in other ways; and it was only after a considerable time had elapsed that the system had been perfected, or, at all events, completed. When that was the case, it was rather hard that any individual who chose to set up another school might come into the district and found what he might term an adventure institution, in defiance of the schools which had been already erected there under Act of Parliament, and which were fully furnished in every way. What was the result of doing so? It had happened in various places in Scotland, and the result had simply been this—that while there had been a school erected, say for 100 children, there was, a few yards distant, another school capable of accommodating 300 or 400. The latter's children were drawn from the parent school, so to speak, and to that extent the parent school suffered. Not only, too, had the board school been built out of the rates, but it had been erected on the understanding that an Education Grant for every child would be given to it by the Government. Such a school was fulfilling all the requirements of the education system. It was examined yearly by Government Inspectors, and it had its responsible master and teachers; but, in spite of all that, and many other considerations which he could adduce, another school was allowed to be put up, which drained the board school of its children, often for no reason except that of rivalry, and the consequence was, that the ratepayers had paid a great deal of money in vain, that the school teachers did not get what properly belonged to them—the grant of the Government, as well as the fees of the children; and that, as a result of that, the master of a board school could not obtain the same class of teachers in a parish, and that his power weakened. More than that, the present state of matters caused a feeling of injustice to rankle in the mind—a feeling that, after everything required by Parliament had been done, after the Conscience Clause had been observed with the greatest care, and after nothing whatever had been done to forfeit the Government grants, yet the latter had been taken away from them, as it were, and new schools were allowed to be erected alongside of the parent schools. That was obviously a great hardship, and had proved so in

  799
  various districts in Scotland. Take the case of one burgh with which he was familiar. He did not find fault with any denominational system which could be found in operation in that burgh. It was well known that Scotland was a Presbyterian country, and that, while the Shorter Catechism and the Bible were used in the board schools, there was a Conscience Clause which prevented anything being done in the way of forcing religion down the throats of the scholars—a clause which, as he had already indicated, had been most honourably and uprightly observed. He had never known any school system in Scotland which had been carried on by proselytizing the children of the neighbourhood. The children came to their lessons if they liked; if they did not like, they remained away, but came at 10 o'clock and then received secular education. From the burgh to which he referred there was a Memorial sent up to the Education Department, in order to obtain a grant for a new school to be erected there, and the argument he had been using pressed very hard upon the ratepayers there. The teachers found in time that they were losing some 75 children. The ratepayers found that they had erected buildings to the tune of £1,500, which were, in part, no longer serviceable in the sense of being necessary, and considerable controversy had been occasioned in the town. He knew another case—that of a remote Highland glen—where a rival school was established, and the same thing happened. Feuds arose between respective families, and children who had been living together in the utmost possible harmony up to that moment, on finding a rival accommodation school set up within a few yards of that which they had been in the habit of attending, immediately began to fight and call each other names. There could be no doubt whatever that a grievance existed. He thought he knew what his noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) would reply—that all this was done under an Act of Parliament, or, at all events, under the interpretation which was put upon the section of a clause in an Act of Parliament. But what he complained of was, that this was not done by an Act of Parliament at all, but by a rule established by the Education Department in London. Considering that the Conscience Clause was so well observed,
  800
  and that ample provision existed in the localities for all children who were of age to attend school, he could not see how the clause, upon which the noble Lord would no doubt rely, could be made to apply so precisely as it appeared to be the wish of the Department to make it apply. He once more called the attention of the noble Lord to the extreme hardship of the case, that when a Board had done everything in its power to comply with the Government demands, it should be found wanting, not through any fault of its own, but because some private individual came into the district—no matter who or what he might be—and set up an adventure school. Sometimes such a man got children into his place by lowering the fees; and it was evident that, in such a case, he also lowered the standard of education throughout the country. He turned now to another point. He desired to give Notice that when the House got into Committee on the Education Estimates, he should endeavour, by moving the reduction of the Vote, to insist upon the Government saying what they intended to do with regard to the Scotch Education Department in London. The House knew very well that many Scotch Members had taken a keen interest in this matter, and that the time had almost expired when it would be possible to frame and pass an Act to restore the Board of Education in Edinburgh. That Board would expire on, he thought, the 6th of August; and he was bound to say that he thought the present system, when no longer under the Board of Education, would be in a most unsatisfactory state. There was no Scotch Department in reality in London. He was quite aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Advocate, and Sir Francis Sandford—and no one was a better judge of Scotch matters, and especially of education matters than Sir Francis—were supposed to be always there. Sir Francis Sandford, he repeated, was a most attentive official; but he was not able to overtake all the difficulties of such a question as that which he had been narrating to the House, and it would be most desirable to have an Assistant Secretary told off in connection with Scotch business, and in connection with Scotch Educational Business specially. Sir Francis might have to go to one part of the country to-day

  801
  and to another part to-morrow, and it was obviously impossible that he could give his sole and undivided attention to these questions which were continually cropping up for discussion before the House and the country. He gave notice—and he repeated the intimation—that in Committee he would move that no money be granted until there had been an explicit declaration made on the part of the Government on this question. But he hoped that the Government would be prepared to give a clear and decided answer on the point. There was an intensity of feeling on this subject amongst Scotchmen of which the noble Lord could hardly be aware. He would be bound to say that if a General Election took place to-morrow—to put it on no higher ground—a great many hon. Gentlemen would be questioned on the subject, and would have to say whether they desired to see something definitely established and settled on a really Scotch basis in regard to this particular matter. He thought he had said enough to show that there were points on which it was necessary to have a distinctly Scotch opinion, and on this question he was satisfied that he should have the support of many Scotch Members, if not of all.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he could not agree in the sweeping terms of the Resolution which the hon. Member for the Wigtown Burghs had placed upon the Table, but which, by the Rules of the House, could not be put from the Chair; and which, if it could be put, could not be passed without being a violation of the Education Act of 1872. But he thought it lay with the Department itself to administer the Act in a manner which would even satisfy those who felt very keenly on this subject. The grievance was in many cases a practical one, for after a school board had been obedient to the law, and had made every provision for the education of the children of the neighbourhood, a private school might be started under the sanction of the Department. This might be justified; but to make out a justification it was absolutely necessary for the parties to show that they were aggrieved by the action of the school board. The words of the Statute were embodied in the Code, and after saying "grants shall not be made unless the debt is satisfied," &c., there were the words—
  802
  "Due regard being had to the religious belief of the parents, or to any other special requirements of the locality."
  He did not conceive that that provision justified any person in coming forward and saying that no provision had been made for the religious education of the children. It must be more than that—namely, that the teaching supplied in the schools was of a kind that would deter them from sending their children to the schools. On its being shown that a school was conducted upon a religious system which would deter them from sending their children to the school, then, and then only, should the action of the Department come in as a protection to the conscientious scruples of those who felt themselves aggrieved. Having said this, he would say that this question touched one of the tenderest parts of the Scottish Education system, and it was far from his wish that the Department should be so tied up in its action as to be precluded from giving assistance under those circumstances. Roman Catholic schools had been referred to; but the grievance was not a specially Roman Catholic one. It would be felt by conscientious Presbyterians as well as by Roman Catholics. From the large powers given to school boards, it necessarily followed that power must be given to the Department to act in case of a school board using its powers oppressively towards the minority. He only wished the noble Lord and his Department would act with courage in this matter, and he was sure they would have the support of the great body in that House.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for the Wigtown Burghs had raised this question, which was one that excited much attention in Scotland. It was not Roman Catholic schools, but schools of all denominations, that had been encouraged by grants from the Education Department, after the school boards had, in accordance with the law, provided adequate accommodation for all the population within the several parishes or burghs. The hardship could only occur where adequate accommodation had been provided; but the fact was that the school boards had been compelled in nearly all cases to provide adequate accommodation for all the scholars in the several parishes and burghs of Scotland. While he felt that there was a hardship,

  803
  he also felt that nothing which could be oppressive to the conscientious feelings of parents in matters affecting their religious belief should be sanctioned or countenanced in any way by the Department. It was very true that where school boards had carried out the rules laid down by Parliament for their guidance in respect of religious education, children of all denominations attended the schools in many instances; but, in Scotland, where the great majority belonged to the various Presbyterian Bodies, it was usual to have religious education provided in accordance with the standard in use in the Presbyterian Churches; and one could understand that where there was a sufficient body of Roman Catholics to fill a school, the Catholic parents might desire their children to be under, not a Protestant teacher, but a teacher of their own denomination. He thought the Department would act wisely with each case that came before them of an application for a grant for a denominational school, if they would endeavour, in the first instance, to get the school board to make the rules relating to religious instruction such as might remove the objections of parents, whatever denomination they might belong to. If that were done, probably there would be fewer cases of hardship. He now came to the constitution of the Department itself. Before they were asked to vote any money, it would be well to receive some explanations as to the position in which Scotland was to be placed. The Department had no tangible existence. It was no disrespect to the noble Lord to say that he must feel that he was very imperfectly acquainted with the educational condition of Scotland, or with the feelings and sentiments of the Scottish people. The noble Duke at the head of the Department might not always be there, and his immediate Predecessor was a Nobleman in whom the people of Scotland would not have had much confidence. They would not think that to entrust to a Roman Catholic the administration of the educational affairs of this country was a thing which they would have done. Now the Department, as he had said, might be spoken of as having no existence, because the noble Lord's immediate Predecessor (Viscount Sandon) answered a Question in that House, by saying that the Committee had not met
  804
  since the passing of the Scotch Education Act. He believed there had been a meeting recently for the purpose of appointing the present respected and trusted Lord Advocate as a Member of the Department. But this was but a mockery of the feelings and wants of the people of Scotland. It was not to be supposed that that learned Gentleman and the noble Lord his Predecessor were consulted much by the Department. Recently there was a discussion on a Motion by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease), when attention was called to a change made in the Education Code, having strict reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Mr. Mark Stewart). The Department had taken on themselves to alter the express provisions of an Act of Parliament in relation to this very subject. The words of the Statute were—
  "Provided that the Parliamentary grant shall not be made in respect of a school established after the passing of this Act, not being a public school,"
  but the Department had omitted altogether from the Code the words—"not being a public school." He believed that on that occasion some complaint was made that notice had not been taken of the subject when the Code was laid on the Table of the House; but he confessed he should never have believed that the Department could be capable of altering an express provision of an Act of Parliament, for he held that the Code was to be so framed when laid before Parliament as to carry out the Statute, but not to over-ride or ignore an express statutory provision. He did not imagine that if the two learned gentlemen who were members of the Department and Scotch lawyers had been consulted, they would have expressed an opinion that it was competent for them to introduce such a rule into the Code. This afforded an illustration of the want of a really Scotch element in the administration of the Scotch system of Education. Then there was another point in the instructions regarding sites for schools. The Department had included the Act 4 & 5 Vict., cap. 38, as one which was to guide those who were framing the titles to sites in favour of the school boards. Now, that Act, as he read it, did not apply to Scotland at all, and if it had been the wish of

  805
  the Department to obtain a legal opinion, they might have obtained it from the Lord Advocate or his immediate Predecessor. The 4 & 5 Vict., cap. 38, was put into his hands for the purpose of enabling him to frame a title for the school board in a district where he had property. When he looked at it, he found it only applied to those who held their lands on freehold, copyhold, or customary tenure, and they had no such tenure in Scotland. Although the Act, as framed by the draftsman, was intended to apply to Scotland, it was quite evident that it was not applicable. But there were more important particulars in which it was essential that they should have a national Scotch element in the Department. It was not enough that they should have able and talented men to administer their affairs. He fully admitted their ability and their courtesy. In the first Vote which they would be asked to sanction that night, he found that the officers of the Department were enumerated. They had the respected Secretary at the head of the Executive, and they had four assistants, one of whom, he believed, usually acted for Scotland; but he must, as occasion required, interchange his services with others who were only acquainted with matters affecting English education, and were usually employed in dealing with them. There were eight senior examiners, none of them, he understood, being at all employed in any work connected with Scotland. There were 19 junior examiners, and it was to one or more of that number that the Scotch schools were entrusted. He could not conceive anything more unsatisfactory than this. Apparently it had been resolved by Ministers that the Board of Education should be discontinued. He said nothing about that; but they had another Bill before the House, affecting education in Scotland—the Endowed Schools Bill, and he would urge that they must have some separate and distinct connection with the Department in London, or that the Board in Scotland should be perpetuated. He hoped the Government would give heed to the educational sentiment of Scotland, and would do nothing to lower the present standard of education. In fact, it was enjoined that in framing the Code care should be taken by the Scotch Education Department
  806
  that the standard of education should not be lowered. Well, that was a precautionary measure against the risk of that standard being lowered. He thought Ministers ought to see that it was elevated to the highest attainable point. But if Scotch education were put under those who were only acquainted with English sentiment, nothing was more certain than that the Scotch system would be deteriorated the moment it came under the exclusive influence of English sentiment on that subject. It was a fact, that the Scotch sentiment on education was so essentially different from that of England, that, whether in London or in Edinburgh, Scotch educational affairs ought to be administered by a separate and distinct body from that which administered the same affairs in England. He hoped that England at no distant day would come to be prompted by such a feeling as to education. He believed that would come about; but now they were to undergo a process of degradation of the standard of education, because of the desire to concentrate the administration of affairs in one body. Nothing more detrimental to the best interests of this land could possibly be done, and he trusted that Ministers would never lend themselves to such a system. He might as well allude to the fact that the provisions in relation to education and the endowed schools were not what he should have expected from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were framing measures for promoting the best interests of the people of this country. He found nothing like an attempt to provide for that higher education which they all desired the people should have within their reach. He observed that the Home Secretary shook his head at that statement. He hoped they should be saved from any educational deterioration by persons being appointed to the Department to be employed exclusively on Scotch Business and acquainted with the sentiment of the people of Scotland, instead of the business being left to those who ignored that feeling, or regarded it with distrust, and would seek to place them in the same position as those who complained that attempts were made to elevate the standard of education in England. He would suggest that when the Endowed Schools Bill was before the House——
  MR. M'LAREN MR. M'LAREN rose to Order and wished to know whether it was competent to the hon. Member to discuss the Endowed Schools Bill?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was certainly not competent for the hon. Member to do so. He would point out to the hon. Member that the Endowed Schools Bill was put down for consideration on a future day, and the discussion upon it could not now be anticipated.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he did not intend to discuss the special provisions of the Endowed Schools Bill; but he was not surprised at the impatience shown by his hon. Friend in regard to any censure being passed on the provisions of that measure, seeing that it had so far received his sanction. He would suggest, however, that advantage might be taken of the measure before the House for the purpose of forming a body which should take charge not only of the higher education of Scotland, but of elementary education. He hoped that Ministers might avail themselves to some extent of his suggestion on two points. The first was, that if there was to be nothing in Scotland of the nature which he contemplated, and which he thought would be best, then that they should have separate officials in the Department here to whom Scotland could look and trust as being in accord with Scottish sentiments and feelings on the subject of education. He thought, moreover, it would be an advantage if, in addition to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who represented Scotland in the Department, they had men—and there were good men in that House—to act as a Council in the Department. The day was not far distant when they would require to appoint, not a President of the Council as the head of the Education Department, but a Minister who should devote his attention specially to the cause of education; and the more that was considered, the more necessary would it appear that education should be dealt with as a separate Department of the State, and in all respects placed on an equal footing with the other Departments of Government. He believed the noble Duke who was now at the head of this Department was as anxious for the welfare of their common country as anyone could be; but that he should at the same time be discussing the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill and measures
  808
  for the promotion of education was an anomaly which he thought right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not attempt to justify as that which was best if they were now to have a new system established. He thanked the House for having listened to him so long and so patiently.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he had the misfortune to differ with a great deal of what had been said that evening. He was not a believer at all in the deterioration of the education which was at present given in the schools in Scotland. He did not think that at any period was the education given in the common schools of Scotland better than it was at the present time. As far as he had been able to learn from the most eminent judges—such, for example, as the Chairman of the School Board in Edinburgh, the Rev. Dr. Scott, a man of great experience, and many others whom he could name, it was a mere delusion to suppose that there had been a deterioration going on in the education given in the schools of Scotland. He believed that, taking any test they liked, it would be found that there was a greater number of efficients in the higher branches than there ever were before. There was another point as to which he should like to state the impression on his own mind derived from such sources of information as he had had access to. It had been alleged that there was a great and general demand for an independent school authority in Scotland to regulate common schools of that country. He thought that the best thing that could be done with the school board authorities in Scotland was to leave them alone, and not meddle with them. They were all in working trim now, and in his opinion they needed no superintendence whatever. Everything was carefully laid down in the Act, and if they would just allow those authorities to go on, every benefit would be obtained which could be reasonably expected in the circumstances of the case. He thought it was a great mistake to suppose there had been a general outcry in Scotland for a Scotch Board of Education. What outcry there had been was got up very much by people more or less interested in this subject. It had not emanated from the great bulk of the people.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his noble Friend the

  809
  Vice President would probably have occasion to speak before the Speaker left the Chair on other questions which might be raised in connection with his Department; and, possibly, it might seem wanting in respect to the Scotch nation generally if a few words were not said on the question raised by his hon. Friend, and which had been the subject of the last two or three speeches. The House might be well assured that the question of Scotch education was one which was in no danger of being neglected by the Government. They had felt that it was undesirable to maintain any longer the separate Board, which had been temporarily in existence in Edinburgh; but, now that that Board was coming to an end, it would, of course, be the duty of the Government to make proper arrangements for the due conduct of Scotch educational business. There did now exist a Scotch Education Department. At present its Members were the Lord President of the Council, the Vice President of the Council, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Gordon of Drumearn, and the Lord Advocate. That Education Committee did meet, or would meet, for business of an important character deserving consideration of the whole Board; and, no doubt, when the temporary Board came to an end, the services of the new Board would be more frequently required than was the case at present. In addition to that, of course, the great mass of the Scotch education business was done, just as the great mass of the English education business was, by the Lord President and Vice President. The Committee of Council on Education was summoned from time to time when important questions connected with English education arose, as, for instance, the bringing in of a new Bill or the making of any material alterations in the Code. And the case would be similar with the Scotch department. But what he apprehended the hon. Gentleman probably spoke in reference to was the administrative part of the business. It was certain that that administrative part of the business ought to be very carefully attended to, and it was the intention of his noble Friends the Lord President and the Vice President to organize the department, and to take care that Scotch business should be duly represented and conducted
  810
  by men who devoted themselves to that business, so as to acquire a proper acquaintance with it. Although, up to the present time, the Estimates had been so framed that all the administrations came together, yet it was intended in the Estimates for next year to place the Vote for one of the assistant secretaries, who would be specially engaged in Scotch business, and also so many examiners as might be necessary under the head of Scotch Education. So that there would be a Scotch administration, he would not say all composed of Scotchmen, but of men conversant with Scotch business. They would conduct the business under the general directions of the Lord President and the Committee which he had mentioned, and he thought there would be a thorough desire to treat Scotch business upon Scotch principles. If Scotch gentlemen desired to carry their Scotch principles to the extreme, he himself would be quite ready to make the grants in pounds Scotch rather than English. But they would not, perhaps, care to go that length. He could, however, assure hon. Gentlemen that the matter was receiving due consideration.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRexpressed his gratification at the speech which they had just heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was useless crying over spilt milk. They had fought as gallantly as they could the fight of the Scotch Education Board, and they had been beaten. He did not intend to say anything to that; but he had been about to suggest what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all the authority of the Leader of the House. To satisfy the Scotch people it would be necessary in future, in framing the Estimates, so to arrange the Scotch Business that they would know whom to apply to for the administration of the Scotch Department. Therefore what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman would give satisfaction when it was read in Scotland. As to the Scotch Education Department, that, as they all knew, was, like the English Education Department, very much of a myth. It was summoned to approve the decisions which were come to laboriously by the President and Vice President of the Council when a Code came in; but it was a merely formal meeting, and it very rarely had an effective charge of administration;

  811
  but the point to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, of a division of the Estimates and a distinct allocation of persons either in Edinburgh or in the Office to Scotch Education Business, would, he was sure, give great satisfaction in Scotland, yet he did not see why the Government should wait till next year to do that. Increased Estimates were not wanted, but only an adjustment of present Estimates. That was an administrative detail which Sir Francis Sandford could settle in a short time.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE FOR 1878—ATTENDANCES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, who had given Notice that he would call attention to the conditions of the New Code of 1878, requiring a definite number of attendances at one school as a condition of presentation for examination, and move—
  "That inasmuch as this requirement has become unnecessary, owing to the institution of 'Children's School Books,' and constitutes a temptation to inaccurate registers, while it prejudices the education of the children who are unable to fulfil the condition, it is desirable that the Code should be amended by the omission of such requirement,"
  said, he understood that by the Standing Orders it was not competent for him to move his Resolution. He would, however, feel quite content in simply directing the notice of the Education Department to the subject, in the hope that they might be induced to adopt the suggestions which the proposal embodied, and which had already received the support of a considerable number of qualified educationalists. Although the subject might appear at first sight to be of a technical character, yet it was of considerable practical importance, and it fortunately did not raise any political or sectarian issue. The Birmingham School Board had petitioned in favour of the proposed change, as had also other school boards, including those of Derby, Durham, Huddersfield, and Plymouth. Opinions in favour of the suggestions had been expressed at a conference of the National Union of Elementary Teachers. This condition of attendance as preliminary to examination was introduced by the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe)
  812
  as part of the system of payment by results. At the time of its introduction 200 attendances were required; now the number was 250. For the most part, the disqualifications under this condition arose from causes wholly beyond the reach of either the teacher or the manager. Even without any such condition, the teacher had sufficient inducement to secure regular attendance, in the fact that the irregular scholars did not remunerate him for his labour in giving them efficient instruction. One of the reasons for adopting the condition was that it was supposed to prevent the possible presentation of a child in the same Standard twice in the same year; but the introduction of the School Book recording the progress of the child had rendered any fraud of that kind impossible. The last Report of the Privy Council stated that out of the 2,064,000 odd children on the school registers, no less than 618, 849, or 31 per cent, were disqualified owing to the non-fulfilment of this condition of 250 attendances at the same school. The result was that the country was kept in a state of ignorance as to the extent of the education of these children, for whose instruction the country paid largely. No doubt the large majority of these 618,849 children had made the requisite number of attendances, but not in the same school. The removal of children from one school to another was owing, not to caprice on the part of their parents, but to their change of residence. It appeared that in one year there had been in Birmingham. 10,000 changes of residences on account of change of work and other causes, so that 10,000 children had, through those changes of residences, to be removed to other schools. The condition of requiring 250 attendances in the same school retarded the education of children. In many cases children, because they had not fulfilled that condition, had to be presented for examination in a lower Standard than they were capable of passing. The children who had not fulfilled the condition were neglected by the teachers, who bestowed most of their attention on children who, having complied with the condition, might pass the examination, and thus be of pecuniary service to the teachers. Another objection to the present system was, that it offered a direct temptation to the teacher to falsify the register of attendance in order to obtain the grant;

  813
  an objection which was confirmed by the Reports of Inspectors. If this temptation were removed he believed those offences would disappear. He was quite content to leave the matter to the consideration of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and the Department which he represented. He thought he had shown what was a real grievance, both to managers and to teachers. It was a temptation which had led many teachers astray, and which, at the same time, had proved to be an obstacle and an hindrance to the progress of education. If the noble Lord would consent to expunge in future the condition to which he had referred they would then really know what the education system was doing, and the great discrepancy between the total number of registered scholars and the numbers shown to be receiving anything like a satisfactory education would be removed.

  TURKEY—CRETE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MONK, who had a Motion on the Paper, to the effect that the state of the Christian population of Crete demanded the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the welfare and protection of the inhabitants being secured at the Eastern Congress, said, that as he was precluded by the Forms of the House from submitting his Motion, he would call attention to the affairs of Crete. He was by no means sure that this was not the most favourable—perhaps it would be the only—opportunity the House would have before the close of the Session of considering the question whether it was desirable or not that Crete should be freed from the incubus of the Turkish yoke—a yoke which, in the opinion of many leading statesmen of this country, both past and present, ought never to have been imposed upon her. The history of Crete for the last half century presented a sad and humiliating retrospect; and now, after 40 years of Turkish oppression and misrule, and after insurrections without number, the National Assembly of that country had presented a Memorial to the Great Powers, asking them to aid her in throwing off the Turkish yoke, and to assist her in her desire of being annexed to Greece. Every telegram received from Crete told us that the island was in a most critical state. In spite of every endeavour on the part of Her Majesty's
  814
  Government—and he gave the Government great credit for endeavouring, through our Ambassador at Constantinople, and our Consul, Mr. Sandwith, to effect a reconciliation between the Cretans and the Porte—nothing whatever had been done which was effectual. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and himself had frequently asked for the production of the Papers with regard to Crete, and he was at a loss to comprehend the reason for the delay in producing them. But he was still more astonished when they were produced, because he did not see a single line which should have prevented the Government from producing them at an earlier period. The only reason for the delay was to be found in an Answer given by the Under Secretary before Easter—namely, that it was undesirable to produce the Papers, because they might add to the excitement of the island. But for months past the island had been in such a state of excitement that it was impossible to add to it by producing Consular or Ambassadorial Reports. He was quite sure the Under Secretary would not now contend that there was any hope of putting an end to the insurrection without some serious steps being taken to satisfy the wants and wishes of the people, and he could see no method of doing so, except by urging on the Great Powers the annexation of Crete to Greece. As he was loth to say a word which might seem calculated to stir up strife, he would refrain from quoting from the Papers which had been furnished. The enormities which had been committed by the Bashi-Bazouks upon the Christian in-habitants hon. Gentlemen could read for themselves in the Reports of our Consul, and in the despatch of M. Delyanni communicated to Lord Salisbury on the 10th April. What then had Government done in respect of Crete? On the 22nd of May, Consul Sandwith announced to the Provisional Government that he was authorized by Sir Austen Layard to mediate between the Porte and the insurgents; and he was reported to have said that the Porte had given the most solemn assurances that it would make arrangements with England for a new form of government, in conformity with the legitimate demands and requirements of the island, and that it was prepared to

  815
  grant an amnesty. The Provisional Government accepted those terms, provided an armistice were agreed to, until such time as a definite solution should be arrived at. Incredible as it might seem, that proviso was rejected by the Porte, and the negotiations fell through. Fighting had been going on ever since, and the Under Secretary had informed the House a short time ago that the insurgents were in possession of almost the whole island. He would ask the House to bear with him, while he briefly pointed out what was the course adopted by the Provisional Government prior to that unsuccessful attempt at mediation. Early in the year, Commissioners were sent from Constantinople. And on February 20, Mr. Sandwith wrote that the Assembly had addressed Memorials to the Consuls embodying their proposals, which were four in number—first, that the government should be autonomous; secondly, that the Chief should be elected by the people; thirdly, that the island should pay an annual tribute to the Porte; and, fourthly, that the Constitution should be guaranteed by the Great Powers. These, it would be admitted, were moderate demands. The fourth condition—that the Constitution should be guaranteed by the Great Powers—was absolutely necessary, when it was remembered how vain had been the promise of the Porte to effect reforms in 1868, and mainly because they were not guaranteed by the Great Powers. But the Turkish Commissioners declined to entertain the proposals, negotiations were broken off, and the Mussulman and Christian populations were once more in arms. In these circumstances the General Assembly had entreated the Great Powers to take this matter into their own hands at the Congress now sitting, and to support their views of annexation, in the earnest desire that peace, happiness, and contentment might be restored to the island. Consul Sandwith, in February last, stated that the Porte had admitted the legality of the Assembly making these demands, and, therefore, he expressed his surprise that the Porte should summarily have rejected them. The General Assembly had done their utmost to avoid an insurrection; although the people had been three months in arms, the Assembly had prevented an outbreak of hostilities. Consul Sandwith
  816
  went on to state that the Assembly had been obliged to break off all negotiations with the Commissioners and appeal to the Great Powers, having regard to the programme of 1821, 1841, and 1856, in which the island was declared to be annexed to Greece. No other solution of this question was likely to be satisfactory or final. He humbly, but earnestly, entreated the Government to take the unfortunate condition of Crete into their consideration; and, bearing in mind the responsibilities incurred by Great Britain, France, and Russia, at the close of the Greco-Turkish War, when they left Crete with 200,000 Christians, and only 40,000 Mussulmans under the dominion of the Sultan, that they would instruct our Plenipotentiaries at Berlin to take steps to repair the injustice which had been done to Crete 50 years ago, by rescuing that fair territory from the depressing influence and grinding thraldom under which it had suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Porte. It appeared by to-day's accounts from Berlin that the consideration of the Greek question had been postponed for a few days; and, therefore, it was not too late to remind the Government of the promises made to Greece, and, he presumed, also to the Cretans, that if they abstained from hostilities, their case should not be neglected by the Congress. This was a part of the great Eastern Question, and it was most desirable that it should be brought to a final decision. Some of the greatest statesmen of this country foresaw the difficulties likely to arise from the present arrangements, and that the day would come when Crete could no longer acknowledge the Turkish rule. Lord Palmerston had expressed most strongly his opinion that the Greeks of Crete, when they saw their brethren free, would no longer submit to the thraldom of Turkey. The late King of the Belgians refused to accept the Throne of Greece because Thessaly, Epirus, and Crete were not annexed to it. He hoped to receive an assurance from his hon. Friend that this matter had engaged, and would continue to occupy, the serious attention of the Government, and that he would be able to inform the House that our Plenipotentiaries at Berlin would take steps to restore to the unfortunate Christians in these countries a more beneficent rule.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he for the most part concurred in the views expressed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk). He feared, however, that annexation to Greece was not likely to be attained at present, for such a proposal was not within the four corners of the Treaty of San Stefano or the Agreement of Lord Salisbury. We were bound, however, by all that had occurred to see that the future government of Crete was a satisfactory autonomy. The Constitution of 1868 could not be satisfactory, for the Mahomedan minority had the advantage over the Christian majority. In these circumstances it was impossible that justice could be fairly done to the great mass of the inhabitants, who were Christians. He believed that discontent would be removed if Crete had a real autonomy, in which the Christian population had due weight. Several of these islands had formerly enjoyed, under Turkish dominion, practical autonomy, which had been wrested from them in modern days, when the Sultans had assumed a despotism not justified by Mahomedan law. We might hope some day to see these islands again enjoying constitutional government better than that which had been accorded to Crete, and that they would eventually be united to the mainland of Greece by a federal bond.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, no one could be surprised that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had brought this matter before the House. It had created during the last few months a great deal of interest, and the hon. Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had shown that they were alive to its importance. At the same time, they would feel that this was hardly an opportune time to discuss a question of such magnitude. In the Papers before the House there was material for a long debate, so that it was hardly possible to discuss the subject seriously on the Motion to go into Committee on the Education Estimates. He hoped, under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would not expect him to go into the subject at any great length. All that was asked was, that the matter should not be forgotten in the negotiations at Berlin. The condition of Crete had been mooted on many occasions within the last 50 years, and no Minister had ever been
  818
  able to say that that condition was satisfactory or promising. No matter how bad the condition of the inhabitants was, it was always admitted that there were insuperable difficulties to the island passing out of the hands of the Porte; and no one held that view more strongly than the late Lord Palmerston. The noble Lord acknowledged that there were a certain number of persons in Crete who wished for transference to Greece; but, at the same time, he said, Greece had never shown a capacity to govern so well that portion of Europe which was under her sway as to justify Europe in wishing to see Crete added to the territory of Greece. One would suppose that people who were enthusiastic about the annexation of Crete to Greece, were of opinion that the Government of Greece was a pattern Government, and that Greece was therefore entitled to have the islands annexed to it; but the past history of Greece had not inspired him with such confidence in the wisdom of its Government as to make him expect any amelioration for Crete as the consequence of annexation. They all knew that there was a great preponderance of Christian population to Mahomedan in the island; but, at the same time, if that was taken as a criterion for annexation, it could be shown that a great portion of the whole of European Turkey might be said to be in a similar position. Therefore, that argument could not be sustained by statesmen. As he had stated several times this Session, the matter was under the consideration of the Government. There was no part of the Eastern Question to which they had given more attention; but it was impossible for this country, or any country, to take upon itself to say that any portion of the Turkish dominions should be annexed to a foreign country. The question was, no doubt, under the consideration of the Plenipotentiaries at Berlin. He believed that very day the question of Greece was being considered, and it might be assumed that the question of Crete would be taken into consideration as part of it. Whether anything would come of it, it was impossible for him to say. With regard to the better government of Crete, and the amelioration of the condition of the Christian population, no Government in Europe was more alive to the necessity of something being done than

  819
  Her Majesty's Government. The Papers would show that they had been fully alive to the necessity for the amelioration of the government of Crete. No one would deny that nothing could be worse than the late government of the island, particularly during the last two months; they had not denied that for a moment. In every Answer he had given to the House, he had endeavoured, as nearly as possible, to epitomize the information given in the Reports of Consul Sandwith, which he did not think could be impugned. Hon. Members seemed to take rather a one-sided view of the question; for the Christians of Crete were not unanimously in favour of annexation to Greece; on the contrary, they were far more unanimously in favour of an autonomous Government of their own, and the Reports which had been received lately went to show that if the scheme which was devised in 1868 by Lord Derby had been carried out, there would have been nothing to be wished for in the government of the island. As usual, Turkey failed to carry out her promises of reform to Crete. Whether she would yet do so it was impossible to say. For his part, he thought we had better look for reforms in the direction of those of 1868. When those were completed, the way would be paved for full reforms in the direction of annexation to Greece—an event which could not be brought about without great changes, and without exciting opposition on the part of Turkey. He hoped the hon. Member for Gloucester would be satisfied with this statement. He could assure him that there was no body of persons more anxious for the welfare of Crete than Her Majesty's Government, and that they were at the present time engaged in bringing this question before the Powers at the Congress in connection with the future of Turkey.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not think the tone of the speech of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs such as to give that satisfaction which he had hoped for, and he trusted Lord Salisbury's views would not be entirely those which the House had just listened to. Considering that the subject of Crete was being considered by the Congress at Berlin, the present was not a favourable moment for discussing it in that House. He, therefore, refrained
  820
  from entering into the question; but he would take the opportunity of confirming the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) as to Lord Palmerston. The hon. Member quoted from a speech of Lord Palmerston's of 1830, the whole of which was worthy of the most careful consideration. He might add that the contention of Lord Palmerston was supported by Lord Russell and Sir James Mackintosh, and also, he thought, by some influential Members of the House of Lords, so that it was erroneous to say that the views of the hon. Member for Gloucester had not been held by any influential statesman in this or the last century. At the present moment nearly the whole island was in the hands of insurgents; and so far as his own information went, the people of Crete were almost unanimously in favour of annexation to Greece, and certainly the argument in favour of that course was much stronger now, when the Mussulmans formed only one-fourth or one-fifth of the population, than in 1830, when they numbered perhaps one-half. Within the present century Crete had been three times in insurrection, and her claims to the consideration of the Congress were infinitely greater than those of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

EDUCATION—SCHOOL BOARD SCHOOLS AND SAVINGS BANKS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. PELL, in rising to call attention to the fact that scholars attending School Board Schools are in certain cases exempted from the payment of any weekly fees, or are admitted on payment of extravagantly low fees, who nevertheless are at the same time invited under an organized system of collection in the Board School they attend to become and who do become depositors of money in Savings Banks, said, that out of the 625,000 children in the board schools receiving Government grants, one quarter of them were paying less than 2d. a week for fees, so that 156,000 children were being educated for about 5s. a year, the deficiency being supplied by the rates. He wished particularly to draw the attention of the House to the cost of education in the metropolitan area under the London School Board supervision. It averaged

  821
  52 s. per annum for each child, or, reckoning the period of attendance, about 1s. 2d. per week. Out of that large sum the average contribution of the children was only 2d. per week. He was quoting from the Report of the Committee of the Council on Education put into the hands of hon. Members that morning. The Report also stated that the cost per head in the School Board schools generally was £2 1s. 4d., and in voluntary schools £1 14 s. In the same Report they were informed that the fees paid by the scholars averaged only 9s. 2d. per annum. The calculation for 1870 was that for each child the parent would contribute one-third of the cost of education; which third, in the case of board schools, it appeared, would now amount to nearly 14 s. a-year; but the sum actually paid was only 9s. 2d. in fees. Thus every child in England in a board school paid nearly 5s. short of what it ought to pay; and thus, whatever might be the character of the education, it failed to teach the most important lesson of all—independence. He wished also to point out how this evil was aggravated in school board districts. There was a practice, in which the managers of the schools seemed to take a pride, of having in each school an officer connected with penny banks, who received from those who, on the score of poverty were being educated at the cost of the ratepayers, considerable sums. He found that during the year ending March, 1876, at a school in Hackney, 483 children deposited £61 5s., while the total of the school fees only amounted to £41 10 s. That showed the ability to pay £100, instead of which only £41 was paid, and the rest they put into the bank. In the Tower Hamlets, there were 45,000 scholars, who paid into the bank £1,137, and only contributed in school fees £773. At Liverpool £90 was deposited in one of these school banks, where the fees paid were £73; and at Norwich, where only 1s. 4d. per week was charged on account of the poverty of the people, 542 children deposited £52, while only £35 was paid in school fees. These facts, he thought, did not redound much to the credit either of the managers of the schools or to the parents of the children. In London there were schools in which the fees were as low as 1d., and many of the children were exempt from payment on the ground of
  822
  poverty. In one of these schools 239 depositors were found in the year 1877 who had saved amongst them £57. Three of the depositors were children whose parents had been exempted from payment of school fees, and he thought every honest man would consider that the money deposited in the bank ought to have been expended on the children's education. He regretted that the Forms of the House did not permit him to submit a Motion on this subject, therefore all he could do at present was to draw the attention of the House and the country to this mischievous system, in the hope that something might be done to remedy the existing state of things. He believed the 17th clause expressly conferred upon the Education Department the power of sanctioning the amount of, or withholding their consent to the remission of fees, and he trusted that the Government would consider the subject, and encourage a change in the state of things that would be fairer to the children, the parents, and the ratepayers.

  EDUCATION—INSPECTORS OF ELE MENTARY SCHOOLS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he had never been quite able to see the difference between the poor children paying 2d. per week for their education and those who went to Oxford and Cambridge, and paying £20 a-year in fees, receiving their education and even their maintenance at considerably less than cost price. There was as much inconsistency in that as in what the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had just complained of. Leaving this, however, he wished to call attention to the inadequate special training given to Inspectors previous to their being entrusted with the inspection of Elementary Schools. On former occasions he had drawn attention to the subject, and no objections had been offered to his contention, except that there was to be no money expended in the direction he indicated. That, in his opinion, was a false economy. Inspectors, to be efficient and successful, ought to be carefully trained after leaving college for the special duties they would have to perform. Under the present system, young men fresh from college who knew nothing about the capabilities of children were sent to

  823
  inspect schools, and upon their report the Government grant depended. The result was, that one man fearing to be unjust was too lax in his inspection, and lost the respect of the school-master, while another was perhaps more stringent in his examination, and in consequence there was either a relaxation of discipline in their schools, or else a sense of injustice was entertained by the teachers. There was also a great want of uniformity in the rules laid down by them, and this led to a deterioration of the standard of education. He suggested as a real, practical, and in expensive remedy for the evils he had pointed out, that candidates for the Inspectorships should undergo a year's probation. About 10 Inspectors were appointed annually, and his proposal was that they should at once appoint 10 of the best candidates on the list, who should accompany 10 of the best Inspectors on their rounds, and thus qualify themselves for the positions they were to occupy. Their main object should be so to raise the standard, as to be able to compare favourably with other countries in the matter of elementary education; and that could be done at a small cost, as the men were waiting for their appointments as Inspectors, and would not refuse a low salary while they were learning their business. The whole cost of the plan he proposed would be £2,500 a-year. As things were, the sum spent was £118,000 on inspection, including Inspectors' travelling allowances, and £2,149,000 on the whole work of elementary education; and this additional £2,500 would be well laid out. That was no great price to pay for having the whole work of education done more efficiently than at present, and with less friction to the Department; while it would be of equal service to the junior Inspectors themselves by enabling them to approach their work, not as tyros, but as men of experience. He trusted that his suggestion would be carried into effect, particularly as it involved no considerable financial difficulty.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that in the course of the evening the attention of the House had been called to a variety of subjects, but only four strictly educational matters had been under consideration. His hon. Friend who had just sat down had not been satisfied with the special training that
  824
  Inspectors underwent at present. As the hon. Member was aware, every person who was appointed an Inspector served a certain period of probation with one of his seniors, who was duly informed of the appointment of the junior who would be for a time associated with him. That was the existing system, and it would be seen that every newly-appointed Inspector underwent both probation and instruction in his duties. His hon. Friend had suggested that the work of education would be much more efficiently served by a few more appointments, and he had declared that a satisfactory arrangement might be made at a cost of £2,500 per annum. Well, if the hon. Member could persuade the Treasury to supply the money, he for his own part would be quite ready to adopt the plan suggested. The next topic was also one of importance, and had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell); but the Notice had only appeared on the Paper the night before, and he was not acquainted with the particular schools to which the hon. Member drew attention. But, speaking generally, it was certainly not right that the education of some children should be almost gratuitous, and that they should, at the same time, be contributors to savings-banks. He could, of course, express no opinion on circumstances with which he was not conversant, but he would consider the question, and if his hon. Friend would communicate with him, he would endeavour to give him all the available information on the subject. Then, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had brought to the notice of the House the condition of the Code which required a certain number of attendances as a necessary preliminary of examination, and he had proposed to abolish that condition. Now, the Government grant, which was partly dependent on the requisite 250 attendances of each child, was a compensation to the managers of the school for certain educational work, and, if that attendance were dispensed with, children might be brought from one school to another to earn the grant. He was sorry to say that several instances of sharp practice that had been brought under his notice made his fears not wholly imaginary. As to the school book being a sufficient substitute if a definite number

  825
  of attendances were abolished, their abolition would do away with the very first column of the attendance book. No doubt the present system did present some temptations to teachers to which they occasionally succumbed, and some distressing cases of wholesale and systematic fraud had come before him; but the persons who would commit such frauds were not fit to be entrusted with the moral education of children. With regard to the subject introduced by the hon. Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Mr. Mark Stewart), he must say he sympathized with the School Boards that had erected large schools believing they had to provide for a certain number of children and then found that some parents preferred to send their children to other schools; but in giving grants to such schools, the Education Department had strictly acted in accordance with the intention of the Act of Parliament. If the hon. Member would look at the discussion which took place on the Scotch Education Bill he would see that a clause had been inserted which required that regard should be had to the religious belief of the parents, and stated that the Scotch Department might give grants after due inquiry. If the Department had not given an annual grant to the schools so established there would have been great difficulty in enforcing attendance. He was sorry to be somewhat abrupt in his replies on the subjects to which attention had been called, but the time that it had been hoped might be devoted to a discussion of the Education Estimates had been so much curtailed that he trusted the House would consent to go into Committee at once.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was sorry to stand in the way of the noble Lord, but it was really unprecedented to go into Committee on this most important question at midnight. He was very anxious to hear the noble Lord; but although the noble Lord might make his statement, it was almost impossible to give the attention to it that would be desirable. To make the statement and then to adjourn the debate, would be leaving the House in a very unusual position, and he hardly thought the Government would think of going on with the statement at that hour.
  MR. DILLWYNalso urged postponement.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought there was time to make the statement, for which the mind of the House had been prepared by the subjects that had occupied their attention most of the evening.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought there would be no advantage in making the statement, seeing that it would be impossible to take a vote.
  MR. PEASEsaid, the situation furnished a striking illustration of the great inconvenience of the Standing Rule that enabled them to discuss many minor questions while the great object for which they had assembled had to be postponed. He hoped this matter would not escape the attention of the Committee on Public Business. He feared that if the statement were made tonight, it would, practically, have to be made over again.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and negatived.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 4–224.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended [2nd July], resumed.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated earlier in the evening that the measure would not be taken up at an unreasonable hour. The number of Amendments on the Paper still to be proposed would involve a discussion of three or four hours, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether it was reasonable to go on with the Bill at that hour (five minutes before midnight)?
  COLONEL MUREhoped that the Government would proceed with the Bill.
  Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 46 (Local authority to have management of roads within burghs).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved, as an Amendment, in page 26, line 2, after "final," to insert—
  "but, in the case of any burgh containing more than five thousand inhabitants, the terms

  827
  shall be such that the road assessments in the burgh shall not be higher than those of the adjoining district or districts of the county."
  He had admitted, when the question was before the House on a former occasion, that the Amendments which had been accepted by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Government, went far to take away the urgency of the Amendment he now proposed. Still, he intended to propose it, because he believed it would provide a simpler means of meeting the difficulty to which reference had been made in previous discussions than that which had been already accepted. Royal burghs in which the population did not exceed 5,000 were within the provisions of the Bill, therefore his Amendment referred only to those Royal and Parliamentary burghs which in that capacity were brought within the provisions of the Bill. He ventured to hope that the Government would consider that matters would be simplified by the acceptance of his Amendment. The effect of it with regard to these small burghs would be that it would be in the option of the sheriff to leave them in the position in which they now stood—that was to say, in case they should be willing to remain, for road purposes, part of the county, as they now were, then the rates to be imposed upon them for those purposes should not be heavier than the rates paid by the county in general.
  Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 2, after the word "final," to insert the words—
  "but, in the case of any burgh containing not more than five thousand inhabitants, the terms shall be such that the road assessments in the burgh shall not be higher than those of the adjoining district or districts of the county."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to place under the clause burghs above and below a population of 5,000 in quite different positions. It seemed to him that there was really no principle upon which they ought to be differently dealt with, and he could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 47 (Clause B.—Burgh within county where Act not in force, may, by agreement or otherwise, assume management, &c., of highways within it).
  On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—
  In page 26, line 10, after "lawful," insert "at any time after the passing of this Act;" page 26, line 21, after "sheriff," insert "who shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and;" page 26, line 33, leave out "roads, highways, and bridges," and insert "to the highways."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 48 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 51 (Assessment in counties for management, maintenance, and repair).
  Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 7, to leave out from the word "or," to the word "district," in line 9, both inclusive."—(Sir Edward Colebrooke.)
  Question, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE moved, as an Amendment, in page 28, line 13, to leave out from "or," to "aforesaid," in line 14, both inclusive. The object of his Amendment was to prevent the expenses of management and repair being levied on a less area than that of a district.
  MR. M'LARENhoped the Amendment would be adopted, inasmuch as there was a general opinion in its favour.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEwas not aware that there was any general desire for the adoption of the Amendment, and could not accept it. The clause only made a separate assessment of any one parish in a district permissive on the part of the trustees.
  MR. M'LARENobserved, with respect to the remark of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, that there had been many instances in which a so-called permissive assessment had become the general rule. The case of roads in upland districts was similar to that of highways in the case of coal mines, which used only railway branches in their works, which had recently been discussed, and such like works, except that roads for the use of sheep would

  829
  cost £30 or £40 per mile, while roads in mining districts would require an expenditure of £200 to £250 per mile. He had been in favour of a lower assessment in the case of mining parishes until a convincing speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department changed his convictions. If it were not fair to have a lower assessment in mining districts using only branch railways, neither was it right that there should be one in upland districts. A flock of sheep might pass over three or four parishes before it arrived at market, and, therefore, the roads were used by the whole of those districts. The same observation applied to vehicular and other traffic, and made it clear roads could not be considered as being merely for the exclusive use of any particular parish.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN rose to Order. The Amendment seemed to him to be consequential upon another which had been negatived. If the words proposed to be left out were omitted, the clause would become nonsense.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that an Amendment which had already been put to the House did appear to him to deal with the question, and therefore the present Amendment could not be put.
  Amendment dropped.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 52 to 55, inclusive, amended and agreed to.
  Clause 56 (Power of road authority to recover expenses of extraordinary traffic).
  MR. MARK STEWART MR. MARK STEWART moved, as an Amendment, in page 30, line 30, after "authority," to insert "may make bye-laws for the regulation or prevention of such traffic on certain roads and." He urged that this clause was intended especially to deal with extraordinary traffic, and, as had been already pointed out, the Amendment was not intended to unduly restrict the use of traction engines, but to keep them within proper limits.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 30, line 30, after the word "authority," to insert the words "may make bye-laws for the regulation or prevention of such traffic on certain roads and."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
  MR. ANDERSONinquired why the word "prevention" was inserted in the Amendment, if it were only intended to give the surveyor power to regulate the traffic?
  MR. MARK STEWARTexplained that it was only desired to "prevent" such traffic where the roads were too narrow to admit of it with safety.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the difficulty he experienced was that the words of the Amendment were so very vague, and as they were intended to apply to locomotives on roads, it would be really and truly handing over to the local authority the power of legislating for such purposes. He must remind the House there was now before it a Bill for the special regulation of locomotive traffic on roads.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 57 to 87, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 88 (Clause C.—Special provisions for highways in counties of Lanark and Renfrew).
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE moved, as an Amendment, in page 46, line 19, to leave out the words "and statute labour." The effect of the Amendment would really be to offer an advantage to the City of Glasgow.
  Amendment proposed, in page 46, line 19, to leave out the words "and statute labour."—(Sir Edward Colebrooke.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  DR. CAMERONdid not think that it was material to Glasgow whether the words were left out or not. If they remained in, Glasgow would have to pay a share of the statute labour debt of Lanark and Renfrewshire; but, on the other hand, he considered, it would be enabled to bring a claim against those counties for expenditure incurred in improving certain statute labour roads within the city, which would practically counterbalance the county claim.
  MR. ANDERSONobserved that it was a new thing to hear the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke) offer a boon to Glasgow, and he feared it was

  831
  a case of Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. He (Mr. Anderson) had already said so much against the clause, that he would not repeat his words further than to characterize the clause as a deliberate act of spoliation. Not only was this the opinion of the Glasgow people, including himself, but The Scotsman, which might be considered the national paper in Scotland, and which had never shown any very kindly disposition towards Glasgow—as there was some jealousy between Glasgow and Edinburgh—had had a special article on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member that it was not regular to refer in debate to articles in newspapers which reflected upon the proceedings of the House.
  Mr. ANDERSONwould simply say that that paper characterized the clause as spoliation and black-mail. County Gentlemen were acting in the way that raiders of old times used to do. Whenever they wanted anything they went into the nearest town to take it by force, "for," said they, "what is the use of having a rich town near at hand if you can't take what you like out of it?" The mouths of the gentlemen of the county of Edinburgh watered, and they wondered why they had not made a haul out of the City of Edinburgh by the Bill as the gentlemen of Lanark and Renfrew had done out of Glasgow. But opposition to the clause would be carried on as long as possible, and they would not cease to protest against its injustice. The particular Amendment in question was, however, so small that it was not worth contesting.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CAMERON DR. CAMERON moved, as an Amendment, in page 46, line 20, to leave out the word "counties," and to insert "lower ward of the county," in lieu thereof. This was, he said, the first of a series of Amendments directed against the unjustifiable proposal to place upon Glasgow half the road debts of Lanark and Renfrewshire as well as its own. When the Bill was in Committee, it was agreed that the county of Lanark should be considered as three counties for every purpose except the payment of Lanarkshire debts by Glasgow. What he now proposed to do was to extend that division of the county to the purposes of this clause, The Lower
  832
  Ward of Lanarkshire was in close proximity to Glasgow, and there might be some reason for requiring Glasgow to pay its portion of the debt. But the Upper Ward of the county of Lanark was nearer to Edinburgh than Glasgow; and, on what principle the latter should be asked to pay the debt of that portion of the county, he could not understand. What, therefore, was proposed by this series of Amendments was that Glasgow should pay its share of the debt of the Lower Ward of Lanarkshire, and what he contended was the full extent of its share in connection with Renfrewshire. About £70,000 a-year of the rateable value of Glasgow was in Renfrewshire, and to charge it upon its total rental of £3,000,000 for the purpose of paying the debt of that county was preposterous. A new injustice had been developed by the statements of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Stewart), and the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), it having been actually said by them that Glasgow should pay its share of the road debts of Greenock and Paisley. Could anything be more preposterous? The Amendment he now moved would have the effect of mitigating the injustice, and considerably cutting down the contribution that Glasgow would have to make to the road debts of these counties.
  Amendment proposed, in page 46, line 20, to leave out the word "counties," in order to insert the words "lower ward of the county."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'counties' stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL MUREprotested against the Amendment, as the roads in question were of great use in Glasgow.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEurged that Glasgow had always maintained that it had a right to a share in the management of these roads, and had actually taken an active part in it. He could not, therefore, see any hardship in Glasgow bearing its share of the expenses of their maintenance. It should also be remembered that when the roads were made and debts were incurred by their formation that they were the great trunk lines of the country. It was that point that should be taken into consideration.
  MR. ANDERSONpointed out, that if some of these trunk roads led to Glasgow, some of them led to Edinburgh also, and that the part of the county of which the House had been discussing was nearer Edinburgh than Glasgow, and it would be more reasonable to make Edinburgh pay than Glasgow. The proposal to make Glasgow pay part of the debt on the roads of a distant part of the county with which she had nothing to do was absurd, and this was shown by the fact that for every purpose excepting that of plundering Glasgow, Clause 93 divided Lanark into three separate districts, which were each to pay their own burdens.
  SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERtook exception to the statement of the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Anderson), that there was an attempt in the Bill, on the part of the county, to plunder Glasgow. He wished to remind the hon. Member of this—it was not the rural districts of the county of Lanark that urged the Bill upon the Government. It was the city of Glasgow, and the hon. Member did not make a favourable appearance when he assumed the character of the biter bit. The city of Glasgow had wished to plunder the rural districts of Lanarkshire in order to use the roads without expense—by the abolition of tolls—and all that was now asked of Glasgow was that it should pay its fair share of the burden that would be thrown upon the county in consequence of the abolition of tolls. With regard to the Amendment before the House, let him remind hon. Members that the debt in question was incurred in the construction and improvement of roads not made for local, but for Imperial traffic. In some instances, these roads were made at the request of Glasgow far more than of the localities through which they passed, and he submitted that their present value was not the only subject for consideration. Their value at the time they were made and before the disturbing element of railways intervened must be borne in mind. To use an expression that was not a new one, he might say that if the steam engine had remained in the tea-kettle nothing would have been heard as to the hardship of tolls, and this Bill would never have come before the House of Commons. It was to benefit the general public that these roads
  834
  were made, and debt incurred that would not now be necessary. As the roads were made for the benefit of the whole community, the debt incurred in making and maintaining them ought to be a charge upon the whole community.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he could not understand the logic of the hon. Baronet who had just sat down (Sir Windham Anstruther). He taunted the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) by saying that it was not the county, but the city of Glasgow, that originated the demand for the Bill, and that Glasgow ought, therefore, to submit. But because Glasgow asked the Government to introduce a Bill whose provisions should be just and equitable, was Glasgow bound, therefore, to submit to a Bill, the provisions of which were unjust and inequitable? Surely it would be strange logic to say so? As to the allegation that these roads were made for the benefit of the whole community, and for Glasgow in particular, he might remind the House, and especially the English Members, that Lanark contained about 40 parishes; that, being a large county, it was touched in its outlines by nine other counties that surrounded it, and that many of these counties were much nearer to Glasgow than the outlying district of Lanarkshire. There were no fewer than 1,332 miles of road in the county. Would the hon. Baronet venture to say that all the remote cross statute labour roads among these were made for the benefit of Glasgow, when, perhaps, not one man in Glasgow in 100 had ever seen one-half of them? Railways were now so abundant that people in Glasgow desirous of travelling any distance never went by road. Of the 1,332 miles of road in the county, 416 miles were turnpike roads, and 916 statute labour roads; and one of the great acts of injustice committed in this Bill was the mixing up of the statute labour roads with the turnpike roads, with which they had no connection. It might be said, that by removing toll-bars, a benefit was conferred on Glasgow; but how could a benefit be conferred on Glasgow by altering the mode of rating with regard to statute labour roads, of which Glasgow had the use now? The Bill, as it stood, was also the embodiment of another mode of jobbing into the hands of the agricultural interest, in the matter of statute labour roads. The Bill provided

  835
  that the statute labour roads should be maintained by an equal rating on properties according to the annual rack-rent by the valuation roll; but, at present, no rate was laid on houses in Lanarkshire for maintaining the statute labour roads, and no rate on factories or on mines. Nearly the whole of the rates were laid on agricultural lands and on horses; but, under the Bill, when one equal rate was levied all over the county, the agricultural interest would be relieved, perhaps, from one-half of their statute labour burdens. The county at present was divided into plough-gates, each contributing at the rate of so many days' labour, the value differing in the various parishes. There was no rate on houses, nor on minerals, nor on public works, nor manufactories. But, in future, the Glasgow man who had a villa, and some ground around it, would have to pay, perhaps, his £5 on £200 a-year of rental, and to a much greater extent on his mines and factories. These sums would go to relieve the agricultural interest; and, besides, Glasgow would be saddled with one-half of the whole road debts. How could Glasgow be interested in these 1,332 miles of road to such an extent? If the House adopted the Amendment of his hon. Friend, they would act very much in accordance with the Report of the Royal Commissioners. This Lower Ward was closely connected with Glasgow, and the Commissioners recommended that Glasgow should pay its proportion of the debt on the roads that actually entered the city. That would be done if the Amendment were adopted. If the Bill, as it now stood, should pass, he ventured to say that it would be a blot on the Government's escutcheon for years to come, and would cause an amount of irritation, not in Glasgow only, but throughout Scotland, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the Government, could have little conception. Reference had been made to the comments of an Edinburgh paper that day; but another Edinburgh paper two days before had denounced the proposals of the Government, if possible more strongly, and referred to them as acts of pure Vandalism. No one had ventured upon any calculation which would justify these roads being maintained to such an extent by Glasgow.
  836
  In Mr. Smith's Report, there was not a single figure to show that he ever inquired into the expense of their maintenance, and into the proportion which Glasgow should pay. The arrangement was a hop-step-and-jump arrangement, and he was sorry the Government had been so weak as to adopt it in the face of the most positive evidence collected by previous Royal Commission that it would be grossly unjust.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would remind the hon. Member who had taken his seat (Mr. M'Laren) that, by an Amendment which had been agreed to, the words "statute labour" had been struck out of the clause. ["No, no!"] He begged pardon if that were not so. [Mr. M'LAREN said, what he had shown was merely the extent of the roads.] They knew that the amount of the statute labour debt was exceedingly small. Then, with regard to the other roads—the main lines of turnpike roads—they were those which were burdened with debt, which centred in Glasgow, and which, at one time, were the only means of communication between Glasgow and the South. In the same way Edinburgh had a direct line of communication by Berwick. It was not the case that Glasgow was being plundered for the rest of the county. The way in which the debt had been allocated was this—they took the whole debt, and apportioned it against Glasgow and the two counties; and they might just as well say on the same principle that Lanark was paying the debt of Renfrew, or Renfrew the debt of Lanark, as that Glasgow was paying the debts of both. With regard to the Amendment, he had said enough to indicate that he could not accept it, and he did not think any argument in its favour could be derived from the circumstance that the county had been divided into three distinct districts; because it must be plain that a different principle was applicable in the allocation of debt for payment of a road, and of the cost of its maintenance after it had been made. The cost of making might be much the same in all the districts; but the cost of maintenance depended on the use made of the road; and while one district might hardly use it at all, and cause but little tear and wear, another district might so use it as to involve its constant repair. It was right, therefore, that there should

  837
  be a division of districts, and it was also right, as was contemplated by those who made the division, that the contribution of the city of Glasgow should be spent in its immediate neighbourhood, and in the lower district.
  MR. RAMSAYremarked, that the whole of the controversy which had arisen on this subject was due to the fact that in framing this clause, the Government had violated the leading principle of the Bill. The leading principle of the assessment clauses was that the money derived from the ratepayers within any given area should be expended for the maintenance of the roads within that area. Upon what principle was Glasgow called upon to pay towards the future maintenance of roads with which they had nothing to do?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the House was not discussing the question of maintenance, but that of the cost of making.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, the debt section was under discussion, and he wished to point out that it was inequitable to burden Glasgow with debt and maintenance. On what principle, he asked, were burghs which had no share in the management of these roads asked to pay a share of the debt? Nothing more inequitable could be conceived.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsympathized with his hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow; but did not think much progress was likely to be made if the question between Glasgow and the counties was to be raised on every clause of the Bill. This clause was as to the division of Lanark into three wards, and, primâ facie, there was reason in the proposal; but after what had been said by the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir Edward Colebrooke), he thought Glasgow had put herself out of court by claiming so assiduously, as he said she had done, a share in the management of the roads with regard to which this debt had been incurred. On the whole, he thought the Government were right.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 33: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 196.)
  DR. CAMERON, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert, after line 23, a Proviso, proposing to limit the time of
  838
  payment of the annual sum of £12,500, payable by the City of Glasgow by Provisional Order to be issued by the Secretary of State, said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had some proposition to make upon the point.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 47, after line 23, to insert the words "Provided always, That if at any time after the expiration of three years from and after the commencement of this Act, within the counties of Lanark and Renfrew, it shall appear to the burgh local authority of the City of Glasgow, or of any one of the said burghs that, having regard to the cost of maintaining the roads, highways, and bridges within the said counties, or either of them, the payment of the said sum of twelve thousand five hundred pounds sterling should terminate or be reduced, the said burgh local authority may from time to time apply to the Secretary of State to make a Provisional Order terminating or reducing the said payment, and the Secretary of State may issue a Provisional Order under his hand and seal of office, in relation to the matters mentioned in the application, either in accordance with the prayer thereof or with such modifications or alterations as may appear to him to be requisite, and the whole procedure prescribed by section nine of this Act with reference to the Provisional Orders thereby authorised, and the confirmation thereof, shall be and are hereby made applicable to the Provisional Orders authorized by this section; or the said burgh local authority may, instead of applying to the Secretary of State to make a Provisional Order, apply to Parliament by Private Bill to effect the said objects."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought that a convenient time to make a suggestion to the hon. Members for Glasgow. He would, therefore, suggest to them, and strongly press upon the hon. Members for Lanark and Renfrew, to accept, in order to come to a conclusion upon the matter, what, he thought, would be a fair and reasonable compromise, both to Glasgow and to the counties. Nobody wanted the question of the future maintenance of the roads to be a perpetual cause of trouble, either on the one side or the other; and he, for one, was desirous, if possible, to avoid anything of the kind. Now, whatever the calculations of Mr. Smith, the Commissioner, might be, he (Mr. Cross) had the greatest confidence in the judgment of that gentleman. It was clearly impossible, however, for anyone to vouch for the absolute accuracy

  839
  of the cost of maintenance; and, therefore, it seemed to him it might be very fairly put as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) proposed, that there should be some provision in the Bill for a future revision, should either Glasgow or the counties ask for it. He (Mr. Cross) did not think it should be immediately. The hon. Gentleman had inserted the period of three years, and he (Mr. Cross) proposed that the period of five years should be inserted instead. After that period, any person discontented with the measure, should be able to come, either by a Provisional Order or a Private Bill, and ask for a re-adjustment. That, he thought, would be fair to the interests of both parties, and if it met with the favour of the House, he should be willing to accept, on the part of the Government, the Proviso which had been moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, after he had made one or two alterations in it. He really thought it was a fair compromise.
  DR. CAMERON, after what the Home Secretary had just stated, would withdraw his Amendment, and leave the matter in the hands of the Government. At the same time, he begged to say the concession would not satisfy Glasgow. Half-a-loaf, however, was better than no bread, and, therefore, it would be a very foolish thing for them to refuse this offer, especially as everything else they had asked for had been refused them. If this matter turned out as they expected it would, the Proviso as agreed to by the Home Secretary would, at least, give an opportunity for revision; though he did not exactly see the reason of prolonging the period from three to five years, or, indeed, for prolonging it longer than was absolutely necessary for gaining experience as to the cost of the roads. He would not oppose the Amendment; on the contrary, he accepted it; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not do so as a compromise which would bind the authorities of Glasgow to refrain from further opposition to the measure.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cross) had spoken of this as a compromise. Now, Glasgow could not accept it as such—she utterly repudiated it as a compromise; but if the right hon. Gentleman chose
  840
  to put in the Proviso as a salve to his own conscience for the iniquity of Clause 88, all he could say was that Glasgow would not vote against him. They did not, however, at all admit that it did justice to Glasgow. For instance, the Proviso was not to be made retrospective, so that at the end of five years, Glasgow would have been plundered of £50,000. If the revision showed that the calculation was a wrong one, Glasgow ought to have some means to get back the money she had paid.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Proviso, as he should propose it, would read as follows:—
  "Provided always, That if at any time after the expiration of five years from and after the commencement of this Act, within the counties of Lanark and Renfrew, it shall appear to the said counties, or either of them, or to the burgh local authority of the City of Glasgow, or of anyone of the said burgh, that, having regard to the cost of maintaining the roads, highways, and bridges, within the said counties, or either of them, the payment of the said sum of twelve thousand five hundred pounds sterling should be altered, the said counties, or either of them, or the burgh local authority may from time to time apply to the Secretary of State to make a Provisional Order altering the said payment, and the Secretary of State may issue a Provisional Order under his hand and seal of office, in relation to the matters mentioned in the application, either in accordance with the prayer thereof, or with such modifications or alterations as may appear to him to be requisite, and the whole procedure prescribed by section nine of this Act, with reference to the Provisional Orders hereby authorized, and the confirmation thereof, shall be and are hereby made applicable to the Provisional Orders authorized by this section; or the said counties, or either of them, or burgh local authority may, instead of applying to the Secretary of State to make a Provisional Order, apply to Parliament by Private Bill to effect the said objects, provided such Private Bill does not contain any provision, except such as may be necessary for such alteration."
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEwas glad the proposal had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He thought it was an equitable arrangement, that there should be a revision of the arrangement after a certain period; but after the first revision had taken place, a specific period ought to elapse before there was another revision. He objected to there being an indefinite number of revisions.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that he had a new clause on the Paper to the same effect, or rather more stringent than the one proposed by the Hon. Gentleman

  841
  the Member for Glasgow; but, in order to save time, he would not move it. As to Mr. Smith's Report, he had not seen it until three days' ago, and he found that gentleman recognized the power of applying for a Provisional Order; but he did not say it should be applied for only after three or five years, but at any time.
  MR. RAMSAYexpressed regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had determined that the period should be five instead of three years. In the course of this discussion hon. Members had frequently referred to the great wealth of the city of Glasgow; but the House ought to know what the real facts were. He had had an analysis recently furnished him of the valuation of Glasgow, and he found in a city containing upwards of 600,000 inhabitants, there were only 4,600 houses with a rental of over £30 per annum. This showed that the population of Glasgow was poor rather than wealthy, and that an addition to the rates of 1d. in the pound was a very serious burden to a very great number of persons in the city.
  Amendment (Dr. Cameron), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Assheton Cross) agreed to.
  Clauses 89 and 90 agreed to.
  Clause 91 (Clause D.—Power of board to make bye-laws).
  MR. VANS AGNEW MR. VANS AGNEW moved, as an Amendment, in page 50, line 24, after "wheel," to insert as a separate subsection—
  "For regulating the weight which may be carried over any highway, and of prohibiting the passage of such weight as may be specified in such bye-laws over certain roads."
  The reason he proposed the Amendment was, that in many counties in Scotland the roads were of a very light character, and were not equal to the passage of very heavy traffic over them. They were very different to the roads in the neighbourhood of large towns. At present the road trustees had no control over the heavy weights which were taken along county roads. In his out-of-the-way corner of Scotland they were sometimes visited by a menagerie, some of the vans of which carried enormous
  842
  weights, such as elephants. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 50, line 24, after the word "wheel," to insert the words as a separate sub-section,—"For regulating the weight which may be carried over any highway, and of prohibiting the passage of such weight as may be specified in such bye-laws over certain roads."—(Mr. Vans Agnew.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the Amendment for this reason—that, although by adopting it they would enable the road trustees to deal with an occasional elephant passing along the roads, yet it would at the same time empower them to put a stop to locomotive traffic, and that was one of the vexed questions which ought not to be settled in that Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 92 and 93 agreed to.
  Clause 94 (Clause G.—As to certain bridges and ferries in Dumbartonshire).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved the omission of the clause. It had, he said, been added in Committee without discussion, and had reference to the continuance of certain pontages on bridges in the county of Dumbarton for a number of years. It would be much more reasonable to leave those pontages under the operation of the general provisions of the measure. Under Section 33 of the Bill, as it now stood, it was distinctly enacted that all tolls in Scotland should cease upon the passing of the Act, and provision was made for meeting the claim on account of compensation; yet, in another clause, an exception was made, and those pontages in Dumbartonshire were to be continued, although he could not understand for what reason.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 94.—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 94 stand part of the Bill."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. Member had omitted to notice one important fact, which was, that these bridges were not part of a highway in

  843
  the meaning of this statute, but simply private property. He quite admitted they were a great grievance; but the persons in the county interested in the matter, after a great many conferences, had voluntarily adjusted the clause, and had asked the Government to give it their sanction. It settled a very unpleasant local question in a very reasonable way, to the satisfaction of everyone concerned; and, therefore, the Government had agreed to its insertion in the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 95 to 113, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 114 (Incorporation of parts of General Turnpike Act).
  COLONEL ALEXANDER COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, as an Amendment, in page 58, line 17, to leave out "three," and insert "five." The limit of three miles as the extent to which metal for the repair of the road might be fetched was, in his opinion, too small.
  Amendment proposed, in page 58, line 17, to leave out the word "three," in order to insert the word "five."—(Colonel Alexander.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. It appeared too much to say that the road authorities should be entitled to take from the property of one small proprietor metal extending to five or six miles of road.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedules agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  CORRIB (GALWAY) RIVER BILL.
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. James Lowther.)

  [BILL 225.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MAJOR NOLANexpressed a hope that before the Bill went into Committee, the Government would consider the propriety
  844
  of contributing a portion of the expenses for the maintenance of the works.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that subject had been under the consideration of the Government, and part of the expenses—£372—were taken in the Estimates of the year. The item would be found at page 50 of Class I. of the Estimates for the year.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions presented against the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, provided such Petitions are presented one clear day before the Meeting of the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against the said Petitions:—That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.

  TRURO CHAPTER BILL— [Lords.]
  (Mr. Assheton Cross.)

  [BILL 234.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, trusted the House would allow that step to be taken. When the canonries throughout the county were reduced to four in each Cathedral, a fifth was left to Exeter; but now that Cornwall was separated from Exeter, it was proposed that the income of the fifth canonry should go to the See of Truro. Everybody concerned was agreeable. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had never heard of what use canons were. He always looked upon them as useless and obselete, and he regretted that it should now be proposed to transfer one to the new Bishopric of Truro.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the duties of the Bishop of Truro would be by no means a sinecure, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Bill went beyond what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated. It was for the formation of other canonries, besides the one transferred from Exeter. He thought, under the circumstances, it was rather hard to press the second reading at that hour of the night, and he would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconsidered it was not fair that the debate should be adjourned, as the proposal in the Bill was one of a very simple and a very reasonable character. One of the canonries in Exeter was to be transferred to Truro, and opportunities were to be given for the formation of more canonries, if the liberality of the public would provide for them. But there was no question which connected this House with the foundation of those canonries. He, therefore, thought the hon. Gentleman might fairly allow the Bill to be proceeded with; because, if they put off Bills in that way, it would be difficult to find time to get through their Business.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, on his own part, that he had no objection to allow the Bill to proceed; but must point out that it was only in the hands of hon. Members that morning.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  IDIOTS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 149.]
  (Mr. Arthur Moore, Mr. Meldon, Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)

  CONSIDERATION AS AMENDED.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. MACARTNEY MR. MACARTNEY moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 13, to omit all the words after the word "unless," down to the end of the clause, and to insert the following:—
  846
  "With the consent of the immediate relative, and if there be no immediate relative, then of the workhouse chaplain of the religious denomination to which he or she may belong."
  MR. A. MOOREsaid, these words were to the same effect as those already in the Bill, only in a different form. He had, however, no objection to the new words.
  MAJOR NOLANthought the words proposed might be agreed to.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MONUMENTS (METROPOLIS) (No. 2) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Moved, "To agree with the Lords' Amendments."—(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.)
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAdesired to say a few words respecting the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The observations of the hon. Gentleman must be confined to the Lords' Amendments; he cannot discuss the Bill itself.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he had no longer anything to urge against the Bill, as the Lords had struck out the 4th section, and he altogether approved of their doing so. The other Amendments which they had made were merely formal, and had also his most complete approval.
  Motion agreed to.

  MARRIAGE PRELIMINARIES (SCOT LAND) BILL— [BILL 86.]
  (Dr. Cameron, Mr. Baxter, Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Ernest Noel, Mr. Edward Jenkins.)

  CONSIDERATION AS AMENDED.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. RAMSAY MR. RAMSAY moved, as an Amendment, in Clause 8, page 3, line 6, after "hereafter," to leave out to the end of the clause, his object being to prevent a combination of fees and salaries in the payment of registrars.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 6, to leave out from the word "thereafter" to the end of Clause 8.—(Mr. Ramsay.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he was in the hands of the Government as to whether the Amendment was to be accepted or not, though he could hardly see how he himself could accept it without incurring a charge of breaking faith with the registrars whom it concerned, and who, for two years, had supported the Bill in its present shape.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Amendment would not be persevered in.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, the clause as it now stood involved a principle which was not adopted in any other Act affecting registration in Scotland. The registrars were paid by salaries exclusively, and it would be very hurtful to introduce a new principle. In a few years they might have to re-consider this Bill, and then they would be called upon to give compensation for these fees, when there was no necessity for it.
  MR. VANS AGNEWconsidered that the other duties which were to be imposed upon the registrars made it reasonable that they should be recompensed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.