Lords Sitting of 22 July 1873

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Chesterfield, after the death of his cousin.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Medical Act Amendment (University of London)* (214); Military Manœuvres* (216).
Committee—Petitions of Right (Ireland)* (180–233).
Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) (167).
Third Reading—Highland Schools (Scotland)* (205), and passed.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS—DENBIGH FREE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  The Queen's Answer to the Address of Friday last reported, as follows—
  "My LORDS,
  "I have received your Address, praying that I would refuse my assent to the Schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School and of the Blue Coat School Charity at Denbigh:
  "I will withhold my assent from the Schemes in conformity with your desire."

  THE LATE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER AND THE LATE LORD WESTBURY.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I wish to ask your Lordships to excuse me in saying a few words before we proceed to the Orders of the Day. I find that there is a general and not unnatural feeling of surprise at more not having been expressed in this House yesterday on the subject of the great losses which the House had sustained since their meeting on the previous Friday. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), indeed, took advantage of the only opportunity which he had of expressing with judgment and good feeling what were his impressions on that occasion; and not only what were his feelings, but what were the feelings of every one of your Lordships. If there was any omission it was entirely mine. My excuse is one which your Lordships can easily understand—at all events, it was not compatible with any indifference on my part to the losses which we have sustained; but still it was difficult for an independent Member of the House to speak without my having, in the official position I hold, given him the lead in the matter. I do it now without the slightest idea of making anything like a funeral oration over these remarkable men. Their works, their lives, and their great abilities are known to your Lordships. We all know, with regard to Lord Westbury, that, though it was hardly appreciated as it deserved, his kindliness of heart was remarkable; while with regard to the Bishop of Winchester, his genial disposition and urbane character made every person his devoted friend—even those who most differed from him.

  737
  I will only add this:—We are sometimes in this House, and sometimes out of it, apt to depreciate ourselves; but I think it remarkable that two such remarkable men should have been lost to this Assembly within 24 hours, and yet have left this House not entirely bare of those attributes for which they were distinguished.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to add a few words to those which have been so well spoken by my noble Friend. I am not at all sure that any mode of expressing the feelings which we all entertain upon the occasion of these great losses could have been more significant than the silence yesterday of those who were not compelled to speak, and the deviation from the natural course of the business of the evening which it was impossible for the noble Duke to avoid. I am one of those who have had very many opportunities of knowing both the great men whom we have lost. Of the right rev. Prelate I will not trust myself to speak after what has been said, because I feel that I am in the presence of some, besides my noble Friend, who did not perhaps value or love him more, but who are better entitled to speak of his public character than I am. But with respect to Lord Westbury, I should be sorry to lose the opportunity of saying a very few words. I think he was a man of as brilliant natural powers as any man he has left behind him. He was also a man who, from his activity and industry in the application of those powers, had acquired a very great breadth of view with regard to the science of jurisprudence, to which his life was devoted. He had all the qualities of an eminent Judge. Personally, I have to say that from the earliest part of my professional career I was indebted to him for notice and kindness, when I was young and obscure, and when notice and kindness from such a person were most valuable. I was also indebted to him when he became Lord Chancellor for my first introduction to the public service; and I was indebted to him for uniform confidence and consideration during the whole time of our official connection. I was no unconcerned—I will not call myself spectator, as I was in some sense an actor—in the Parliamentary struggles connected with his retirement from office, and never had I the smallest doubt, for a
  738
  single moment, as to his personal purity or as to his freedom from anything inconsistent with high public and private honour, in regard to those transactions as to which he was thought by some to have failed in vigilance. No doubt or misgiving of the kind ever crossed my mind; and I could not but feel pained—more than I have ever yet up to this moment been able to express—that it was considered necessary to visit him with censure, which, so far as any public ground for it was then brought forward, was due, in my judgment, not to him but to others. Since that time he has performed in a dignified and most useful manner, his part in the judicial and other proceedings of your Lordships' House; nor did he ever show any feeling of resentment against those who had thought it their duty to oppose him. During the whole of this Session I have deeply lamented the absence of that assistance which he could have given to your Lordships' deliberations with regard to the great measure relating to our judicature, which has passed through your Lordships' House. I regretted his absence the more, because I had reason to believe that there were some points of importance on which his opinion was not entirely the same as my own. He was frank and kind in his communications with me; and his views, I need not say, were carefully considered; but his absence from your Lordships' House, especially with regard to the discussions on that Bill, was a great public loss; and the fact that we shall never again have that assistance will, I am sure, be most deeply regretted by all of your Lordships as well as by myself.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am anxious, my Lords, to express my thanks and those of the right rev. Bench to my noble Friend on the Treasury bench for having recurred to this subject. As regards the noble and learned Lord (Lord Westbury) it is a circumstance which I cannot forget, that I believe I was the last of your Lordships who saw him and had a conversation with him between the last two meetings of your Lordships' House, and I can bear witness that his intellect was then quite as clear in the prospect of approaching death as when he last addressed your Lordships. With regard to the right rev. Prelate, I can well

  739
  understand that my noble Friend should have found it impossible yesterday to address your Lordships, fresh as he then was from the scene of a great calamity—if we may call it a calamity for a man to be summoned away in the midst of his vigour in obedience to a voice which he had long expected, not unprepared, but ready for the summons. My Lords, I have known the right rev. Prelate for upwards of 30 years. I received from him long before I was a Bishop many marks of kindness, and for 17 years I have seen him almost daily in the discharge of our respective duties. It has been my misfortune to differ from him often, but I never knew an occasion on which his kindliness of heart did not overcome any difference which might have arisen from a divergence of opinion. I ask myself, what is the mark the right rev. Prelate will leave upon the Church and the people of England?—for I cannot doubt that one who filled so conspicuous a place in the public estimation, and who was seen and heard everywhere with pleasure and advantage, must leave a lasting mark behind him. He was not, indeed, the writer of a great work, nor, as far as I believe, was he the founder of any great school of thought; but he did set before the Church, of which he was an ornament, and the people of England the example of a life devoted to duty in its lowest and its highest phases. He was as ready to befriend the curate, whom no one knew but himself, as he was to place his services at the disposal of your Lordships, or of his Sovereign. No man could discharge such duties as he fulfilled in this spirit without leaving a lasting mark behind him. I believe I am only speaking the sentiments of my most rev. Brethren when I say that there is not one of us who does not feel that we owe to him a debt that we can never estimate fully in the example he has set us by his untiring energy. Many Bishops before him strove earnestly to perform their duty; but I believe that they, if living, would be as ready as myself to say that no one ever laboured so emphatically, or left behind him such an example of untiring industry in every department of work he undertook. It was this, my Lords, that gave him his surpassing influence. It was not merely an aptitude for business, and a devotion to the details of business, such as no
  740
  man, perhaps, but himself in this generation ever showed, but it was that kindly sympathy with which he entered into the feelings of others—that readiness never to spare himself if he could do an act of kindness—which made him ever welcome wherever he showed himself. I am sure that, publicly and privately, all the people of this country will, for many a day to come, lament the misfortune which has deprived us of his presence and his services—though we cannot regret his departure for his own sake.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON,who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he trusted many years of friendship with the late Bishop would be his justification for saying a few words. If there was one striking quality which more than another distinguished the character of the late Bishop, it was his power of gaining the hearts of all with whom he came in contact, of keeping away from extremes, and holding an even balance between contending parties. He had never known a man more capable of inspiring affection. He was, no doubt, one of the olden school which was passing away in this country—a scholar, a gentleman, a statesman, and a Churchman; but, above all, he was a steady and consistent friend, full and overflowing with kindness and affection. He was ever ready to uphold his opinions, but he was incapable of the slightest particle of jealousy. There were men on both sides who might have thought that he went too far on some occasions; but there were none who doubted the sincerity of his convictions, and his justice of conduct in his high office, in which he acted with as much evenhandedness as imperfect human nature would allow. And, certainly, in private life, those who knew the history of himself and his family knew how at different periods of that life a severe strain was put upon him, and how manfully and steadily that pressure was borne. He believed that there was not a man who worked harder or more zealously, or who more laid on every power and effort of his mind for his work, than he did. In society the right rev. Prelate shone and sparkled beyond anyone he had ever known. And although his connection with the diocese of Winchester was brief, he had left in hundreds of places within that diocese marks of his justice and

  741
  discretion, and of the vigour of his administration.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, if all among your Lordships who have been impressed by the lustre of the eloquence, the splendour of the talents, the unrivalled exertions, the energy in the discharge of public functions, displayed by the late right rev. Prelate were to rise in succession to bear their testimony to what he was, everyone of those whom I have now the honour of addressing would, in his turn, become a speaker. I rise, my Lords, to add a word to what has been said with regard to my late lamented Friend (Lord Westbury.) Those who, like myself, have had the opportunity of seeing him from day to day during the last few months, and witnessing the gravity of his illness and the extent of the suffering under which he laboured, could not but be apprehensive of the sad event which we all now deplore. My acquaintance with Lord Westbury is of something like 30 years' standing. I recollect when I, yet a young man, entered the profession of the law, Lord Westbury was in the full blaze of his career at the Bar, and I remember—as my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack does—the kindness I received from him then, when kindness was most valuable. I remember with gratitude and gladness the unvarying manner in which that kindness was ever after extended to me. I say this because in the contemplation of the great talents of Lord Westbury, remembering the splendour of his judicial career, recollecting the power which he brought to bear in the performance of his duties as a Judge, and remarking, also, on those proofs of intellect which all of your Lordships must have noticed, we are apt to depreciate what I, at least, dwell upon with greater pleasure—namely, the goodness of heart which lay below those more splendid and attractive qualities—a goodness of heart which I am glad my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has alluded to in terms which I gladly endorse. I could not, on this melancholy occasion, say less in reference to the loss of one with whom I have been for so many years in the closest contact and intimacy.
  LORD HATHERLEY: My Lords, as one who was often subjected to considerable criticism in this House, on the part of Lord Westbury, I am sincerely
  742
  glad to bear my testimony in addition to that of my noble and learned Friends to his kindliness of heart. He evinced extreme kindliness towards myself during my occupancy of the Woolsack, and I think it only due to his memory to say that in the course of those inquiries which led to his retirement from office I never understood that there was any stain upon his personal honour. Whatever want of diligence there might have been on his part in reference to transactions in which other persons were concerned, that was not, in my judgment, nor in that of others, any reason for imputing a want of personal honour to Lord Westbury himself.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMwas understood to suggest a public funeral for the late Bishop of Winchester in Westminster Abbey.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL—(No. 167.)
  (The Lord President).

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  Clause 1 (Confirmation of Order).
  EARL BEAUCHAMProse to move an Amendment the effect of which would be to postpone the operation of the Act until the 1st January 1874. The noble Earl said that the Provisional Order which the Bill sought to confirm conferred upon the London School Board authority to put in force the powers of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, for the purpose of compulsory acquirement of land which they had been unable to purchase by agreement—his object in proposing the postponement being that there would be an election of the School Board in the meanwhile. The outlay which would be involved by the Bill was very considerable, was not necessary, and could not be justified under the circumstances of the case, and was altogether out of proportion to the funds derived from the rates of the metropolitan school district. He regretted that the rates did not possess so stern a guardian as the Consolidated Fund had in the person of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was in favour of the extension of education, and had brought forward his Motion in the belief that the undertaking of an extravagant and un-

  743
  necessary expenditure would produce a reaction in the minds of the ratepayers which could only result in injury to the cause of education. They had to consider the nature of the education to be given to the children and the amount of accommodation that already existed. As to the former, the London School Board, instead of putting in force the powers conferred upon them by the Elementary Education Act, and making use of the vacant accommodation in the existing schools as far as their compulsory powers were concerned, had adopted another and altogether different course, and divided themselves into committees for the purpose of dealing with the various branches of education to be taught in the elementary schools. It had been gravely proposed by the London School Board that Latin and French should be subjects of instruction in the elementary schools. Parliament surely did not pass the Elementary Education Act with any such purpose, and if such a proposal had then been made it would not have found favour. Then as to the existing accommodation, he believed the statements that had been put forth as to the deficiency in this respect were entirely without foundation. The Statistical Committee of the London School Board, in estimating the existing educational destitution within the metropolitan area, stated that school accommodation would be required in round numbers for 100,000 children. This report was prepared by a Statistical Committee of 16 members, and took a year in. preparation. It did not appear how many members of the committee attended the meetings, or assisted in the preparation of these statistics; but the report itself was presented to the Board on one day and passed, he believed, without discussion. Now, it could not be satisfactory to the ratepayers that they should be called upon to pay large sums upon the strength of a report which had been so little discussed, and he thought they had a right to complain of their representatives for adopting a mass of figures without testing the accuracy of the principles upon which they were based. According to the very able and clear explanations of the secretary, Mr. Croad, the metropolis had been divided into enumerated districts, the total number of children between the ages of 3 and 13 had been ascertained, and various deductions had
  744
  then been made from this total. Now, everything depended upon the propriety of these deductions. The conclusion of the committee was that the total number of children for whom elementary school accommodation should be provided was 454,783, and the existing efficient school accommodation was 330,000. There was, therefore, an apparent deficiency of accommodation for between 150,000 and 200,000 children. But he regarded the estimate as an exaggerated one. The Bishop of London had instituted an inquiry into the subject, and the result reduced the deficiency to 130,000. Thus the School Board assumed that a majority of the children who were being educated at a cost of between 6d. and 9d. a-week were children for whom elementary education should be provided at the expense of the ratepayers. But surely close inquiry was necessary into the character of the schools and all the circumstances of the case before such an assumption could fairly be made. Another question arose out of the deduction made in respect of children between three and five years old, to whom the compulsory powers of the Board did not apply. The parents were asked to state, in printed papers left with them, whether their children were too young to attend the schools or not; and where the paper was not filled up it was assumed that the children were capable of going to school, and that the full accommodation ought to be provided for them. This was a very gratuitous assumption, and he maintained that a considerable further reduction should be made under this head. The London School Board, he thought, had committed a gross error with reference to the school accommodation which should be provided in the metropolis under the Education Act. According to the admission of Mr. Croad, the able and intelligent representative of the views of the London School Board, they proposed to provide accommodation for nearly 50,000 children in excess of what the requirements really were. But it was said that compulsion would bring a very much larger number of children to school than had hitherto attended. He did not think it could be shown that any great increase of attendance could be obtained in the metropolis by means of compulsion. The better class of children were now receiving, speaking

  745
  broadly, an efficient education. It was in respect of the children of the lowest classes of the metropolis that education was in an inefficient state; but those classes were migratory. They were in the habit of changing their residence every six months, if not oftener. If there were these obstacles in the way of applying compulsion, it was obvious that compulsion could not be expected to increase largely the attendance at school. He very much regretted that on this occasion their Lordships would not have the great benefit of the advice of the Bishop of Winchester, whose death they all deplored. That Prelate was a Member of the Committee to whom this Bill was referred, and he took the greatest interest in it, as he did in all questions affecting his diocese. He applied his mind very seriously to the discussion, and he (Earl Beauchamp) thought he brought out very clearly the effect of compulsion as bearing on a migratory population. He (Earl Beauchamp) denied that the Education Act of 1870 was intended to introduce a new system. It was intended to adopt a system already existing, and to supplement the deficiencies of that system. He maintained that the London School Board were pursuing a policy which must have the effect of seriously crippling voluntary schools. The voluntary assistance of persons of a higher station of life in supervising the schools had been of enormous advantage, and if the London School Board, hurried on by those who were in favour of efficiency regardless of cost, were to supplant voluntary supervision by paid supervision, they would entail an enormous expense upon the ratepayers. Moreover, the employment of paid functionaries must be very expensive. In his opinion, the cost of compulsion was out of all proportion to the value of the work done, and the course which the London School Board were pursuing would in the end deal a fatal blow at the cause of education by making the ratepayers cry out against it. Holding these views, he begged to move, in Clause 1, the omission of the words "after the passing of this Act," in order to insert, "the 1st of January, 1874."
  Amendment moved, in Clause 1, to omit ("after the passing of this Act") and insert ("the first of January, 1874.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD LAWRENCEsaid, he believed the practical effect of the Amendment would he to put an end altogether to the good already done. [The noble Lord proceeded to defend the course which had been taken by the London School Board, and quoted statistics showing the proportion of children not attending schools, in justification of the efforts of the Board to increase the amount of school accommodation] Were the Amendment adopted and the action of the present Board suspended, the next Board would have to incur a much larger expenditure; for experience had shown that the moment it was known that any site was likely to be required for a school, the price considerably increased. In more than half the cases the Board had already purchased the interest in the sites, and Parliament was simply asked to remove difficulties as to title. No doubt, there would always be a large amount of absenteeism; but as the compulsory by-laws were enforced, the difference between the number on the rolls and the average attendance would become smaller and smaller. Mr. Croad's candid admission that something like 5 per cent would not represent the probable absenteeism was quite correct at the time the answer was given, when the schools were only beginning to get into work, but the state of things was very different now. Till the other day the Board had not a single new school, but only the schools taken over, and the many rooms hired; and, while bound to supply the deficiency in school accommodation, they had only asked the sanction of the Department for four-fifths of the amount which after careful consideration had appeared necessary. Every precaution was taken by the Board to avoid providing more school accommodation than was absolutely required in any particular district, and that full allowance should be made in every instance for the accommodation afforded by existing schools. He moreover denied that the action of the Board had done any injury to the Church of England schools. As to the question of voluntaryism, on which the noble Earl had laid so much stress, he was prepared to show that while the Board schools had been increasing in numbers the voluntary schools had increased in a still greater ratio. With regard to compulsory attendance, no doubt it was

  747
  difficult to carry out their by-law on that subject, but without some such system they could not get the children into the schools. Their Lordships must bear in mind that the children with whom they had to deal were the roughest and most unmanageable it was possible to conceive, and it required the greatest tact to carry out the compulsory powers; but he believed that the increased attendance which could fairly be put down as due to the operation of the compulsory bylaw was no less than 55,000 children. He denied that the Board could be justly charged with extravagance in overbuilding; they had to provide a certain amount of accommodation, and that accommodation they had sought to provide at the lowest possible cost. Among the members of the Board were many men of business, who devoted much of their valuable time to the performance of their duties, with much advantage to the public. He trusted that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the controversy as to the Lambeth statistics was attributable to Canon Gregory having taken the Privy Council estimate that one in six of the population required education, and that 33 out of every 1,000 children were of a class not likely to attend National or Board schools; while the London School Board relied on the judgment of their enumerators as to the children of the excepted class. Even if the enumerators were right, one in six—if the average for the kingdom—would eventually be the average for Lambeth, and it would be extravagant for the Board to build on the basis of an exceptional state of things. The Board, moreover, appeared to set aside ecclesiastical divisions; and Mr. Gregory's best school being in a projecting portion of his parish, they had reckoned it in another district, and could thus say that he had not furnished sufficient accommodation. It was easy by this "jerrymandering," or manipulation of boundaries, to get statistics to any desired effect—though he did not suggest that the noble Lord (Lord Lawrence) had had any such idea, for nothing could be more honourable than his intentions, and those doubtless of the great mass of the parties concerned. The committee's report was hastily drawn up and adopted, and in a case where an earnest theo-
  748
  logical feeling existed, so that men would be biassed by approval or disapproval of religious education, the return could not be implicitly accepted. It seemed to him that the Board had been building for an exceptional state of things—and that was extravagance—their real course should have been to take a state of things that was likely to endure, rather than to calculate on exceptionally high numbers that could not be maintained. He imputed no mala fides to the Board; but, as a matter of fact, they had a passion for building, and would adopt any excuse for indulging it—such as the necessities of adjoining districts; the supposed inability of London children to cross public thoroughfares; and, lastly, their hopes for the future. According to the Education Department, the absenteeism was 20 or 25 per cent, and though possibly the expectation of the Board, as to a considerable diminution, might be realized, it would be wise to wait and see. The noble Lord seemed to treat 2d. in the pound with contempt; but he doubted whether, if the Board inscribed that figure on their banners, they would be sure of re-election. If the Board went on invading districts, and impressed on the clergy that the educational efforts to which they had devoted a life-time w ere of no avail, the co-operation of the latter would be lost, without which co-operation the Board could not cheaply accomplish its work. If the Board allowed the secularists among them, if there were any such—or, as he rather believed, their surveyors, architects, and engineers—to stimulate them to an unnecessary outlay, the expense in each case might be small and the impression on the rates slight, but the discouragement inflicted on those who had given their lives to education would gradually drive them from the field, leaving they Board to occupy it alone, and impose an enormous burden on the ratepayers in the end. The Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education had calculated that the burden of supporting schools in London would be 3d. in the pound; but experience had shown this to be too low an estimate, and he had no doubt that the cost to the ratepayers would fall little, if anything, short of 6d. in the pound, if the policy of discouraging individual effort, despising ecclesiastical boundaries, and hurting the feelings of

  749
  those who had devoted their lives to the cause of education was persisted in. Under existing circumstances, however, he did not think it would be advisable to press the Motion before the House to a division, or to impose their views upon the London School Board. The gentlemen composing that Board would soon be before their constituents, and he hoped they would be able to show sufficient grounds for the course they had pursued. When he postponed the debate on this Bill last Thursday, he little thought by so doing he was taking a step which would deprive him of the assistance of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) whose loss they all deplored—a Prelate who was one of the best advocates the Church of England had ever known. In conclusion, he warned the School Board against a policy of disregarding the feelings of those who cultivated the education field before there were school boards to till it, and who had, in fact, borne the heat and burden of the day.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, the Committee which inquired into this subject obtained the best evidence they could, and came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to construct a. good system of school-board districts in London unless, in fixing the boundaries, they acted independently of the existing parochial districts. It was true that in taking this some children would be taken from the schools within their parishes and sent to the schools of the neighbouring district; and in this respect an injustice had been done to Canon Gregory. His school happened to be placed near the extremity of his parish, and the result was that a portion only of the children of the parish attended that school, and he had to take others from adjoining parishes. But, upon the whole, he believed the plan worked satisfactorily. The great object of the Education Act seemed to him to be the bringing of all children to the schools, and he had no doubt that with the inevitable increase of the population the schools now proposed to be erected would be filled. He thought it was impossible to accuse the London School Board of being too precipitate. They were supposed, on the contrary, to be too slow. At all events, seeing how little had been done, nothing like undue haste could be imputed to them. In
  750
  the course of the investigation of the Committee, he was astonished at the amount of education which had been furnished by voluntary means, and he should be sorry to see these efforts paralyzed or in any way thwarted. But there was no evidence to show that such a result was contemplated by the School Board. Many clergymen of the Established Church were on the Board, and they were not likely to lend themselves to any attempt to destroy schools founded by voluntary exertion. It must be remembered, however, that the Act was imperative upon them. They were called upon to provide, within the metropolitan area, for all children who were capable of receiving elementary education, and for whom no accommodation now existed. The question was whether, in carrying out the Act, there had been any violation of its principle, or any steps taken which were not justified by the circumstances of the case. In his opinion, there was no evidence to justify such a charge, and he thought that the case of his noble Friend had entirely broken down. In conclusion, he must express the deep feeling of sorrow with which he had learnt the death of the right rev. Prelate, with whom he had so recently served upon the Committee, sitting with him there day by day. It so happened that his acquaintance with the right rev. Prelate dated from a more distant date, probably, than any of their Lordships. He had been in constant intercourse with him, and, without dwelling on those public qualities which were patent to the world, he must be permitted to bear testimony to his sterling worth in private life.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought the evidence brought before the Committee proved that the charge against the London School Board that they had rashly endeavoured to cover London with schools where schools were not wanting, was not well founded. They seemed to him to have taken great pains to ascertain what was really required with reference to school accommodation. He did not mean to say that an error here and there might not have been committed; but no evidence whatever was brought before the Committee to show that they had acted on a principle which disregarded the existence of voluntary schools.
  VISCOUNT EVERSLEY,as far as he

  751
  could judge, thought the conduct of the School Board was free from all blame, and that they deserved the thanks of the public.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMmoved, that there be laid before this House—
  1. Copy of the decree and reversal granted by Mr. Justice Lawson at Dublin on the 3d day of March 1873 in respect to the claims made by Michael Friel of Ballymichael in the county of Donegal, claimant, v. The Earl of Leitrim, respondent, under the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870; showing the amount awarded, the costs of the decree, and the costs of the reversal:
  Also copy of the costs as taxed by the clerk of the peace under the direction of the judge according to the order of the judges of the Court of Land Cases Reserved, and dated the 1st day of June 1872:
  2. Copy of the dismiss of the chairman of quarter sessions in the county of Monaghan to the claims of James Creaghan v. The Earl of Dartrey, under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act. 1870; and the affirmance, with costs, granted by Mr. Justice Lawson to the above decree at the late assizes for the county of Monaghan, and the judgment of the judge on the granting of that affirmance:
  Also copy of all entries in the book of the clerk of the peace for the county of Monaghan as to the case of the claims of the said James Creaghan v. The Earl of Dartrey:
  And copy of the taxation of costs under the rules of the judges of the Court of Land Cases Reserved.
  The noble Earl explained at great length the nature of the causes to which these Papers referred, complaining that not only was the Irish Land Act of 1870 a most dangerous measure in a political sense, but that it had been interpreted and enforced by the Judges in a way greatly to increase its injustice.
  LORD O'HAGAN,on behalf of the Government, said, there was no objection to the production of the Papers moved for.
  Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMthen moved for—
  Return of the Land Cases decided in each county from the 27th day of February 1872 to the 12th day of July 1873; showing the amount
  752
  of rent in each case and the tenement valuation of the premises, the sums awarded as compensation and as costs in each case by the chairman of quarter sessions, the cases in which appeals have been carried up to the judge or judges of assize, the judgment in each case and the costs, the cases which have been remitted by the judge or judges of assize to the Court of Land Cases Reserved, the judgment of that court and the costs: [Tabular Form].
  Motion agreed to.

  IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMasked Her Majesty's Government, What is the cause of the delay which takes place in the office of the "Irish Church Temporalities Commission," at Dublin, in granting the "Merging Orders" to relieve the estates of those persons who have paid their money for the purpose of purchasing the tithes in certain parishes in Ireland to relieve their estates therefrom, under the provisions of the Act for the Disestablishment of the United Church of England and Ireland in Ireland; and to know why the "Merging Orders" have been withheld for several months; and, if measures will be taken to remove the inconvenience caused by the delay complained of?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he had been in communication with the Irish Government, and had received a telegram from them, stating that no delay occurred in granting, those Merging Orders beyond what resulted from the pressure of business in the Solicitor's office, and that the noble Earl's own Merging Order was issued on the 21st of the present month.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he had never received it.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND)—SUBCONSTABLE JOHN HOWE.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMmoved, that there be laid before this House—
  Copy of the report made by sub-constable John Howe, dated Ballycumber, the 26th of March 1873, or thereabouts, relative to the alleged cruelty to a horse near Ballycumber in the King's County, Ireland: [and other Papers].
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Reports in question were of a confidential nature, and he could not consent to their production.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.