Lords Sitting of 16 March 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—
Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*. Committee—Report—National Gallery (Loan) (18).
Third Reading—Payment of Wages in Public Houses Prohibition (21), and passed.

EDUCATION—HIGHER BOARD SCHOOLS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD NORTON,in rising, pursuant to Notice, to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the higher schools now being established by several school boards in England,"
  said, he asked their Lordships to inquire how the interests and advancement of National Education were concerned in the establishment of higher schools by boards in many towns in England. All he asked was inquiry; and as those schools were avowedly a new departure foreign to the legislation on the subject—whatever might be the Parliamentary sanction to Code modifications—of vital national importance for good or evil, and a course on which the highest authorities disagreed, it would be a strong measure if the Government set themselves against information, and held themselves aloof from any inquiry. The facts of the case were these. Board schools, called higher or advanced elementary schools, were being set up, or proposed, in the Metropolis and great manufacturing towns. At Bradford the first attempt of the kind was made. Whatever its intention was, it had practically turned out to be simply an aristocratic duplicate of the elementary board schools. It took children from the same age—seven—in the lower Standards, and only kept its pupils longer within the highest Standards, which the Code defined to be elementary; and by charging the highest fee within Government subsidy, 9d. a-week, or about half the cost, it enabled a higher class to get State-aided education without their children coming in contact with the poorer class for whom it was chiefly intended. The question raised by this kind of higher board school was as to the waste of the duplicate teaching power and process; and whether the instructions of Parliament would not be better carried out by sounder education in the same higher subjects being had by all requiring it in independent middle schools, if such schools were unimpeded in adapting themselves to the present requirement by this public bounty; while private resources, readily forthcoming for exhibitions and scholar-

  655
  ships, could help poorer children of exceptional ability to avail themselves of such middle schools freely. At Manchester, an old charitable foundation was, three years ago, bought up and adopted by the Board for a higher rate-aided school affecting to give the working classes all the literary and science studies called elementary in the Code, and it was about to be enlarged to add classics to its programme. In the girls' department, they not only recited, but were acting Shakespeare, at the cost of the rates, being engaged possibly quite as usefully as the boys in their empirical science lectures Several exhibitions of £25 a-year admitted children exclusively to this higher board school, which might suffice for clever children to get better education at the magnificent grammar school close by, where even non-exhibitioners in the highest department only paid a £5 yearly fee, or 2s. a-week. In this higher board school children were only admitted after passing the 4th Standard, which was a mode of cutting from the elementary schools the few advanced pupils in each of them fit for higher studies to be profitably pursued at all. The question here raised was, whether the entire charge on the rates and Treasury for such a higher board school was not both superfluous and mischievous interference with schools ready at hand. At Liverpool there were no such separate higher board schools for children above the 4th Standard; but the so-called elementary schools undersold and starved the lower departments—exactly suited for such children—of several well-endowed middle schools, in spite of their scholarships and prizes for poor children of exceptional ability; the rate and Treasury grants giving them the enormous advantage of plant, scientific apparatus, and trained teachers, over the schools whose resources for implements and salaries they served to supersede. The Sheepshanks voluntary middle school in Liverpool called itself self-supporting, living on 9d. fees and Treasury grants without burdening the local rates, showing how we had come to consider institutions free which only taxed the Treasury. But there were three great middle-class schools or institutes close to offering the same education without any public aid. The Leeds Board reported of their higher schools that
  656
  "The term means nothing more than schools in which higher fees are paid and a better class so led to attend, and as they are able to stay longer, the teaching is productive of superior results; but neither in quality of teachers nor in subjects of instruction, is there any difference between the ordinary and higher schools. They feel considerable difficulty in further extending the instruction as to the power and duty of school boards to trespass on the province of middle or grammar schools, but the time has arrived to push forward."
  They quote the August Circular of the Council Office as their guide in avoiding to encroach on secondary education, limiting the age of their scholars to 14, and the subjects of instruction to the ample definition of the Code, and deprecating severely all attempts at anything higher. They deal with two classes of children—those of skilled artizans and of exceptional natural ability—the latter they would enable to compete for exhibitions; and here, they say—
  "The work of the school board should end and that of middle and grammar schools begin. They deplore that so few rise to the higher standards in elementary schools that it is impossible to give higher education in them."
  The question here was, whether they and others like them were really doing what they so wisely professed, or avoiding what they so severely deprecated—so illusory was the Code definition of elementary teaching, and so mistaken the notion of employing public taxation to force every child artificially up to an intellectual standard. At Sheffield there was a central higher board school, professing to collect in sufficient numbers boys and girls of exceptional ability from elementary schools, a very few coming from each. They confessed it was ground not trodden before, and a step only to be justified because there was no other provision for such children, enabling them to apply the little science they had acquired in elementary schools to the manual work they were destined for in the manufactories of the town. There were, however, many middle schools in Sheffield for this purpose wholly supported by fees—in the case of the grammar school only four guineas a-year, or 2s. a-week; and there was a private scholarship fund, freeing an ample number of poor children even from this small charge. The large sum of £52,000 expended out of the rates in establishing this competing board school would have furnished these

  657
  independent schools with every requisite, and avoided the great irritation of a large number of ratepayers. Lastly, in the London School Board Office, there was a scheme ready drafted by the late managing committee, to collect similarly in a few higher board schools advanced children, calculated in number at about 3 per cent, from all the elementary schools. The weekly fee was proposed to be lower than 9d., in order to check the aristocracy from coming; betraying the fact that the payment which was proposed as a limit to the working class had been taken by the higher class as a means of social exclusiveness and aristocratic, though eleemosynary, distinction. This scheme was proposed, not because of deficiency of independent higher schools, which in many parts of London abounded more than was generally known, and which probably were prevented increasing by the Board's proposal; but simply to get hold of higher schools as a re-arrangement of their present work, culling the few elementary scholars who could go in for higher education into sufficient numbers. The question here raised was, whether independent schools did not provide more suitably for these picked boys, and for the upper artizan class, on terms within their easy and willing reach. From the samples he had given, it appeared that there was great variety in the plans and views of the different towns, which had set up higher board schools, on the subject. All, however, agreed in wishing to limit their higher board schools to the upper artizan class and poor children of exceptional ability from the elementary schools, and in deprecating all trespass on the province of independent middle schools, or going beyond what the Code had called elementary studies. But were such schools likely to keep to that lower class, and was the Code definition of elementary studies true, either to common sense, or to the plain legislative intention of Parliament, from which it had annually wandered further and further? Were not such schools sure to be made use of by a higher class, who would natural by engross to themselves the chief attention, to the detriment of the first claimants, and to the overriding, by their unlimited command of public money, of independent middle-class schools, which would give higher education better? So, also,
  658
  had not the Code been losing sight of its first claimants—namely, the working classes up to the age of going to work, when education took the form of apprenticeship, and when technical education must begin? Their Lordships expressed a very decided opinion two years ago, by a majority of 2 to 1, that the specific subjects enumerated in the Code did not come within elementary instruction. He wished, therefore, to inquire, whether those higher board schools were doing what they pretended to do, and avoiding what they deprecated? He confessed to misgivings whether they were not being rather led astray by in-appreciation of what was really needed as elementary instruction in a too eager anticipation of technical study which, to be of any use, must come after. There was a blind fear of foreign competition in art and trade. But the Fourth Schedule in elementary schools, even if pupils were collected in higher schools, would not improve the competition of our working classes with their rivals in other countries, who put technology in its proper educational place after elementary instruction was completed. The varieties of special technology could not be taught among general subjects in elementary schools. The attempt only wasted the time due to elementary instruction, and the working child's education was not wholly in school, but much more in applied industry. The superior intelligence of Americans, for instance, was not the result of special primary schools. It was a mistake to suppose these higher elementary schools an imitation of them. Their Reports were always repeating the principle that general national education was to fit the nation for every kind of citizenship, not to aim at any particularly high standard of literature for all sorts and conditions of life. There was but one higher school on the school rate in all Pennyslvania, with 1,000,000 population, and the higher class did not send their children to State schools at all. There was more sense in American practice than in our supposed imitation. The inquiry would be (1) as to the higher board schools already established, at what age they admitted, and to what age they retained children, and what were the Standards in which they were examined at leaving; (2) at what age, and to what extent, advanced ele-

  659
  mentary teaching took the form of experimental science and foreign languages, and the class of children so entering on such studies, and what became of them; (3) what independent, middle, grammar, or proprietary schools there were in towns where higher board schools were being set up or proposed, at what fees, and whether with any exhibitions to them, and whether such schools provided the sort of education required by the upper artizan class; (4) how far it might appear that the undertaking or proposal of State-aided higher schools had impeded in any towns the development of independent middle schools in their neighbourhood; (5) whether parents of the upper artizan class seemed willing to pay more for schools independent of boards, of non-eleemosynary character, with higher association, and with religious freedom? For such an inquiry the witnesses would be (1) Council Office officials and Inspectors; (2) Endowed Schools Commissioners; (3) chairmen of school boards; (4) managers and masters of middle, grammar, and proprietary schools; (5) principals of training colleges; (6) manufacturers and artizans, and recognized authorities on the subject. He asked for inquiry now, for soon it must be too late. The course of national education should at least be reconciled with the Education Acts—the Acts brought up to it, or it reduced to the Acts. What he feared was that the poorer classes were being left out by the ambition of higher work; that elementary training was being sacrificed to superficial show induced by prizes of public money on results got up; that better means of higher instruction for the artizan class were hindered from meeting supply to demand by a mischievous use of public bounties; and that the Government supply was not so suited to the middle classes of this country as the independent supply would be, and that there was a fatal error in premature anticipation of technical instruction in elementary schools. That error was perhaps the very reason why, in spite of our schools, foreign workmen were found as much as ever in our manufactories. Whether these fears were just or not information was wanted. Possibly, the Board schemes might be reconcilable with the claims of other schools, if not unfairly handicapped in competition. He defied any-
  660
  one to show that the inquiry was unnecessary or uncalled for, and he did not think it could be for a moment urged against it that the question was in any sense a Party one. He might say that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) took generally the views he (Lord Norton) had attempted to express; and he was sure many others on the opposite side of the House were with him. Both sides in Parliament were equally and impartially interested in testing a new departure from its educational enactments. But the Government must accept the inquiry, or it could not be usefully carried out. In his opinion they would incur a grave responsibilty if they decided that no inquiry was needed. The noble Lord concluded by making his Motion.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the higher schools now being established by several school boards in England."—(The lord Norton.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, that no one was better qualified than his noble Friend (Lord Norton) to bring educational questions of this kind before the House; and he (Lord Carlingford) could assure him that he approached the Motion without the smallest disinclination to agree to the institution of an inquiry, if it could be shown that it was necessary, or likely to be of use to the cause of education. As many of their Lordships were aware, the credit for the introduction of the system of permitting and encouraging the teaching of certain higher subjects in a higher class of board schools separate from the general system, was due to the late Government. The system also of permitting, and within certain limits of encouraging, the teaching of the so-called higher subjects, over and above and alongside the three E's, in ordinary elementary schools, was mainly the work of the noble Duke—whom he did not see in his place—(the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) and Lord Sandon, and was introduced in the Code of 1875. When the subject was under discussion in the House of Commons, Lord Sandon stated that the Government had permitted and encouraged the teaching of certain higher subjects in ordinary schools, in the belief that it would be of enormous benefit to a limited number of the best children in those schools, and would not interfere with the efficiency of

  661
  the schools as regarded the teaching of the ordinary elementary subjects. It was considered, on the contrary, that it would give more life and intelligence to schools in general. On almost all sides of the House of Commons the proposals of the Government were well received, and with especial favour and thankfulness by Lord Sandon's Predecessor in Office, Mr. Forster. He (Lord Carlingford) could not but think that his noble Friend entertained needless alarm with reference to the teaching of higher subjects in elementary schools, and especially with regard to the training of elementary school children in so-called higher board schools, to which his Motion was in terms confined. He understood the noble Lord to say that the establishment of the schools to which he referred was foreign to the purpose of Parliament, that they were bad secondary schools, and that, somehow or other, they led to the neglect of the essential elementary teaching in the ordinary schools of the country. He disputed both those propositions. He was not aware that anyone had ever been able to define where elementary education left off and secondary education began. He did not say that there might not be a certain number of scholars who found their way into these higher board schools who might be described as belonging to the middle class or lower middle class; but the great majority of the children in these schools belonged to the same class as that which furnished the children who attended the primary schools in the towns in which these higher schools had been established. The schools in question were simply advanced elementary schools strictly and literally so called, organized with the object of effecting a division of labour, and they complied, in all respects, with every requirement of the Code. The fee generally paid was the highest permitted by the Code—namely, 9d.; but care was taken that any promising child who, in the opinion of the Board, could not afford to pay that fee, should not, in consequence of that inability, be debarred from admission into the school. The greater number of the questions which had been put by the noble Lord he would find answered in the Code itself. He (Lord Carlingford) would not dogmatize about the propriety of teaching higher subjects in the ordi-
  662
  nary schools, or about the merits of this or that subject recognized by the Code. He was, however, satisfied on the whole that the changes introduced into the Code of 1875 by the Duke of Richmond and Lord Sandon had been successful, although there had been a great deal of criticism as to the various specific subjects that the children were allowed to learn. He wished their Lordships to understand that the amount of money paid on account of special subjects was very limited indeed. Out of more than 4,000,000 of children who attended our primary schools the number taking up special subjects last year was somewhere between 150,000 and 170,000, and the grants made on account of those subjects amounted to £33,000, of which sum £15,000 only went to board schools, more than half going to the voluntary schools of the country. His noble Friend seemed to think that the Education Department was pushing on the teaching of special subjects with dangerous zeal. As a matter of fact, the exact contrary was the case, and he was bound to say that the policy of the present Education Department, while continuing that of their Predecessors, was more restrictive and cautious The Code of last year limited the teaching of those subjects in such a way as to prevent the possibility of the expenditure of public money to a greater extent than was contemplated by Parliament, and to insure the teaching of the essential elements of education. The New Code, for example, did not allow a special subject to be paid for unless the child learning it had passed Standard IV. It also limited the number of special subjects, and laid down that no school should teach them, unless 70 per cent of the children attending it should have passed the examination in the three "R's" during the previous year. These and other changes would come into force in the month of May. That being so, he held that the present was not a convenient time in which to institute an inquiry such as the noble Lord proposed. An inquiry of that kind would, under present circumstances, be inopportune and ineffectual. He would now read to the House the Instructions issued by the Education Department to their Inspectors with regard to the question of specific subjects. The following Circular was addressed to the Inspectors in August, 1882:—

  663
  "In ordinary circumstances, the scheme of elementary education, as now laid down by the Code, may be considered complete, without the addition of special subjects.…In largo schools, however, and those which are in favourable circumstances, the scholars of Standard V. and upwards may be encouraged to attempt one or more of such subjects which the managers may deem most appropriate to the industrial and other needs of the district. It is not the intention of my Lords to encourage a pretentious or unreal pursuit of higher studies, or to encroach in any way on the province of secondary education."
  Under the conditions referred to in that Circular, the teaching of a certain number of higher subjects would be continued in our ordinary schools. It was very difficult to understand why his noble Friend should quarrel with the higher schools to which he had drawn attention. If it was admitted that the Code of 1875 ought to continue in force, the objection of his noble Friend was unintelligible. The noble Lord, in fact, was falling foul of institutions which he ought to look upon with favour. These higher schools added nothing to the teaching which could be and was given to a certain number of children in ordinary schools. They were confined absolutely to teaching within the limits of the Code. It was a mere matter of organization that some of the subjects should be taught in separate schools; it had been found that the teaching of the higher subjects was better carried on and with better advantage to elementary teaching in one school in a large town rather than in all the schools. To show their Lordships the nature of these schools, he would read a letter, sent by the Education Department of the late Government in March, 1880, to the Sheffield School Board. It said—
  "My Lords entirely concur with your Board in the desirability of providing in a single school for the instruction of the more promising scholars in the higher subjects at a higher fee than is charged in other schools, as a course tending to secure greater economy and efficiency than the attempt to provide such instruction in each of the public elementary schools under the Board."
  In their answer, the School Board said—
  "There is absolutely no educational provision of the kind contemplated open in Sheffield to children of the class for whom this school is intended. The foes charged at the Collegiate School, Wesley College, and the High School for Girls place those institutions beyond the reach of children ordinarily passing through the public elementary schools. The Board have
  664
  no desire to usurp the functions of these institutions, and they believe the higher departments of the central schools will be easily filled by children from the public schools of the town."
  In a letter from Mr. Hanson, Chairman of the School Management Committee of the Bradford School Board to the Department in November, 1880, he said—
  "The better schools under our Board are called 'higher board schools.' They are not intended to be schools for the middle classes, or schools of secondary education. They are simply advanced elementary schools. As public elementary schools, they are conducted according to the regulations of the Code—instruction is given in all the ordinary Standards—they earn grants exactly as the ordinary schools."
  Under those circumstances, he submitted that there was no real ground for alarm. He believed that the schools were strictly within the limits of the Code, and, judging by the Code, of the intention of Parliament. In his opinion they provided a good education for a certain number of children who were too advanced in many cases to be properly taught in ordinary schools, and whose presence there might absorb too much of the teacher's time and lead to some sacrifice of the ordinary and essential business of the schools. Moreover, he was satisfied that, in the great majority of cases, the children attending the board schools would not be able to afford to pay the fee at middle-class schools. While he had no objection on general grounds to such an inquiry as was asked for, he submitted that the noble Lord had not shown any sufficient reason for a Parliamentary Inquiry as regarded this subject, especially at a time when a New Code was coming into operation and the provisions of that Code bore so essentially upon the points in question. Under the circumstances, he did not think that to undertake an inquiry, at all events at the present time, would be a useful work; and he could not, therefore, support the Motion for a Committee.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that he did not consider the school boards the best bodies to be intrusted with secondary education. Moreover, he was not sure that the Education Acts intended that the public rates should be applied to the teaching of anything other than elementary education. As it was now, the result of the step that had been taken was that the expenses of the

  665
  higher schools of the school boards created considerable difficulty in the reorganization of endowed schools. The Schools Inquiry Commission, presided over by Lord Taunton, expressed their opinion that the want of the country was third-grade schools immediately above the level of elementary schools. In a great many parts of the country, it had been attempted to apply endowments to the purposes of higher grade education, sometimes very much against the will of those administering them. Those endowments had formerly been applied in a wasteful manner to elementary education; but they had now to a great extent been applied to the maintenance of schools one degree higher, in which there were opportunities for obtaining scholarships. These schools were within the reach of the poorer classes; but it had been found that the schools were destroyed by the establishment of the higher class board schools, with lower fees. He thought an inquiry of the kind proposed was desirable for several reasons; and, especially, because it would make clear the evils of the competition that now went on between the various schools, and would probably be able to suggest a remedy for them. Besides, it would be well to know how far the education imparted at the higher board schools was given to the children of parents who could afford to pay the full price for it elsewhere. He had no wish to lay down the law one way or the other on any of these questions; but he held that there was a clear case for an inquiry, and trusted that the Government would allow a Committee to investigate the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite the Lord Privy Seal appears to me to have overlooked the fact that we are asking, not for a Vote of Censure on the present policy of the Council of Education, but only for an inquiry into its results; and, therefore, the allusions which besprinkled his speech to the action of the late Government have not much argumentative value. It cannot, I think, be argued that because both Parties have sanctioned the establishment of our present administrative system, its results ought to be withdrawn from the view of Parliament. No doubt, the late Government gave their sanction, to the
  666
  principle to a limited extent, being guided by the reports they received, and by the opinions of those whose opinions were best worth having; but it does not follow that, if they had continued in Office, they would have thought that the system, so newly introduced, should have been continued for any length of time without the supervision of Parliament. The very interesting speech of my noble Friend who has just sat down (Lord Colchester) indicates one part of the subject as to which an inquiry is very seriously wanted—namely, the extent to which this new system may be an encroachment on the arrangements which the Endowed Schools Commissioners are making out of materials at their disposal, and the possibility of finding two Departments of the Government competing with each other, and making the performance of the work more difficult for both. Another reason for watching the operation of the new system is the interest of that very much neglected person, the ratepayer. We should never lose sight of the fact, that this educational system, whatever its merits, and whatever the benefits it confers, is still a system of educating the children of parents too poor to educate them themselves, and of taking money from the pockets of other people for the purpose. It is founded on precisely the same principles as those which justify the existence of the Poor Law in this country; but directly you go beyond the primary necessities of education, for the most necessitous class, you are on very dangerous ground. You must ask yourselves whether you are not sacrificing the interests of the ratepayer to a greater extent than the necessities of the case justify. Indeed, the thing in itself savours of injustice. You may be bound to take rates to furnish what is necessary, but have you the right to furnish, at the public cost, what is superfluous? If you thus part from your logical principles, you will enter upon a limitless field of expense, and the overburdened ratepayer may have to furnish education to classes who are very well able to supply it for themselves. On these grounds, I think it very desirable that, as regards this system, which I do not desire to censure so far as it has gone, Parliament should very carefully watch the proceedings of the school boards; but there is also another general

  667
  ground for an inquiry. It is the inevitable law of affairs, that whenever you establish educational facilities for the poorest classes, gradually richer classes take possession of them. This is not the first time in our history that efforts have been made to educate the people. Efforts were made centuries ago to do this by means of endowments. We have had public schools, Universities, and grammar schools, all of them representing the efforts of benevolent persons to educate the poorer classes; but, in each case, the richer classes stepped in and appropriated what was meant for the poor. It is a very natural process, and in the present day we see this same process at work before our eyes. Those who conduct schools, being responsible for the educational results produced therein, naturally like the class of pupils who can pay best, and whose proficiency reflects the greatest credit on the school, and that motive affects the Education Office as well as the schoolmaster. The constant, if slow, action of this principle tends to shoulder out of the school the lowest, most necessitous, and most indigent of the children, and to provide the education needed by a wealthier class, and paid for at a greater cost. This process we see in operation every day, and I, therefore, join my noble Friend in regretting that the Government have expressed their objections to an inquiry. At the same time, I am not prepared to say that the matter is so imminent that the House should force the Government into an inquiry against their will. There is a great deal in what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal advances, that a great change has been made by the present Code in the conditions of the new system. I should, therefore, advise my noble Friend (Lord Norton) to be content with the effect his speech has produced, and that he should reserve for another year his proposal for an inquiry into the matter.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he thought that noble Lords opposite ought not to complain if effect were now given to the concessions made, with the full concurrence of both sides of the House, by the late Government. When the subject was discussed some time ago, there was a very general desire that the education given by these schools should be improved, and the only question now, as
  668
  it seemed to him, was whether the right class of children were being benefited by what had been done. He had found, in the course of an extensive and lengthy examination into the state of education throughout Wales, in which he had taken part, that there were a very large number of those whom he might call the working class, and small tradesmen, who were unable to avail themselves of the grammar schools, and it would be a great advantage if these higher schools could be extended to those districts where this occurred. He was not aware that there was any great increase in the age at which children remained at school. At Birmingham, out of 11,447 children on the rolls, there were only 60 above the age of 14, and these were not in the advanced classes, but they were mostly ignorant and backward boys. In Scotland, which had long had a much wider scheme of education than England, none of the suggested objections were made. The elementary subjects were best taught where the higher subjects were taught, and there had been a very great increase in the numbers learning mathematics and Latin in order to qualify themselves for Professions. There had been no corresponding increase in England and Wales; and the question naturally arose, why should not English boys have the same opportunity of qualifying themselves for the professions as Scotch boys? In the populous districts of Glamorganshire and in Methyr Tydvil, notwithstanding the decrease of population, there was an increase in the numbers in the upper Standards. He knew there was an idea that a class of persons used these schools for whose benefit they were not intended. He thought, however, that it was now too late to go back. Having once sanctioned this system, it was not right to interfere the moment that the school boards had determined to extend the advantages of elementary education to a large number of the working class. They could not, therefore, recede; and it was unnecessary, and would be a great pity, to interfere because the board schools were only realizing what had been hoped for from them. No amount of evidence would carry conviction so well as attendance at the schools themselves, and the noble Lord who had raised the question (Lord Norton) would be surprised if he know the thorough-

  669
  ness of the teaching in the superior subjects. In Scotland there did not exist the slightest disposition to object to this education being paid for out of the rates; and it would seem cruel to deprive small tradesmen and others of the advantages of this higher education for their children. There was a general demand in the lower middle class for these higher board schools, for endowments were very unevenly distributed, and many large populations were without them. To interfere with what was going on for the sake of a third-grade school here and there would be to sacrifice a general good for partial and uncertain benefits, and he was therefore glad the Government did not see their way to accede to the inquiry. For himself, he could only say that he should distrust very much the working of such a Committee as the one proposed.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he did not complain of too much zeal on the part of these higher board schools, but of zeal without discretion; for they would interfere, he thought, with institutions much better fitted to perform the function they assumed. The work would be better done by others if only the school boards stood out of the way; but private enterprize, however superior, could not compete with unlimited command of the public purse. It was not much defence to say that the Code had been so far altered in its last Edition, that special subjects could no longer be taught until Elementary Standards were passed. It certainly was an improvement to secure the bottom before the top; but the question was whether the elementary was not the sole subject in the possible scope of the Code. The time when the departure was being taken, and when these higher board schools were few, was the only time for any inquiry, which would evidently be too late when such schools were generally established all over the country, even although, as at Sheffield, they were established in spite of the opposition of a large minority of the ratepayers. He thought the step which was being taken was adverse to the interests of national education. However, he quite allowed that if the Government would not consent to assist the inquiry he proposed, that inquiry would be valueless. He must, therefore, throw on the Government the entire responsibility of refusing it, although, in his judgment, it
  670
  was most urgently needed. He should, however, do his utmost to procure any information otherwise by moving for a Return on certain points, and he hoped the Government would not refuse such a Return. At present, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— "REGINA v. MATTHEW SMYTH."

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked Her Majesty's Government, By what authority the Attorney General for Ireland had transferred the case of Regina v. Matthew Smyth, committed in January last for trial by the Ballymore-Eustace Bench to the Naas Quarter Sessions, from that Court to the Assizes, without any communication to that Bench on the subject; and, whether Her Majesty's Government approve of the conduct of their law officer in thus ignoring the magistrates and overriding the law of the land?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL),in reply, said, that, since he first saw the Question of the noble Earl on the Notice Paper, he applied to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who stated that this Matthew Smyth was committed to the Quarter Sessions on a charge of indecent assault. His right hon. and learned Friend said that, having read and considered the information in the case, he came to the conclusion that it would be more properly tried at the Assizes, and, in the exercise of his undoubted right, he directed that it should be there tried accordingly. He further said that that was a right inherent in his office as Public Prosecutor in all criminal cases, and that it was a right very frequently exercised on occasions like the present. That was the only answer he could give. It appeared to him (Lord Carlingford) to be quite sufficient; and he was only surprised that the noble Earl should have thought it necessary to raise such a question, and that he should say that the Attorney General for Ireland had overridden the law of the land, because he had transferred the case to the Assizes, where, in his opinion, it could be better tried.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that, no doubt, the Attorney General for Ireland was a high authority; but he was clearly wrong in his law upon this point, for he had no right whatever ex propriamotu to act as he had done in removing a case to another Court.
  LORD HARLECHwished to know whether the right was conferred by Statute, or by the Common Law? If the former was the case, under what Statute had the Attorney General for Ireland acted in this matter?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL),in reply, said, that the right was exercised under the Common Law.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he was of opinion that it was not in the power of the Attorney General for Ireland to remove a case without first obtaining an order of the Court for that purpose. He would further point out that the witnesses to be examined had been bound over to appear at the Quarter Sessions, and they could not be required to attend at the Assizes without an order of the Court. He thought such a course of proceeding very strange and unusual.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, there wore many eases in which it was the duty of the Attorney General for Ireland to have a cause removed from one Court to another, and he had no doubt that the Attorney General had performed that duty properly and conscientiously, and for the public good; but it was a mistake to suppose that the Attorney General had any authority to direct the removal or transfer of the cause, for that could only be accomplished by an order of the Court; and probably, if the case was looked into, it would be found that there was such an order. If there was no such order, the proceeding was irregular.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, however that might be, he held that the order of the Court was necessary for the transfer of the case. He entirely disputed the right of the Attorney General for Ireland to call witnesses from one place to another.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he was glad that the question had been raised. As regarded it, he must be allowed to express his entire concurrence in the remarks of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook). He did not quite understand how this matter had been done without any application to the Court. In this country, as in Ireland,
  672
  on a proper application by the Attorney General, such a transfer of jurisdiction was allowed as a matter of course, where the Court was satisfied that it would be best for the administration of justice; but he had never known it done without the consent of the Court. Most certainly no such power as this existed in the case of anyone in this country, even if it did in the case of the Attorney General for Ireland.

EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— THE LATE PROFESSOR PALMER.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD WENTWORTH,in rising, according to Notice, to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is able to confirm or correct Mr. Campbell Bannerman's explanation of the objects of the Palmer Expedition, and especially as to the fact alleged of that gentleman having received on or about the 6th of August a sum of £20,000 in gold at Suez? and to move for Papers, said, he was about to quote what had been said by Mr. Campbell-Bannerman in the other House—
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he rose to a point of Order. It was perfectly out of Order for the noble Lord to refer to proceedings taken in the other House of Parliament, or to comment upon statements made there.
  LORD WENTWORTHthought that he was at least entitled to refer to the statement of a Minister.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he must repeat that it was quite irregular to refer to the proceedings of the other House and comment upon them. That had always been the rule in his experience.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not, on any technical ground, prevent the noble Lord from addressing the Question to him, of which he had given Notice. He would be glad to answer any statement made on this subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that his impression was that where the matter referred to the statement of a Minister it stood upon a very different footing from the debates of the other House generally, and that a Member of that House was entitled to ask a Question and make a statement in regard to it;

  673
  but his experience was not so great as that of the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale).
  LORD WENTWORTHsaid, that what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) represented as the ground on which he (Lord Wentworth) wished to place that matter was the correct one. He desired to refer, not to any debate in the House of Commons, but to the statement of a Minister, made in the House of Commons and to the country. One statement made was that Professor Palmer travelled as an Englishman, though he afterwards said that he wore the dress that he had previously worn among the Bedouins. Coining to what was, perhaps, the most important point, the fact alleged some time ago in one of the public journals, and repeated only that morning in a still more authoritative manner by another, that Professor Palmer received £20,000 at Suez, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman was reported to have stated that Professor Palmer received no money whatever for the purpose of securing the allegiance of the Arabs; that the only money given to him was a sum of £3,000 to procure camels for the Indian Contingent; that no money was ever given to him for the purpose of buying the allegiance of the tribes; and that he never was promised £20,000. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman expressed surprise at such a statement being made, and could, he said, only explain it by the writer having had access to the confidential Papers of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman again denied that Professor Palmer, or any of his party, had been furnished with any money to buy the allegiance of anybody; and, lastly, he said, in regard to the assertion that Professor Palmer received from Captain Gill, at Suez, £20,000 in gold for the Bedouins, there was no truth in it; that neither Captain Gill nor Professor Palmer received any such sum for that or any other purpose; that Admiral Hewett, at Suez, had asked for a sum of money to prepare for the Indian Contingent as soon as it arrived; that accordingly £20,000 was sent; but that he could not too strongly assert that the sending of that money had nothing whatever to do with Professor Palmer's Mission, beyond the fact that £3,000 was subsequently given to him by Admiral Hewett for the hire of camels. Now, the fact had been asserted that £20,000
  674
  had been given him for the purpose pointed out; and in connection with the matter he (Lord Wentworth) had intended to read certain remarkable extracts from Professor Palmer's journal, doubtless the same as that quoted by the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) in a telegram which was printed in the Blue Book; and that was one of the Papers for the production of which he would move. He had a personal explanation to make in connection with that. On reading Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's second statement, his relative, Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, at once placed in his hands the whole of his papers connected with the Palmer Expedition. Among them were numerous extracts from the journal of Professor Palmer just referred to; and he considered it was due to Mr. Blunt that he (Lord Wentworth) should state no condition of secrecy was ever understood by him as being imposed on him in regard to any of the political matters alluded to in that journal. On the contrary, he (Lord Wentworth) had seen written memoranda confirming Mr. Blunt's assertion that the original Papers were shown to him as long ago as last November; and the extracts were left in his hands with the express purpose of making known the truth. However, in a public matter of that magnitude and importance he thought he could not be fairly charged with any breach of confidence, even if the circumstances had been otherwise. Now, he should have taken upon himself the responsibility of citing such extracts as would clearly have proved the accuracy of that description, had he not been that morning forestalled by portions of it which had appeared, on the authority, apparently, of the deceased gentleman's relatives, in the columns of The Daily News. He had stated enough to show that it was necessary for the noble Earl to give some better and further explanation than Mr. Campbell-Bannerman had been able to give. In The Daily News there were some most remarkable passages given from Professor Palmer's journal, which he would read to the House. It was said in The Daily News—
  "I have got £260 for paying all expenses for my journey; but £20,000 in gold was brought by ship and paid to my account here."
  The Daily News also quoted from Captain Gill's journal—

  675
  "£25,000 will, according to Palmer, buy up 1 50,000 Arabs. I intend to urge that the money should he sent down to him at Suez."
  In another extract from Captain Gill's journal, it was said that Professor Palmer had travelled much in the Sinai Peninsula, and knew all about the Arabs, and that he had just come from among them, and had said that 50,000 Arabs could be bought for £25,000. In another extract from Captain Grill's journal, it was stated that Professor Palmer had arranged for a great meeting of Sheikhs in a few days; and if he were to go North to cut the wire he would miss this meeting, which might do incalculable injury. He brought Palmer authority to spend £20,000 among the Bedouins. From this it was clear that Captain Gill and Professor Palmer considered that they bad authority to spend £20,000. The extracts spoke for themselves, and he thought that the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty would see the necessity of throwing more light on the subject. He did not intend to go further into the details at present, but reserved the right to recur to the subject if necessary. He was not satisfied with Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's strange explanation of the facts. With regard to bribery, that might not have been included in the intention of the person who instructed Professor Palmer to offer money to the Arabs; but it seemed that the Professor had some such purpose designed for him, for he was not only in communication with the Admiralty, but also with the Department officially known as the Intelligence Department—a Department which had control over secret funds; and it might be that he had received instructions beyond those sanctioned by the noble Lord. He hoped the Government would pause in this matter, and that no more lives would be taken in retaliation for what might well have been one of the stern necessities of war. He hoped the unfortunate individuals seized as hostages, and who were now in gaol, might be restored to their tribes. British officers had been employed in the capture of these harmless persons, amongst whom were women and children, and it was due to British honour to see that they were released. He would conclude by moving for the production of Professor Palmer's journal, mentioned at page 42 in the Blue Book, containing the Correspondence of Colonel Warren,
  676
  and for the Papers mentioned at page 97; also Professor Palmer's Report referred to by Captain Gill in his journal, and dated the 4th of August, 1882, and forwarded to Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour; also Captain Gill's journal, together with any other Papers in the possession of the Government that related to the murder of Professor Palmer and his companions.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House papers and correspondence respecting Professor Palmer's expedition."—(The Lord Wentworth.)
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I have to state, in answer to the Question put to me by the noble Lord (Lord Wentworth)—whether I can confirm or correct my hon. Friend Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's statement with reference to the Palmer Expedition—that I am able most distinctly and categorically to affirm in every part and detail the accuracy of Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's statement made upon the subject by him in "another place." I beg to thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity, which I have not hitherto had, of saying a few words on the sad calamity which happened in the Desert of Suez, in which Professor Palmer, Captain Gill, and Lieutenant Charrington lost their lives; and in doing so I will answer the three different points the noble Lord has put to me to-night. With regard to the first point—as to what instructions were given to Professor Palmer—I may say that I am the only person now alive to give the information, because I myself gave those instructions; and I wish to explain the circumstances of the case, and how I came to give those instructions. It was in the middle of June last year, before the commencement of hostilities, and before the attack on the forts of Alexandria, at the time when circumstances were so critical that there was great probability that this country would have to interpose in Egypt for the protection of the Suez Canal, that it became necessary for me to endeavour to ascertain something about the position and condition of the Bedouin Tribes bordering on the Canal; and therefore I put myself into communication with my friend Colonel Bradford, a distinguished Indian officer, and Captain Gill, who was then attached to the Intelligence Department of the War Office, who had himself recently travelled in

  677
  Tripoli, and had some knowledge of the Bedouins, in order to obtain some information on the subject. After a time, they reported to me that the only person in England who could furnish the information was Professor Palmer—a distinguished scholar and Professor of Arabic at Cambridge. He was good enough to give his assistance. A Memorandum was then prepared giving an account of the Bedouin Sheikhs, their tribes, and their dispositions. Professor Palmer was then asked if he could recommend any gentleman who, from his knowledge of the language, could be employed as an interpreter to deal with these Arab Tribes in the event of any difficulty arising; and Professor Palmer, with great public spirit and with great gallantry, at once offered his services on this difficult duty. This was the origin of my communications with Professor Palmer, which, I lament to say, led to his death. That was before the attack on the forts of Alexandria, and the step thus taken on the part of the Admiralty was one demanded by the circumstances of that critical time, and necessary to be taken to provide against events that might occur. It was arranged that Professor Palmer should leave this country; and, in order to avoid any suspicion of his purpose, the Canal being then in the hands of the Egyptians, that he should travel to Suez across the Desert, and communicate with the senior Naval officer at Suez, and, if circumstances required it, should place his services at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government as interpreter. It must be obvious to the noble Lord that it was utterly impossible for me to have given him any orders to bribe the Bedouins at a time when it was quite uncertain whether the services of the Bedouins would be required. As a matter of fact, I gave him no instructions whatever to bribe the Bedouins, or anyone else. My instructions to Professor Palmer were simply to obtain information as to the disposition of the Bedouins, and to hold himself in readiness at Suez to be employed in case of necessity. About the time when Professor Palmer arrived at Suez Captain Gill, who had been engaged with him in obtaining information about the Bedouins, arrived at Port Said, where he was attached to Admiral (now Sir Anthony) Hoskins, the senior Naval officer on the Canal. At that time the
  678
  attack on the forts had taken place; but the expedition from this country had not arrived, nor had the Indian troops arrived at Suez. We found that Arabi had received information from Constantinople by means of a telegraph which passed across the Desert through Kantara. It was obviously necessary to endeavour to put an end to such communications, which were detrimental to our interests; and Sir Anthony Hoskins gave Captain Gill instructions to cut the telegraph across the Desert. Captain Gill then left Port Said for the purpose of consulting persons at Ismailia, and he thence went on to confer with Professor Palmer at Suez. In the meantime the expedition from India had started for Suez, and we received reports saying that it was necessary to obtain as many camels for transport purposes as could be found in the neighbourhood of Suez. On the arrival of Professor Palmer at Suez, he reported that he found the Bedouins loyal. I apprehend that he meant loyal to the Khedive, as we were informed from the first that the Bedouins of the Desert had a sincere attachment to the family of Mehemet Ali. That being so, we inferred that the Bedouins would be inclined to favour us rather than Arabi, who had rebelled against the Khedive. Professor Palmer also reported that we should have no difficulty about obtaining any number of camels, of which he was instructed to procure as many as possible for the use of the Indian troops who were shortly expected at Suez. In order that he might carry out his instructions to that effect, he was entrusted by Admiral Sir William Hewett with £3,000. He was accompanied from Suez by Captain Gill, who intended to proceed northwards to cut the telegraph wire in the Desert, and by Lieutenant Charrington, flag lieutenant to Sir William Hewett, who joined the party at Professor Palmer's request, it being his wish that the Bedouins might know, by Lieutenant Charrington's presence, that the Mission was authorized by the British Commander at Suez. Professor Palmer was to go to Nakhl to meet one of the Sheikhs. I can now dispose of the second point in the noble Lord's Question. Professor Palmer and his party did not travel in disguise in the ordinary acceptation of the term, for it was well known that Professor

  679
  Palmer was an Englishman. Though he were, as Englishmen do in that country, the Arab costume, there was no concealment of his identity. The other officers also wore the Arab costume; but there is nothing in the Correspondence to show that there was in anybody's mind the slightest doubt about their real character. It is needless for me to dilate upon the high public spirit which was shown by these gallant men; for I am sure that your Lordships feel with me that their devotion and patriotism deserve the highest recognition. Her Majesty has bestowed a pension from the Civil List upon Mrs. Palmer, and the other House of Parliament has voted a sum of money, which has been settled upon her and Professor Palmer's children. There was no need of any similar grants in the cases of Captain Gill and of Lieutenant Charrington; but your Lordships will, I am sure, be gratified to learn that I have been in communication with the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, and obtained their hearty assent to my suggestion that the remains of these men, who died in the service of their country, shall be interred in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral. Now, as to the other point in the noble Lord's Question—namely, the reported expenditure of £20,000—some extracts from Professor Palmer's journal do not appear to correspond with the statement made by Mr. Campbell-Bannerman in "another place," This question, however, is settled beyond all possibility of dispute by the Naval Accounts. It appears that £10,000 was drawn by the paymaster of the Penelope, the flagship of Admiral Hoskins, on the 26th of July, 1882, and another £10,000 on the 4th of August. This £20,000 was sent by Admiral Hoskins, from Port Said, to Sir William Hewett at Suez, in charge of Lieutenant Grove, R.N., and he went in the same picket boat which took Captain Gill from Ismailia to Suez. The money was not paid to Professor Palmer; it was taken on charge by the paymaster of the Euryalus, Sir William Hewett's flagship, and expended for the use of the East Indian Squadron in Egyptian waters, with the exception of £3,000 advanced to Professor Palmer. It is clear that there must have been an impression upon Professor Palmer's mind that the £20,000 was intended for him. The mistake must have arisen
  680
  from the circumstance that the money came in the same boat with Captain Gill, and that Professor Palmer had shortly before reported to Sir Beau-champ Seymour that he could buy the allegiance of 50,000 Bedouins for from £20,000 to £30,000. This proposal was telegraphed by Sir Beauchamp Seymour to the Admiralty, on the 6th of August; and as there did not seem to be any need at the time for such a proceeding, we told Sir William Hewett, in reply, on the same day, to instruct Professor Palmer to keep the Bedouins available for patrol or transport on the Canal. We added—
  "A reasonable amount may be spent; but larger arrangements are not to be entered into until the General arrives, and has been consulted."
  This telegram will be found in the Papers laid before Parliament. Thus, whatever may have been the impression on Professor Palmer's mind, it is clear that the sum in question was not paid to him. I should like to say that I attach very little importance to the controversy about this £20,000, whether Professor Palmer received it or not, excepting in so far as the accuracy of the statement of Mr. Campbell-Bannerman in "another place" is concerned. I can quite understand that Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, who was one of Arabi's allies during his rebellion, would think it a most abominable thing for any money to have been paid to Bedouins by us for any services; but, as we desired to dispose of Arabi, I should not have hesitated for a moment to authorize expenditure for the purpose of doing anything I considered desirable to protect the Suez Canal, and dispose of Arabi and his rabble. I wish to take this opportunity of clearing up a point with reference to a very gallant officer, who has done most excellent service for the protection of the Canal. I mean Colonel Warren. Colonel Warren, as soon as it was rumoured that Professor Palmer and his party were missing, volunteered at once to go out and assist in the search. He has pursued that search with gallantry, determination, good judgment, and a perfectly judicial mind. He has taken the greatest care to ascertain who were the really guilty parties; and I must protest against the inference of the noble Lord that in prosecuting these murderers—for I can find no other term

  681
  for them—there has been anything whatever done of which an Englishman can be for a moment ashamed. The inquiry has been conducted with the greatest care, and I am as certain as I am that I am now addressing the House that the men who were hanged deserved their fate. By some means or other a letter appeared in a newspaper that had been addressed by Colonel Warren to Moussa Nassier, one of the Arabi Sheikhs, in September last, and this letter contained two statements, one that Arabi was making his escape on a swift camel, and the other that Turkish troops had arrived at Port Said. This letter was written to Moussa Nassier to induce him to escort Colonel Warren into the Desert for the purpose of finding Professor Palmer. It must be observed that this Sheikh was not one of the guilty men, and that the letter was not sent in order to decoy him into our hands. The charge made against Colonel Warren was that he stated these things, knowing them not to be true, for the purpose of inducing the Sheikh to help him in the matter. When Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman had to reply to this attack in "another place," he was able only to say that, to the best of his belief, Colonel Warren made these statements believing them to be true. He gave that answer without communication with Colonel Warren; but since that time I have received a telegram from Colonel Warren, who is still in Egypt. He said—
  "The news I sent to Moussa Nassier, on September 14, relative to the 6,000 Turkish troops landed at Port Said and the preparations for Arabi's escape on swift dromedaries, was sent to me in Bombay telegrams from Suez by Admiral Sir William Hewett about September 10."
  Colonel Warren, therefore, simply repeated the news sent to him by Sir William Hewett, which was at that time, as the House will remember, by no means an unlikely piece of intelligence. I believe I have now answered every one of the Questions put by the noble Lord, and I am certain of the absolute accuracy of every word I say.
  LORD WENTWORTH: How does the noble Earl explain the paragraph in Captain Gill's journal about the £20,000?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I have seen Captain Gill's journal, and
  682
  there is nothing in it to the effect that £20,000 was actually given to Professor Palmer. There is, however, a sentence to the effect that Professor Palmer had authority to spend £20,000. If Captain Gill supposed that this sum was sent to Professor Palmer, he was in error, as I have proved that the money was not sent to Professor Palmer, but to Sir William Hewett, and was taken on charge by the paymaster of the Euryalus. My account is not only that given to me by Lord Alcester and Sir Anthony Hoskins, but it is conclusively proved by the accounts which are audited by the Audit Office. The noble Lord asks me to produce the journals of Professor Palmer and Captain Gill and other Papers that may have been found since the murders. Now, I cannot produce any such Papers at all. They do not belong to me; and as regards the noble Lord's relative, Mr. Blunt, I feel bound to tell the noble Lord that Mrs. Palmer asked me to call upon her, and complained to me in strong terms of Mr. Blunt's conduct in having made use of her husband's journal, and that the brother of Captain Gill called on me spontaneously two days ago, and made the same complaint respecting the use made by Mr. Blunt of certain passages in Captain Gill's Papers. I must decline altogether to comply with the Motion of the noble Lord, either to produce Papers over which I have no control, or any other of the Papers for which the noble Lord asks?
  LORD WENTWORTHsaid, he thought that the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) had rather gone out of his way to attack Mr. Blunt, to whom it was due to say that in November last Mrs. Palmer brought her husband's journal, and asked Mr. Blunt to take a copy of it for his use in preparing an article for The Fortnightly Review or The Nineteenth Century. The noble Earl seemed to him to weaken his own case in denying the fact of the £20,000 having been paid, by his strong expressions as to the necessity of buying the Bedouins if an opportunity had occurred. He would read some extracts which he had before mentioned from the journals of Professor Palmer, both on this point and on the other too, on which the information supplied by the noble Earl was quite inconsistent with the facts as made known in the journals. First, as to the

  683
  object of Mr. Palmer's Mission, he read from Mr. Palmer's own journal—
  EARL STANHOPE: I rise to Order. Is the noble Lord in Order in quoting from a private journal not before the House?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Has the noble Lord the authority of Mrs. Palmer for quoting extracts from the journals?
  LORD WENTWORTHsaid, that he had not. He was entirely in the hands of their Lordships; but he must say, in defending Mr. Blunt, that he felt it his duty, from any evidence in his possession, to give their Lordships accurate information.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, their Lordships had a Standing Order that no reply was to be made; but that Standing Order could be, and was often in practice, waived by the indulgence of the House. There might, however, be occasions on which it would be necessary to insist upon it; and if the noble Lord (Lord Wentworth) insisted upon referring to the journals he (Earl Beau-champ) should insist upon the Standing Order being read at the Table.
  LORD WENTWORTHsaid, he had understood that he had a right to reply by way of personal explanation. He would not, however, quote the journals if it was objected to; but he would restrict himself to the statement of facts within his knowledge. It was a fact that Mr. Palmer travelled as a Syrian officer and as a Mussulman in the Desert, and the war had actually commenced before he went into the Desert, for he received the news of the bombardment of Alexandria before he had gone far from Gaza. He wished to offer an explanation as to Mr. Blunt's authority from Mrs. Palmer. It appeared from a journal kept by Lady Ann Blunt that Mrs. Palmer had called upon her, and left the documents with her, for the purpose of extracts being made for a magazine article. They were given for the distinct purpose of having the truth made known, and there was no violation of confidence on the part of Mr. Blunt. He believed the noble Earl would regret denying the existence of the £20,000, for it was absolutely confirmed by the journal of Captain Gill. He should take another opportunity of bringing the matter before the House.
  On Question? Resoled in the negative.

PAYMENT OF WAGES IN PUBLIC-HOUSES PROHIBITION BILL.—(No. 21.)
(The Earl Stanhope.)
PAYMENT OF WAGES IN PUBLIC-HOUSES PROHIBITION BILL.—(No. 21.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3ª"—(The Earl Stanhope.)
  LORD BRAMWELLpointed out that the Preamble was now untrue, as it recited that it was desirable to extend the provisions in the miner regulation as to the payment of wages to all cases generally; whereas their Lordships determined they should only be partially extended. He said that the objection would be removed by omitting the Preamble.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, there was no reason why the Preamble should be struck out.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that would be the shortest way out of the difficulty, and then the Bill would be gone.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not see any reason for the objection. The Preamble directly applied to the object of the Bill.
  LORD BRAMWELLthought the objection was well founded, inasmuch as the Preamble said it was expedient to extend the prohibition generally; whereas, by the Amendment which had been adopted, it appeared that it was only expedient to extend it partially. Their Lordships were going to send to the other House a Bill with an erroneous Preamble. Passing over that point, however, he would draw attention to the wording of the 3rd clause, which provided that wages were not to be paid in any public-house, "or any office, garden, or place belonging or contiguous thereto." So that if a builder's yard happened to join a public-house the builder would no longer be able to pay his workmen on his own premises. The objection, however, might be got over by striking out the words, and he would accordingly propose their omission.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, the interpretation of the Bill did not depend on its Preamble. The 3rd clause really defined the operation of the measure. He would accept the noble and learned Lord's proposal to strike out the words "or contiguous thereto."
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly.
  On Motion of The Lord BRAMWELL, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 3, page 1, lines 26 and 27, omit the words ("or contiguous thereto"); and in Clause 4, page 2, line 14, omit the words ("under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.")
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) ELECTION PROCEDURE BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, Whether it is true, as he had been told privately, that his Lordship proposed to postpone the Scottish Representative Peerage Bill to the 10th of April?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to he read 2a on Monday next; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to he considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Earl Granville.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.