Commons Sitting of 28 May 1878

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Parliamentary Reporting, appointed; Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (Hours of Polling), Mr. Charley discharged, Mr. Alfred Gathorne-Hardy added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Epping Forest; Inclosure Provisional Order (Llanfair Water-dine) *; Inclosure Provisional Order (Orford) *.
Second Reading—Hypothec (Scotland) * [29], [House counted out].
Withdrawn—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday * [5].

QUESTIONS.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF THOMAS GRIFFITHS.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Griffiths, of Cymer, near Pontypridd, at present undergoing a sentence of three months' imprisonment with hard labour, (under an old Act of Parliament), for fraudulently and clandestinely removing his goods to prevent a distress for rent, the said removal having been (it is alleged) made openly at mid-day, and after an arrangement had been made with the wife of his landlord sanctioning such removal, on condition of his paying the rent by instalments of 5s. per week; and whether, if the facts are as alleged, he will cause the remainder of the punishment to be remitted?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that this was a matter over which the magistrates had perfect jurisdiction, because an offence was undoubtedly committed under the Statute 10 Geo. II. c. 19. There could be no doubt that the evidence which was presented to the magistrates justified them in giving the opinion which they did. The point about the payment of 5s. a-week seemed not to be supported by the evidence. The magistrates thought that it was right that two months should be given to the man either to appeal to Quarter Sessions or to pay the money. He

  833
  neither appealed nor paid the money, and it was only after two months had elapsed that the commitment took effect. The magistrates had, however, no desire to be severe, and half the punishment would be remitted.

  GRANTHAM COUNTY COURT—CASE OF MARGARET CARROLL.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the case of Margaret Carroll, who, on the 13th instant, was committed to prison for fourteen days by the judge of Grantham County Court for contempt of court because, as is alleged, she did not give an intelligible explanation of a fact of which, it was subsequently proved, that she could have had no knowledge; whether the judge is correctly reported to have said, in answer to a remonstrance—"I will read you people a lesson; you are not to come here and tell those abominable lies;" and, whether he will take any steps in the matter?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, the attention of the Lord Chancellor had been called to this matter before the hon. Member's Notice appeared on the Paper. His Lordship put himself into communication with the Judge in question, and has received his explanation of the matter. There can be no doubt, I think, that the Judge exceeded his authority; but the Lord Chancellor has at this moment the whole matter under his consideration, and when I hear what he has decided, I will communicate the information to the House.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—CANADA TEM PERANCE BILL.—QUESTION.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can inform the House whether a permissive prohibitory measure, under the title of "The Canada Temperance Bill, 1878," introduced by the Government of Canada, has passed through the Dominion Parliament and received the Royal Assent; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of the Act upon the Table of the House, or provide a synopsis for the use of Members?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I do not know whether any such measure as the Canada Temperance Bill has
  834
  passed the Dominion Parliament; but if it has, it would seem to be of a nature which would justify the Governor General in giving the Assent of the Crown to it, without reserving it for consideration by the Home Government. In that case it would in due time be sent home with other Acts of the Session, and, I believe, a copy would be placed in the Library of this House, but I have no copy of any such Act at present.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1854—THE PORT OF CARDIFF.—QUESTION.
  MR. PULESTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, as to the suspension of two pilots at Cardiff, Whether Howe, one of the suspended pilots, had a first-class certificate, and was acting on an experience of twenty-one years, when he declined to take a vessel out of Cardiff when, as he alleged, there was not sufficient depth of water outside the Bute Docks to enable him to do so with safety; and, whether the Board of Trade contemplates having the channel leading to the port of Cardiff surveyed by an independent authority, with a view to either reinstating the two pilots or confirming their suspension?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I find from the annual Pilotage Returns for the year 1857, that John Howe was then acting as a licensed pilot at Cardiff. I presume, therefore, that he has an experience of 21 years. The latest published Return shows that he was then a first-class Channel pilot. The Pilotage Board at Cardiff is constituted under the Bristol Channel Pilotage Act 1861, which gives to the Board of Trade no controlling power in the matter of pilotage, and section 336 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, the only section of a general Act which gives any power to the Board of Trade in these matters, only enables me to consider representations from pilots who complain of some specific bye-law or regulation, and gives me no power whatever to interfere in any other way between pilots and Pilotage Boards. I am not, therefore, in a postion either to re-instate the pilots or to confirm their suspension. As to a survey of the Channel, the Board of Trade have no funds at their disposal for making the suggested survey; but we were informed early in the year that the Bute trustees, who origin-

  835
  ally cut the Channel, were about to remove the obstructions that had grown up in it. As this subject excites considerable public attention, and is a matter of great interest to pilots generally, a most valuable and industrious class of men, I shall be happy to lay the Correspondence on the Table as soon as it is completed, if my hon. Friend will move for it.

THE CHARLTON CHARITY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he can state how soon the awards of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland under the new Scheme of the Charlton Charity will be made public, and the money distributed?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, I have communicated with the Solicitors to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland, with whom this matter rests, and I have been informed by them that they expect the whole matter will be concluded in a fortnight.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which he had given him private Notice. The House was, no doubt, aware that an important measure, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, had been under consideration in "another place," and, as it would probably come down to that House very speedily, he wished to ask, When the Government proposed to take the second reading; and to suggest that, in order to afford time for the consideration of the alterations made in it, the measure should not be taken before Whitsuntide?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he was unable to state when the Government would be in a position to take the Bill; but it certainly could not be before Whitsuntide, as the chief Business of the Government now was Supply.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  836
  When the County Government Bill which stood for Thursday next, would be proceeded with? The Bill had been so frequently postponed that it might as well be put out of its misery at once.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he did not exactly know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by these expressions; but it was certainly necessary for the Government to proceed with Supply, and it was their intention to go on with Supply on Thursday. In all probability he should propose a Morning Sitting on Friday for the same purpose.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MAJOR NOLAN: I wish to make a few remarks on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, and to do so in Order I will move the adjournment of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he would have to take a Morning Sitting on Friday. He was not, perhaps, aware, when he stated that, that the Irish Members, as represented by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), have a Motion on that day, to which they attach the greatest importance—perhaps more importance than to any other matter that they have brought forward this Session—namely, University Education. It is perfectly useless our coming here if we do not have an opportunity of debating this question. I should very much prefer to take a Morning Sitting on Saturday, and I should be willing to give up my whole holidays rather than give up the ordinary Sitting on Friday. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in his intention, for if he does it will be my duty to oppose it. If any other day were taken, I should be happy to assist the Government.
  THE O'CONOR DON,in seconding the Motion, said: The Motion which stands in my name for Friday is one in which the greatest interest is taken in Ireland, and it is important that the discussion should take place on that day. I do not wish in any way to threaten the Government, and I hope no language of that character may be used; but if they persevere in the intention that has been expressed, I am afraid it will not expedite

  837
  Public Business. I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that as this Motion is one in which so much interest is felt, and the importance of which the Government has admitted, whether it would be fair to take away from private Members the time which is usually theirs? We do not ask the Government to give us any time which the Government usually have; we merely ask that, on a question of this importance, they should not take away the time of private Members.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Major Nolan.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that nothing is further from my thought or that of the Government than to stand in the way of the discussion of the important Motion of which he has given Notice, and I hope it may be possible for us to take a fair discussion on the subject on Friday. But I must point out to them, and to other hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in this question, that really the fault that we are obliged to have recourse to this step will not lie with the Government. The House is perfectly well aware that it is essentially necessary for the Business of the country that we should go on with our Votes in Supply. They are perfectly well aware that the Government laid aside and postponed many measures of considerable importance, which they were now anxious to proceed with, for no other purpose than to give an opportunity for proceeding with Supply. They know that we took a Vote on account before the Recess, when we pledged ourselves, as far as we could, that we would not ask for another Vote of Credit, and to prevent our going to that necessity we have been proceeding with Supply night after night. But I am bound to say that we have come to the point that we shall be obliged to come for another Vote on account. Whether that be so or not, it is within the knowledge of all the Members of this House that the mode in which the Estimates have been opposed and questions raised upon them, renders it absolutely impossible for us to conduct the Business of the House satisfactorily. As matters stand all I can say
  838
  is that if we make proper progress in Supply on Thursday I should not think of proposing a Morning Sitting on Friday. But it is in anticipation of our being in the same position as we have been several times recently that I have been obliged to give the intimation.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Motion which came on first on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. But I would refer the Government to the fact that if any hon. Members have discussed the Estimates at greater length than is altogether according to the wishes of the Government that is a matter for which the hon. Members themselves are responsible. It has not been the intention of the Irish Members generally to obstruct the Estimates, and I, for my part, should object to the sins of particular individuals being visited on the whole Irish people. The Irish Members, however, have a right to discuss every Estimate that comes before the House. They have on a former occasion entreated the Government to take into consideration various important questions, especially relating to education—University Education and the Queen's Colleges. Year after year we have appealed to the Government to consider these subjects without result. We have brought forward Bills to remedy these grievances, but ever since the present Government has been in power we have not succeeded in passing a single measure of benefit to Ireland. It is, therefore, out of the question to suppose that Irish Members will consent to forego the bringing forward this Motion with respect to University Education, which Motion ought, indeed, to be brought forward by the Government itself, which has almost pledged itself to consider the matter. But every responsibility relating to Irish measures the Government have shirked. I have not joined in the discussions that have been raised recently; but it will be very unfortunate if the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumes the tone that he will endeavour to visit the sins of certain individuals whom he thinks have offended on the whole body of the Irish people. My hon. and gallant Colleague made a proposition which shows bonâ fide our intention in proposing to give up Saturday

  839
  for a Morning Sitting. I believe we should all prefer to give up Saturday for a Morning Sitting rather than have this important discussion interfered with. The House would not desire anyone to hold out the semblance of a threat to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope he will take these remarks in good part, and understand that they only indicate the great importance we attach to this discussion, which ought naturally to come on on Friday.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is anxious to have a Morning Sitting on Friday, which would mean postponing the discussion of the University Bill. I wish to note to the House that I have on the Notice Paper, before going into Committee of Supply, for Friday, a Motion on the subject of Irish Intermediate Education, and that will probably occupy three or four hours. There is one way in which the matter could be settled, and that is that the Minister who represents Ireland would, in half-an-hour, state on the first reading what he means to do with regard to what has been promised for four years on the subject of Intermediate Education.
  MR. PARNELL: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a somewhat unfortunate method of expediting Supply. Unless he makes as much progress as he deems sufficient—I do not know how much that is—in the Irish Estimates to-morrow night, he says he will be compelled to take away from the Irish Members a portion of their evening in order to further the progress of those Estimates. In making that proposal, he is holding out to us the same sort of bargain he held out last year in regard to the discussion of the Queen's College Estimates. Last year he made a bargain with the Irish Members, that if they refrained from discussing those Estimates, he would give them a day for discussing the University Bill, and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) accepted the compromise, and we got a day for the discussion, and much good it did us. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us now, in effect, if we refrain from discussing the Irish Estimates on Thursday night, he will allow us to have what belongs to us—namely, our evening on Friday to discuss the matter of University Education. I think that is a
  840
  distinctly immoral proposition, and I, for one, do not in the slightest degree accept it. I refuse to refrain from advancing my views on the Irish Estimates in order to enable the hon. Member for Roscommon to retain that which he is justly entitled to, and I shall enter into no such compromise or bargain; but I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will not go into Supply if he takes a Morning Sitting on Friday. If, on the other hand, he takes a conciliatory course towards the Irish Members, and gives them that which is their due—namely, this Friday evening which they have obtained by the chances of ballot—I believe such a course will do far more to facilitate the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in obtaining Supply than any of those which I have heard him hold out to-night. I must really tell the right hon. Gentleman that the part of Henry VIII. does not at all become him. We read in English history that that King, when he wanted money for any purpose, used to stride about the House and say—"I will have your money or else I will have your heads." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted a somewhat similar course, the only difference being that he strides into the House and says—"I will have your money or I will have your day." That is the threat which he holds out to the Irish Members, and is a threat to which they ought not to submit.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I must also make a protest, and that is against the lecture to which the House has just listened. Hon. Members on both sides are, I am sure, prepared to bear testimony to the courteous and conciliatory manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavours, on all occasions, and under the greatest difficulties, to conduct the Public Business. I hope, therefore, that he will not submit to the dictation which is attempted to be practised by a few of our number day after day. I impute no motives; but I believe the House perfectly well understands what is the object of those hon. Gentlemen who have recently discussed the Estimates in a manner so unprecedented. I trust that if, in future, the Public Business is obstructed, hon. Members on both sides of the House will rally round the Chancellor of the Exchequer and support him.
  MR. BIGGAR: We have heard a very nice lecture, in cool style, from the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin); but I really do think if he would perform his duty to his constituents, he would be in his place and attend to the discussion of the Estimates, and see that the public money was properly disposed of. I have not been very long in this House, but I have some little experience of the manner in which Business is conducted, and I believe that fair limits have not been exceeded in the discussion of the Estimates. I raised a discussion the other night—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that the hon. Member is out of Order in referring to a former debate in this House.
  MR. BIGGAR: I want to point out the mode in which a division was taken.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss a Vote already taken.
  MR. BIGGAR: I have this day received a letter from a correspondent in Scotland, pointing out a particular Scotch Vote, which, he says, was thoroughly unreasonable.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEY LORD FRANCIS HERVEY rose to Order. The hon. Gentleman was disregarding the ruling of the Speaker.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled, under cover of a communication, to advert to a Vote passed in this House.
  MR. BIGGAR: I contend that the time occupied in discussing the Estimates has not been wasted. As to the question of Irish University Education, it is a subject upon which the Irish people take a great interest, and it should, therefore, be fairly discussed. It is a question which cannot be shelved, and will not be shelved; and I do not think we have a right to go on our knees and beg as a particular favour for what belongs to us. This proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a sample of the way in which the Business is conducted by the Government. The Government get up discussions upon collateral issues, and, instead of occupying the time with legitimate Business, it is wasted. This is the universal experience of the way in which the time of the House is wasted.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MOTIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (NEW CODE).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. PEASE,in rising to call attention to Clause 98 of the Act 33 and 34 Vic. c. 75 (the Elementary Education Act), and to Section "B," Article 7, of "Preliminary Chapter" of the "Code of 1878 of Minutes of the Education Department," and to the manner in which, the Committee of Council on Education are taking action thereon; and to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct the amendment of the New Code of Regulations of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education, by the omission of Article 'b' of section 7 of the said Code;"
    said, there was a clause in the Act by which Minutes were to be in force only when they had been laid on the Table of the House for one month. And he thought that the Minute in the Code issued at the commencement of the year overrode the 98th section of the Act, which provided that the managers of any schools in a school board district, and not in receipt of an annual grant, might apply to the Education Department for a Parliamentary grant, which might, however, be refused in the case of "unnecessary schools." The assumption was that the grant would be made except in cases of misconduct and mala fides. He would, with the permission of the House, refer to several instances, which would show that the Education Department was unnecessarily strict in its inquiries into the school accommodation of districts, taking as the basis of an unnecessary school the mere fact of there being school seats in some other school. By this method, the children of Church attenders might be sent into Roman Catholic or Dissenting schools, or the children of Dissenters into National schools, the result of which was that the difficulty of carrying on the work of education in the country was increased. After alluding to various other schools in different parts of England, he said the strongest case occurred in Stanhope, a town in the county he had the honour to represent. In July, 1873, a deficiency of 920 in the school accommodation of the district was de-

    843
    clared to exist. Before the close of 1873 the people formed a school board, which built five as complete schools as he had ever seen. He had the honour of opening two or three of them. In the town of Stanhope there was a very large Dissenting element, and the school board asked leave to build a school to accommodate 200 children. Notice, however, was given that besides the Barrington Church schools, a school which had been formerly closed, would be opened, and that another was also available; and the Department then held that there was sufficient school accommodation in the town. He had not one word to say against the management of the Barrington schools, to which he was himself an annual subscriber; but, practically, there was not a single Dissenting school in the place. The school board urged the Department to relax their rule, but they declined; then the Wesleyans, with their usual zeal, built a school to accommodate 200 children, and asked to be placed on the list for the annual grants. But the Department declined to sanction the proposed school, on the ground that such school accommodation for Stanhope was not required. The school, however, was opened, and the Government Inspector was pleased with the building and furniture, and said that the results of the examination were decidedly good. There were 182 scholars in attendance. In January, 1877, they again asked to be placed on the list for grants, and were again refused. He was told on good authority that about two-thirds of the people attended the Dissenting chapels. The cases which he had cited went to show that which he thought was indiscretion on the part of the Department in assuming too much local control. The effect of the Article in question was to make the power of refusing grants to certain schools compulsory, and to extend the operation of Clause 98 into non-school board districts, and he believed it was entirely beyond the powers of the Department, by an Article in the Code, to override the statute law. He did not advocate the total repeal of the 98th section of the Act of 1870. He thought it was right that the Department should have a certain amount of power, but it should be very cautiously exercised. He doubted if the powers the noble Lord was endeavouring to get were not illegal
    844
    powers. It was not desirable that they should have too much centralized in Downing Street the control over the choice made by parents in this country of the schools to which they should send their children. It seemed to him that it made no difference to the State whether children were educated in a Board school, a National school, or a Roman Catholic school, provided they came up to certain Standards. The Code now on the Table was not, in his view, in accordance with the Act of 1870, and he thought that if the Education Department wanted further powers, they ought to come to the House for them by means of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct the amendment of the New Code of Regulations of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education, by the omission of Article 'b' of section 7 of the said Code."—(Mr. Pease.)
    MR. A. MILLSobserved, that it was one thing to alter the Code, and possibly to deal with the 98th clause of the Act of 1870 so as to create what was called a free trade in voluntary schools, and it was quite another thing to arm an ambitious school board with the power of establishing a new school, even where sufficient accommodation had been provided. The hon. Member opposite had mentioned about 26 cases in which he thought the present state of the law and the action of the Department had worked injustice; but he would remind him that there were in England and Wales considerably more than 14,000 public elementary schools; therefore, the grievance, even if it existed in the cases named, was not a very large one as compared with the total number of schools in the country. If, however, the action of the Department inflicted wrong in only very few instances, of course, the wrong ought, if possible, to be set right. But he thought it was very undesirable that they should have constant changes in their Education Code, and still more in their Education Acts. His own experience was that the 98th clause of the Education Act of 1870 was a very valuable one. It said—
    "If the managers of any school which is situate in the district of a school board acting

    845
    under this Act, and is not previously in receipt of an annual Parliamentary grant, whether such managers are a school board or not, apply to the Education Department for a Parliamentary grant, the Education Department may, if they think that such school is unnecessary, refuse such application."
    The sub-section of the Code, which the hon. Member wished to cut out, said that no grant was to be made for any school which had not previously received an annual grant if the Department thought such school unnecessary. Thus, the powers given by Clause 98 of the Act were simply incorporated in the Code in order to carry out the provisions of the clause. There was no difference between the 98th clause of the Act and the sub-section of the Code, and the two must stand or fall together. He hoped Parliament would not deprive the Department of its veto in regard to unnecessary schools, for the indefinite multiplication of schools would cause a deterioration of the quality of the education. It might be fair, even when there was sufficient school accommodation, to relax the rule, so that the Department might not exercise its veto. This might happen, for instance, where Roman. Catholics, or Wesleyans, or members of the Church of England, having no school suited to their requirements, were willing to build one at their own cost; but, in cases such as that of the London School Board, where, at least, 10 d. in every shilling was paid by the public, any such relaxation would be a change tending very much to the disadvantage of the public.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he agreed with the Resolution of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease); but, as he was responsible for the Act of 1870, he wished to say why he did so. He thought there was a great difference between the power to be given to the Education Department by the 98th section of the Act of 1870, and the power allowed by the Article of the Code. The section of the Act of 1870 said that in school board districts, and in them only, the annual Parliamentary grant might be refused for a new school if the Education Department thought that such a school was unnecessary. The Minute, on the other hand, said that no grant might be made in respect of any new school if the Education Department thought the school unnecessary. By the section the Department might use their discretion if they thought it unnecessary; but by the Minute, if
    846
    they thought it unnecessary, they were bound to refuse it. There was a difference between the two, and an intentional difference. Besides, in order to guard against a too frequent use of the power of refusal, and to make it evident that its purpose was of a very special kind, for a special purpose, the section of the Act demanded that in each case a special Report should be made, showing the ground on which the grant was refused; but the Minute required nothing of the kind, and there was this other and great difference—that the section was confined to school board districts. The Minute introduced a perfectly new system into the Education Act, and, till it came before the House, he had no idea that the Department considered they had legally the power to assume to themselves the duty of deciding, with regard to every new school throughout the Kingdom, whether or not it was wanted. This, however, was what the Department was really doing. A great evil might follow on that new principle. He had always understood that the Vote was distributed in annual grants to all schools that fulfilled certain conditions laid down originally in the Code, and now, in the Act of Parliament, as to masters and buildings. Every school was invited to earn what it could, and that, briefly, was the principle on which the Vote had been apportioned among them. There was a provision against extreme cases; but, so little had he supposed the Department could take upon themselves the power to refuse a grant, simply because they thought a school unnecessary, that he had constantly, while refusing assistance from the funds of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, said that a school would have to be built, if at all, by the rates levied for the year. That, he had always thought, was a sufficient protection, and that he had taken to be practically the only power they had. He said—"You can build the school at your own expense if you think fit." If that screw were kept, they need not be uneasy that there would be unnecessary schools. He might think some schools not wanted, but if a school was once set up, he would never refuse the grant, except in cases of mala fides, against which provision was made in the Act. The new power was certainly very arbitrary, and, without entering into the merits of the special cases that had been brought forward,

    847
    it was clear that in all these cases persons thought they had been hardly treated. His hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) seemed to suppose it necessary to check the action of school boards; but hon. Members must not support this Minute on the supposition that it would merely tell in favour of school boards. If this Minute were allowed to remain, it might be turned against any fresh denominational schools whatever. This he should be sorry to see, because he thought that taxpayers had a right to have a special denominational school if they fulfilled the conditions, and were willing to run the very severe risk of having to pay their share of the rates and subscribe to their own schools as well. He could not help taking a great interest in the actual work of the Department; and he did feel that, in undertaking to decide whether a school was wanted or not in any particular district, they imposed on themselves an amount of anxious labour of which they had little conception, while it would create heartburning and opposition in almost every district in which they exercised this power. There might be Departmental reasons for the change, but they could not be aware of the labour they were undertaking. With regard to the legal question, he thought, quite unintentionally, his noble Friend had somewhat strained the law. When he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was bringing in the Education Bill, he was of opinion that the Department had no power to refuse the annual grant to schools, and, therefore, thinking it necessary, in very extreme cases, that they should take that power, he put in the special section so often alluded to; but the very fact that the House passed it, was, to him, a very strong argument, if not a proof, that there was no power to go beyond that section. In Section 9, the Act laid down the conditions to be fulfilled by elementary schools, in order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant. Surely, when they had decided by law that certain conditions should be fulfilled—which conditions were to be contained in the Minutes of the Education Department—it was stretching that section to say that the Education Department should have the power in their discretion to say what schools should be wanted or not. Surely, it was almost a mockery to say by Act of Parliament, that grants should be
    848
    given on certain conditions, and then to say that really meant nothing at all, because the Department had the discretion of refusal. He hoped his hon. Friend would not push this matter to a division. It was a case which might fairly be left to the Government to consider. No doubt they would fairly consider it, and perhaps he was not asking too much when he asked them to give some consideration to the arguments he had brought forward. He would say one word with regard to the Scotch Act. New schools in Scotland were treated differently from new schools in England. The former merely developed the rate system, which was quite in accordance with the educational genius of Scotland. The provision with regard to new schools was that all new voluntary schools, or schools not public schools, should be refused a Parliamentary grant, unless the Department consented to a special grant to them, either from regard to the religious opinions of those who wanted them or the special necessities of the district. There was to be a special report in every case in which a grant was made to a new voluntary school; but there was nothing in the Scotch Act about refusing a grant to any public school, and he felt convinced, if it had been stated that in passing the Scotch Act power had been taken to give to the Education Department the discretion to refuse grants to any new school board school, such a provision would not have been passed. In the Scotch Code of this year, however, the Department had inserted a Minute in which, they had taken the words in the Scotch Act, omitting only these words, "not being a public school;" and thus, by a stroke of the pen, the Department had taken on themselves the power to refuse grants to every new public school. The Department might have thought it advisable to make this change to prevent the multiplication of small schools. He did not think this change necessary for that purpose. He thought it better for the Department to rely on the obstacles to the erection of unnecessary schools arising from the expense involved in building and maintaining them than on the reports of its own officers. He believed that not one school in 1,000 would be started if not wanted. If, however, the Government, on a re-consideration of the whole question, thought it their duty to claim

    849
    this power, in his opinion, the proper Parliamentary course incumbent upon them would be to propose an Amendment of the Act, giving them the additional power which they thought they ought to possess.
    LORD FRANCIS HERVEYapproved of the Resolution brought forward by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease), especially as there was no desire manifested to interfere with the 90th section of the Education Act. He trusted the Government would see that it had gone further than was necessary either to guard the public purse or in the interests of education. If they wished to avoid heart burnings, discontent, and dissatisfaction, they would have the law amended. If the hon. Member pressed his Motion to a division he should support him.
    MR. RAMSAYthanked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—and he thought the people of Scotland would be equally grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—for the remarks he had made with reference to Scotland. He hoped that, so far as Scotland was concerned, the Education Department would re-consider the matter, for the change made in the Scotch Code had set aside the provisions of the Act of Parliament. He understood that the Code should be framed in such terms as to carry out the express provisions of the Statute; but the omission of the words "not being a public school" virtually repealed one of these provisions, and, if so, involved such a change of the law as he thought it was not competent for the Department to make. He suggested that the hon. Member for Durham should not insist on a division, and hoped that the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) would admit that this subject deserved consideration, and that he would see that the Code should be altered so as to make it conform with the terms of the Act of Parliament.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he entirely concurred in the views expressed by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease), and in the object which he aimed at by his Resolution. The Government should find no difficulty at all in steering a clear way between the different courses which had been suggested. He, however, differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)
    850
    and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) on the distinction which they drew between the 98th clause of the Act and the 7th section of the Code. He thought the difference consisted in this—that the Act of Parliament was directory and the Code was affirmative. There was no essential difference between the two. He thought the principle of religious liberty should be the guide in matters of this sort, and he trusted that the Act of Parliament would be so interpreted by the Education Department as to enable them to give the necessary assistance to denominational schools, no matter what their religious character might be. There was one particular which should be kept in view—namely, that the principle of confidence which they extended in this respect to denominational schools, for which persons actuated by religious zeal and charitable motives made large sacrifices and considerable efforts, did not apply to board schools, which were not the offspring of religious earnestness, which involved no sacrifice on the part of the managers, but were institutions worked by means of the money of the ratepayers.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he wished very briefly to undertake the defence of this sub-section which had been called in question to-night. Having only recently acceded to his present Office, he would have been quite willing to leave its defence to his Predecessors who framed it; but he thought it right to state why, in his opinion, the House ought not to assent to this Motion. In doing that, he must acknowledge the temperate character of the speeches of hon. Members opposite who had addressed themselves to this question. The subject under discussion was somewhat larger than would appear at first sight. The sub-section had been placed in the Act for the purpose of asserting that a discretion was placed in the hands of the Privy Council in this matter. He was glad to find that all the great voluntary associations interested in the promotion of religious education had acknowledged that the past action of the Department had given satisfaction. Therefore, unless this sub-section indicated some departure from the principle upon which the Education Department had administered the grants, he did not see how it could give offence to any religious

    851
    community. The two points upon which the hon. Member had dwelt the most were—first, was this sub-section legal? and secondly, if legal, was it wise and expedient? Upon the first point, the Education Department contended that they ought to have the same discretion as to making these annual grants as they possessed before the passing of the Act of 1870, and which was merely strengthened by that Act. By that Act, the Education Department was made the instrument by which educational deficiencies of different localities were pointed out, and discretion was given to the Department to call upon the different localities to make good those deficiencies. The sub-section in question was inserted for the purpose of making it known that the Education Department would permit rivalry and competition among schools in all parts of the Kingdom, but within certain limits. Hon. Members who had spoken on this subject had made no suggestion as to the alternative action that should supply the place of that pointed out by this sub-section. In his opinion, the only other alternative action that could be adopted was that of free trade in schools. As regarded school board districts, the school boards were bound to supply the deficiencies of school accommodation, and in that case the Education Department could not consent to the establishment of denominational schools afterwards; but in non-school board districts the Department was willing, within certain limits, to allow competition between all classes of schools. If, however, free trade in schools were to be established as a general principle, essential changes must be introduced in the Act of 1870. By the Act of 1870, school boards were established for the purpose of exercising the primary duty of providing for educational deficiencies in the localities over which they had authority, and of even providing for prospective deficiencies in those districts; and, therefore, if it were not for the control of the Education Department over the school boards in the way of expenditure, the latter would have the power of establishing ad libitum as many schools as they chose. Under the Act, the Education Department had the right to refuse a grant to any school which, in their opinion, was unnecessary, and by the Act of 1873, the Department
    852
    had the power of refusing any loan for a school which was deemed unnecessary. In nearly all the cases to which the hon. Member for Durham had referred the Education Department were bound to refuse the grant. An application was made for a grant for a school board school in the Stanhope district, and it was refused by the Department because they thought the school unnecessary. It was not, therefore, competent to the Education Department to give subsequently to a voluntary school what they had denied to a school board school. The cases to which attention had been called were cases in which the Department had acted in strict accordance with the sections in the Act of 1870 which were applicable to them, and no other course would be possible unless that Act was altered. He thought the House would agree with the opinion of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) that it was not possible, at any rate, at present, to make any alteration in the Elementary Education Acts which had recently been passed. There might, perhaps, be found some means of relieving the managers of schools of a part of the difficulty of which they now complained, and he would undertake to re-consider that part of the section which referred to non-school board districts, with the view of defining, to a certain extent, what, in the opinion of the Department, would or would not constitute an unnecessary school. The only object of the Department in endeavouring to curtail the number of schools in any way was to promote efficiency. No one, he thought, who had the interests of education and of the schools at heart, would desire to see abolished the discretion entrusted to the Department in reference to the making of grants; but many who had studied the question might think that there should be some modification of the existing rules, and it was with a view to this that he would take the matter in hand, without, however, pledging himself to any particular course. He saw no insuperable difficulty in the way of making grants to bonâ fide schools which had been in existence for some little time, and which had a sufficiently large attendance, and he therefore hoped the hon. Member for Durham would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division; if he did, he (Lord George Hamilton) would

    853
    move the Previous Question, as he agreed with many of the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, but not with his conclusions.
    MR. PEASEsaid, he was satisfied with the assurance of the noble Lord, and would ask the House for leave to withdraw the Motion, which he had put upon the Paper in no spirit of hostility to the general scope of the Education Acts or the manner in which the Department had administered them.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, he regretted that this wholly unnecessary Minute was not to be withdrawn, for it was likely to cause great dissatisfaction. The Education Department would do wisely to recognize the absolute necessity of free trade in schools in all districts. As an advocate of denominational education, and at the same time of fair play, he believed that if they were to continue the denominational system, the law should be made equal in its operation to all forms of religious belief, and that no hard-and-fast line should be held by the Education Department in dealing with these schools.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I beg to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question of Parliamentary Reporting. I do not know whether the House will think it desirable that I should occupy their time by any discussion upon this question. I should rather apprehend that it would be more convenient not to do so, and I will simply say that the object I have in view in moving the appointment of this Committee is not simply to consider the question which is involved in the recent new arrangement with Mr. Hansard, but I also propose that the Committee should consider any other arrangements, or the propriety of entering into any other arrangements, which may be thought desirable. I believe there are several hon. Gentlemen in this House who have paid a good deal of attention to this subject, and some have expressed a desire to bring before us their various views. No doubt, the matter is rather a complex one, and the objects are of a character which render it impossible to
    854
    attain them all completely; because we desire to have correct reports, we desire to have full reports, we desire to have reports which shall not be unnecessarily or very long delayed in their publication, and we desire not to be burdened with a great mass of unnecessary matter. It is obviously very difficult to draw the line so as to attain the maximum good with the minimum of inconvenience; but I believe a well-selected Committee—one that will attend to the subject, and will receive evidence—may be able to do a very good service to the House. Without further remark, therefore, I will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question of Parliamentary Reporting.
    MAJOR NOLAN: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make this Committee a large Committee, and for this reason. There are two or three Irish Members who are very anxious to serve upon it. My hon. Colleague the Member for the county of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was the first to draw attention to this subject. Then, there is the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Dunbar), who is, I believe, the only Member of this House who has been in the Reporters' Gallery; and there is also the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), who has been a good deal connected with newspapers and reporting matters. These three hon. Gentlemen would be very competent to serve on such a Committee, and, therefore, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make it sufficiently large to include them.
    Motion agreed to.
    Select Committee appointed, "to consider the question of Parliamentary Reporting."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    And, on June 17, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Viscount CRICHTON, Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Mr. WALTER, Lord FRANCIS HERVEY, Mr. DUNBAR, Mr. HALL, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Sir HENRY WOLFF, Mr. BARCLAY, and Mr. MILLS:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    And, on June 20, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. COWEN, and Major ARBUTHNOT added.

  EPPING FOREST BILL.

    LEAVE.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in rising to move for leave to bring in

    855
    a Bill for the disafforestation of Epping Forest, and the preservation and management of the uninclosed parts there of as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public, and for other purposes, said, the House had had, on more than one occasion, the subject of Epping Forest before it. The old argument had been that inclosures were beneficial to the public; and, in consequence of an opinion of the Law Officers of 1853, the rights of the Crown over 3,000 or 4,000 acres had been sold, and the lords of manors had made a great number of inclosures. But, in the year 1860, an Address to the Crown was carried, expressing a hope that the sale of Crown rights over the Forest would be prevented. In 1865, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had a Bill passed, transferring the Crown rights from the Office of Woods and Forests to that of the First Commissioner of Works. Subsequent inclosures kept public attention alive to the subject; and in 1870 the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) carried an Address to the Crown, to the effect that the Common should be preserved as an open space for the enjoyment of the public—the first time that principle had been recognized in the House of Commons. As a result of that Address, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), brought in a Bill which he said would, by a compromise, secure the just rights of the public. The Bill was brought in late in the Session and did not pass, and, in the following Session, a Resolution adverse to the proposal of the Bill, which would, it was said, only secure 600 acres to the public, was moved by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire, and carried by a large majority. This was followed by a Bill appointing a Commission to inquire into the question, and the next year another Bill was passed, under which certain suits which had been instituted were stayed, save one called the City suit, in which the Master of the Rolls made a decree with respect to the right of the commoners in 1874. The matter was argued at considerable length before the Commissioners, and a preliminary Report was made in 1875. In 1877, a final Report was presented in the shape of a scheme which was before the Govern-
    856
    ment at the commencement of the Session, and it then became a question with the Government how that scheme should be dealt with—whether it should be dealt with in the form of a Provisional Order, or in some other form. There were certain technical difficulties in the way of bringing the scheme forward in the ordinary form, and the Government had to consider what steps should be taken, anxious as it was that a final settlement should be made. The Act of 1871 contemplated a final settlement, and the Government thought that by introducing a Bill, without re-opening again the old difficulties, they might carry out the original intention. The Bill was drawn, and it handed over to the City the Forest to be preserved as an open space for the public for ever. Great care had been taken, and litigation would, it was hoped, be avoided. The Bill set up an arbitration to decide what were "gardens" and "curtilages," and what should be paid to the lords of manors. The case was one for agreement between the parties interested. He believed that the Government scheme had met with considerable favour by all who had interest in the suit before the Master of the Rolls. The Bill, he hoped, would prove a permanent settlement of a long-vexed question. When it was printed, it would be found that the measure would carry out the principal recommendations of the scheme suggested by the Commissioners. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREexpressed his satisfaction that the Government had brought in this Bill, and hoped it might be a final solution of this most important question, and would permanently secure to the public this great open Forest, and an end put to one of the most gigantic systems of land robbery that there had ever been in this country.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. LOCKEsaid, that there had been great difficulty at first in approving the measure, and it might still be necessary to wait and consider what were its provisions.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill for the disafforestation of Epping Forest, and the preservation and management of the uninclosed parts thereof as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. NOEL.

    INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (LLAN FAIR WATERDINE) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of certain Lands situated in the parish of Llanfair Waterdine, in the county of Salop, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
    INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (ORFORD) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of certain Lands situated in the parish of Orford, in the county of Suffolk, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and "Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
    ORDER OF THE DAY
      HYPOTHEC (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      (Mr. Agnew, Mr. Baillie Hamilton, Sir George Douglas.)

      [BILL 29.] SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
      House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.