Sitting of 2 December 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Thomas Tertius Paget, esquire, for Leicester County (Southern Division).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Totnes, &c. Writs.
First Reading—Totnes, &c. Writs [20].
Committee—Income Tax [16]; Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000).*
Report—Income Tax [16]; Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000).*

CHURCH RATES.—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that as it seemed to be understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was not likely to be in his place again before Christmas, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was perfectly competent to answer the Question, Whether, as there were two Bills before the House on the subject of Church Rates, and two others were promised, the Government intended themselves to intro-

507
duce a measure for settling this most vexatious question?
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the hon. Member had not given notice of his intention to put the Question. Till a very short time ago he had fully expected that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been in his place that evening. In the absence of his right hon. Friend, he (Lord Stanley) was not prepared to answer Questions with regard to the business of the House.

THE WRECK REGISTERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORWOODasked the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will state the reasons why the British and Foreign Wreck Registers for 1866 have not yet been printed and delivered to the Members of this House; and, whether the version of the British Wreck Register that has appeared in the newspapers has been communicated to the press by the authority of the Board of Trade; and, if not, whether he will state by whom it was communicated, or by what means it got into the papers?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: The Wreck Registers have usually been delivered to Members much earlier in the year. This year much additional work has been thrown upon the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, to which the task of compiling the Register is committed, in connection, with the preparation and passing through Parliament of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill, as well as in framing regulations for carrying its provisions into effect after it had become law. There has been an unhealthy time in the office, temporarily depriving it of some valuable services; and lastly, the Foreign Wreck Register, which was first added to the British Wreck Register last year, has been made more complete at the expense of much additional labour. These are the causes of the Register being issued later than usual. It is in the printer's hands, and will, I hope, be delivered to Members this week. But in truth the postponement even to the autumn of the publication of the Wreck Register, of the year before very much impairs its value, and it is very desirable that it should appear by March at the latest. Mr. Gray, the Assistant Secretary of the Marine Department, who, as the hon. Member knows almost as well as
  508
  myself, is not a man to raise difficulties or to shrink from work, informs me that this cannot be done without additional hands, and it is absolutely impossible, owing to the way in which the Board of Trade is cramped for room, much to the detriment of the public service and of the health of the clerks, to obtain the required assistance. No version of the Wreck Register has been communicated to the press by authority of the Board of Trade. It would, in my opinion, be irregular and hardly respectful to send for publication Returns ordered by the House before they are ready for delivery to Members. The early publication of the substance of many of these Returns in the papers is a great public convenience, but the communication of imperfect information is obviously calculated to mislead. I believe that in this instance blame has been cast upon the Office by a portion of the press for carelessness in issuing incomplete Returns, when, in point of fact, one of the causes of delay has been anxiety to make the Register as complete as possible. The Secretary of the Lifeboat Institution has been in the habit of obtaining assistance from the Board of Trade in the preparation of a portion of his Report. This is derived from a crude and imperfect version of what appears in a complete form in the Register. This communication, the strict propriety of which may, perhaps, be questioned, and which costs no little time and labour, is made to him for one purpose only. The use of it for any other would be a breach of confidence. But, of course, when the report of the Institution comes out, as it has done this year, before the issue of the Wreck Register, that information becomes public property, and a fresh complication arises owing to the Register being referred to in the Report, as if it had been already published. Arrangements have been made in the Office to prevent for the future the premature and unauthorized publication of Returns ordered by the House. In this particular instance, provided we can obtain space equal to our rapidly expanding work, I hope that an earlier issue of our own Register will be the solution of the difficulty.

POST OFFICE—THE ISLAND OF ST. THOMAS.—QUESTION.
MR. GILPINasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, considering the effects of the recent destructive storm in the Is-

509
land of St. Thomas, in which the wharf of the Royal Steam Company is stated to have been destroyed, and the deplorable loss of life both from this cause and the pernicious effects of the climate of the Island, it is the intention of the Post Office authorities to continue to sanction the Island of St. Thomas, as the chief Postal Station of the West India Mails?
MR. HUNTsaid, that private communications between the Government and the Royal Mail Steamship Company on this question were in progress, and he could not give any further answer at present.

HOUSE OF COMMONS' ARRANGEMENTS COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
MR. BAZLEYasked the right hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, Whether it is his intention to move for the re-appointment of "The House of Commons' Arrangements Committee" during the present Session; and whether, since the termination of the labours of that Committee in the last Session, he has obtained any information which he could communicate to the House?
MR. HEADLAMsaid, of course he had no intention to move the re-appointment of the Committee for the short period that Parliament would sit now; but immediately after the Christmas recess he would certainly do so; and he would also take an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the evidence given last Session. He supposed the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question alluded to a wish expressed by himself and others that information should be obtained as to the size of other Houses of Legislature on the Continent. He had not himself been able to make inquiries; but he had communicated with the Board of Works, suggesting that the desired information should be obtained through diplomatic agency, and that it should be available on the re-assembling of Parliament after the holydays. He understood that that suggestion had been entertained and acted upon.
LORD JOHN MANNERSwas understood to intimate that this was correct.

SUEZ AND INDIA SUBMARINE TELERAPH.—QUESTION.
MR. O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will place upon the table of the House a Copy of the Memorial lately presented by Bankers and Merchants of the City of London, recom-
510
mending the laying of a Submarine Telegraph between Suez and India by the Red Sea, with a Copy of the proposal made by the Submarine Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company upon the same subject?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there would be no objection to produce the paper if the hon. Member would move for it.

MARRIAGE LAW COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Marriage Law Commissioners have agreed on their Report; and, if so, when it will be laid before Parliament?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had received a letter from the Secretary of the Marriage Law Commission informing him that it was probable that their Report would be in the hands of Members in the commencement of next year.

  METROPOLIS—HACKNEY CARRIAGES LAMPS REGULATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHwished to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on a domestic subject. He wished to know whether his attention had been called to a placard which had been placed on Hansom as well as ugly cabs, threatening a strike at four o'clock to-morrow. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he had any power of revoking the licence or otherwise to prevent such an occurrence?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had no information as to any threatened strike of cabmen more than the hon. Member himself. He was not aware of any new power which had been granted to the Home Secretary or any Member of the Government to control them.

ARMY—CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS—THE 40TH REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT COLLIERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a statement which appeared in the Western Morning News is correct, to the effect that on the removal of the 40th Regiment from Plymouth to Aldershot the troops were kept on board Her Majesty's troop ship Simoon for three days, without bedding

511
or blankets, and were compelled to lie upon bare boards, without any covering; and whether they were kept without food from five p.m. on the 11th of November, when they left the ship, until they arrived at Aldershot at half past two the next day?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have felt it my duty to make careful inquiry into this statement, and I hope I shall be able to convince the hon. Gentleman that the newspaper account of the matter has been characterized by great exaggeration. I find it to be true that the 40th Regiment did sail in the Simoon from Portsmouth on Saturday, the 9th ult.—and really I am inclined to believe that this was the most serious mistake that was made. Sunday is regarded as a dies non, and therefore on the arrival of a regiment at a port on a Sunday it is not allowed to land. I do not say where the blame is to fall; but I think it is to be regretted that, under these circumstances, the embarcation of a regiment for such a short passage should be allowed to take place on the Saturday, involving, as it clearly does, the unnecessary detention of the men on board ship. In consequence of the sailing of this regiment on the Saturday it was detained at Spithead during the whole of Sunday, and I believe this is what is to be most complained of. It so happened that on Monday, on account of the state of the tide, the men were unable to land in time to proceed to Aldershot that day, and therefore they were detained until Tuesday morning. It is stated that the men were kept for three days without bedding or blankets, and were compelled to lie on the bare boards. The explanation of this is very simple. In short passages the soldiers do not like to be supplied with blankets. If any are lost, the company losing them has to pay for them, and I am told that in one instance as heavy a charge as £15 was imposed upon the companies for lost blankets. So strong is the feeling among the soldiers on the subject, that on the occasion of the 13th Regiment being conveyed from Queenstown to Gibraltar last summer, although the surgeon was anxious they should take blankets, they one and all refused to do so. In this case, I believe, from the same motive, the men were unwilling to take the blankets. There were plenty of them, on board, and they might have been had if the men had desired them. Blankets were supplied to the women and children, and the men did
512
not have them because they did not wish for them. As to the men being compelled to lie on bare boards, the men are supplied with boards on an incline, and I am told that for short passages the men prefer to lie upon them wrapped in their great coats. The whole of the last part of the statement as to the men being kept without food is incorrect. The facts are that before the men went ashore on Tuesday morning they had tea for breakfast. The Quartermaster Sergeant declined a supply of biscuits because the men had plenty in their messes, and after the men had left the vessel a quantity of biscuits was found on board. They arrived at Aldershot between one o'clock and half past one, and they then found their dinners ready for them.

TURKEY—EPIRUS AND THESSALY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any Despatch in the Foreign Office from Mr. Elliot, dated 1862 or 1863, stating that he had intimated to Mr. Boulgaris, the head of the Provisional Government of Greece, that Her Majesty's Government would see with pleasure the annexation of Epirus and Thessaly to Greece, or words to that effect; and, if the noble Lord will lay the same upon the table?
  LORD STANLEY: I understand that an intimation of the nature referred to in the Question was conveyed to the Turkish Government at that time, but was conveyed, as I explained to the House on a former occasion, only on the supposition which then existed that the Porte would be inclined to receive favourably a proposal of that kind; and when that supposition was found to be erroneous, the proposal was withdrawn and has not been again put forward. The papers in question are of rather a confidential character, and I do not think it would be for the benefit of the public service to produce them.

ITALY—THE ROMAN QUESTION—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY WINSTON - BARRONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has consented to have England represented at the proposed Conference on Italian affairs, and on what terms?
LORD STANLEY: I stated on the first day of the present Session the nature and purport of the answer which, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I had given to the French Government in reply to the invitation to attend a Conference upon the Roman question. To that answer I adhere, and I have not modified it in any respect.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION—STORES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAY, in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson), asked the Secretary of State for War, "Whether the Stores for the Abyssinian Expedition are to be provided by the Indian Government; whether such Stores as may not be consumed or injured during the campaign are to be returned into store at Bombay, or whether they are to be kept by us, as was the case in China in 1860; and, if the latter is the arrangement come to, whether any officers have been sent out by the Treasury to watch the expenditure and protect our interests, so as to preclude our having to pay for Stores of an obsolete pattern?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The hon. Gentleman is aware that this expedition to Abyssinia is being principally organized at Bombay on behalf of the Imperial Government. I do not quite understand in what sense my hon. and gallant Friend, whose Question this is (Major Anson), uses the word "provided." If he means to ask whether the stores are to be provided at the cost of the Indian Government, I answer certainly not. The expense of providing the whole of these stores will be defrayed from Imperial sources; but the stores themselves will be supplied in a very large degree from Bombay, either furnished by the War Department on requisition from the Indian Government, or obtained by the Indian Government in open market. The answer to the second Question is, that I have no doubt that "such stores as may not be consumed or injured during the campaign" will be returned into store at Bombay, and will not be kept by us. This is an expedition fitted out by the Indian, and not by the Imperial Government, as the China expedition was. With regard to the last Question, a Treasury officer has been sent out to audit the general expenses, but no officers have been sent out with special reference to the stores supplied. When the campaign is over, British
  514
  interests will receive ample protection. The probability is that the stores will be retained at Bombay; at all events, none of an obsolete pattern will be left on our hands.

  HALE'S ROCKETS.—QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that £8,000 was paid, by the Report of the War Department, to Mr. Hale for the invention of the Rockets which bear his name; whether these Rockets were after severe tests finally adopted by the Ordnance Select Committee to the exclusion of Stick Rockets; whether it is to Mr. Hale's 12-pounder Rockets that the following extract from a Despatch of the Secretary of State for India refers (see Parliamentary Paper)—
  "On application to the War Office, however, it was found that there were no 12-pounder Rockets in store, and that it was impossible to manufacture the requisite quantity before the time at which they would be needed; it has therefore been determined to send for the use of the force 1,800 of the 6-pounder Rockets;"
  and, whether Mr. Hale has informed the War Department that from 800 to 1,000 of the Hale Rockets could be manufactured per week?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have to answer in the affirmative the first two Questions of the hon. Gentleman. £8,000 were paid to Mr. Hale by the War Department for the invention of the peculiar rocket which bears his name, and it is quite true that these rockets were, after what was considered a sufficient test, finally adopted by the Ordnance Select Committee. It is also quite true that the paragraph which the hon. Gentleman has quoted from the despatch of the Secretary of State for India does refer to the rockets of Mr. Hale. But the quotation from that despatch requires some little explanation on my part. I have made very close inquiry in the War Office, and we cannot find there the slightest trace of any requisition from the India Office for a supply of 12-pounder rockets. I find that, in October, I believe, a telegraphic communication was made to the War Office from the Admiralty asking merely whether any 24-pounder rockets could be supplied. The answer to that question was, after inquiry, that there were 1,000 Hale 24-pounder rockets in store at Woolwich. Subsequently Admiral Key, the Director of Naval Ordnance, inquired whether any 12-pounder rockets

  515
  were in store. The answer was in the negative. We were not asked whether we could obtain any. We were asked how soon they could be made in the Arsenal, and the answer was that it would take some time to prepare them. No doubt we could have obtained 12-pounder rockets from the private trade, but we were not asked to do so. On the contrary, I understand that General Willoughby, the Chief Officer of Stores in the India Department, went down to Woolwich to inquire about the 12-pounder rockets, and, finding none in store, made inquiries respecting the 6-pounder rockets. He was informed that all military men were agreed that the 6-pounder rockets were the more useful of the two; he was quite content to accept a supply of them; and rockets of that description were accordingly forwarded for the use of the Expedition. As to the last Question of the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Hale has not informed the War Department that from 800 to 1,000 of the Hale rockets could be manufactured per week. I hold in my hand the only letter received at the War Office from Mr. Hale, and in this, referring to the fact that no 12-pounders were in store, he stated that this appeared most unaccountable, but that a small company might manufacture 500 in a week. He never said that he could manufacture 800 in a week.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—PERSONAL RATING.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GOSCHENasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the provisions of the thirtieth section of the Act 2 Will. 4, c. 45, which enact that any occupiers who claim to be rated and tender the full amount of rates, if any, then due, shall, notwithstanding the neglect or refusal of the overseers to put his name upon the rate for the time being, "nevertheless for the purposes of the said Act be deemed to have been rated," have in any way been restricted or modified by the Reform Act of last Session: Whether any change in the form of such claim to be rated is rendered necessary by Section 2 of Clause 7, or by any other Clause of the Reform Act of last Session: Whether the protection afforded to occupiers who are entitled to the franchise under the Reform Act of 1832 by the provision that the claim to be rated is sufficient to convey the franchise, whether the overseers comply with the demand or not,
    516
    is extended to those who are entitled to the franchise under the Act of last Session, notwithstanding the omission of any similar provision in the Act itself: Whether Section 2, Clause 7, of the last Reform Act, lays the burden of ascertaining that all the necessary entries are correctly and fully made in the rate book on the occupier on pain of losing his vote, or whether it is only an injunction to the overseers, the non-compliance with which will not invalidate the qualification of the occupier: Whether, if the overseers neglect or refuse to enter into the rate book the separate amount of rate falling on each separate tenement of a block of buildings or a house hitherto rated as a whole, the occupiers of such separate tenements will lose their votes, or whether a claim on their part to be fully rated and to pay whatever may be their proportion of rate, though they are unable to state in their claim what that amount may be, will be sufficient to entitle them to a vote: And, if such claim is not sufficient, what powers have the occupiers to ascertain the proportionate amount of rate falling on their tenement, or to compel the overseers to rate them separately.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: In answer to the Questions of the right hon. Gentleman, I am quite willing to give my individual opinion on the section of the Act of Parliament and the law as it now stands. The first Question is—
    "Whether the provisions of the thirtieth section of the Act 2 Will, 4, c. 45, which enact that any occupiers who claim to be rated and tender the full amount of rates, if any, then due, shall, notwithstanding the neglect or refusal of the overseers to put his name upon the rate for the time being, 'nevertheless for the purposes of the said Act be deemed to have been rated,' have in any way been restricted or modified by the Reform Act of last Session?"
    As far as I can see, those provisions have not been modified in any way. The second Question is—
    "Whether any change in the form of such claim to be rated is rendered necessary by Section 2 of Clause 7, or by any other Clause of the Reform Act of last Session?"
    As far as I can see, there is no form given by the 2 Will. IV. c. 45; and if since the Act of last Session a claim is made to be rated in pursuance of that Act, that is all that is required from the occupier who desires to be put upon the rate book. The next Question is—
    "Whether the protection afforded to occupiers who are entitled to the franchise under the Reform Act of 1832 by the provision that the claim to be

    517
    rated is sufficient to convey the franchise, whether the overseers comply with the demand or not, is extended to those who are entitled to the franchise under the Act of last Session, notwithstanding the omission of any similar provision in the Act itself?"
    In my judgment that protection does continue, because it will be found that the Act of 1832 is, by Section 59 of the new Act, incorporated with that Act and made part of the Act itself. The fourth Question put to me is—
    "Whether Section 2, Clause 7, of the last Reform Act, lays the burden of ascertaining that all the necessary entries are correctly and fully made in the rate book on the occupier on pain of losing his vote, or whether it is only an injunction to the overseers, the non-compliance with which will not invalidate the qualification of the occupier?"
    The Question may be answered in this way—The 3rd section of the new Act points out who is to be entitled to the franchise, and the person entitled as an occupier of a dwelling-house must have been rated and must have paid his rates. No substantial alteration in the law is made by the Act of last Session. Certain things must appear on the rate book or else the occupier is not rated as is required in order that he may obtain the franchise. He is therefore in the same position as the occupier was before; and as regards misnomers and inaccuracies, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is an Act, 6 Vict., which provides that many of these inaccuracies shall not vitiate the entry on the rate book. In other respects the occupier remains in the same position as before the late Act passed. The next Question is—
    "Whether, if the overseers neglect or refuse to enter into the rate book the separate amount of rate falling on each separate tenement of a block of buildings or a house hitherto rated as a whole, the occupiers of such separate tenements will lose their votes, or whether a claim on their part to be fully rated and to pay whatever may be their proportion of rate, though they are unable to state in their claim what that amount may be, will be sufficient to entitle them to a vote?"
    In reply to that, I beg to say that I believe it will be found that since the last Act occupiers of blocks are in precisely the same position as before. When owners choose to let their houses in flats, as in Victoria Street, a difficulty did before exist, and the same difficulty will exist still. However, under the 7th section of the late Act, the overseers are required to ascertain the occupiers of each separate house within the meaning of the Act, and to put their names upon the rate book. The last Question is—
    518
    "And, if such claim is not sufficient, what powers have the occupiers to ascertain the proportionate amount of rate falling on their tenement, or to compel the overseers to rate them separately?"
    My answer is that they should at once give notice to the overseer that they claim to be occupiers within the entire block, and they would have a right to appeal in the event of the overseer not rating them separately. And if complaint should be made that the overseer wilfully or maliciously refused to rate them separately, an action might lie against the overseer for so refusing. I have now answered the Questions as well as I can. These are my individual opinions on the subject; but it is difficult in a question of this kind to go into all the reasons for such opinions.
    SIR WILLIAM HUTTsaid, that in the borough he represented (Gateshead) the overseer, while rating to the poor the occupiers of those houses which were formerly compounded for, took a different course in their case from that which he pursued with respect to the occupiers of separate tenements. In respect to those houses he placed on the book not the occupier, but the owner; and under these circumstances the occupiers would not be qualified. He wished to ask the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the overseer had taken a sound view of this portion of the Reform Act?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think that the view which has been taken by the overseer is wrong; because under the 7th section it will be found that after the passing of the Act no owner of a dwelling-house shall be rated to the poor rate instead of the occupier, except as thereinafter mentioned; and the next clause is that the full rateable value of every dwelling-house, the rate, and the name of the occupier shall be entered upon the rate book.

  EXPLOSION OF THE "BUBULINA" IN THE MERSEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been directed to the destruction of the Bubulina war steamer in the Mersey, on the eve of her departure for Greece, occasioning a great loss of life: Also, if his attention had been directed to the circumstance of the Greek Government having purchased, fitted up with warlike stores, and filled with munitions of war, two steamers which had formerly been

  519
  employed as Confederate blockade runners, the Bubulina and the Amphitryte: And, if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any inquiry from the Greek Government as to the destination of these vessels, and if they were intended to be used against a Foreign Power with whom we are on terms of friendship and alliance?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, I have seen the account in the newspapers, as probably we all have, of the destruction of the Bubulina in the Mersey, and I understand that she and another steamer were bought and fitted up for the Government of Greece. That Government not being a belligerent, but being at peace with all nations, has a legal right to purchase and fit out ships of war in an English port or anywhere else. They are the best judges of the amount of naval force which they deem necessary for the protection of their coasts and their trade, and the British Government do not desire to interfere in such a matter. No doubt, if we thought the Greek Government intended to engage in a war with Turkey or any other Power with which we are in relations of friendship, we should remonstrate; but we are not at present in a position to think that any such intention exists on the part of the Greek Government.

  DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SAXONY.—QUESTION.
  MR. HARDCASTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why there was no diplomatic or consular representative of Great Britain resident at Dresden, all other Powers having recognised agents there; whether Mr. Barnard, who was properly attached to the late British Legation at Dresden, and who now resided at Gotha, might not be with advantage transferred to Dresden; and whether a British Vice Consul might not be appointed, the nearest consular authority being now stationed at Leipsic?
  LORD STANLEY: When last year I advised Her Majesty to withdraw the mission then existing at Dresden, I did so on two grounds—the first, that Saxony having joined the North German Confederation no diplomatic business of any importance remained to be transacted there, and it seemed to me that the maintenance of a mission at Dresden was an unnecessary expense. The second ground was that I wished, on the part of the British Govern-
  520
  ment, to give an early and public mark of adhesion to the policy of North German Unity. Now, however, the Union of North Germany is an accomplished fact—a fact with which no person proposes to interfere. I certainly still think that to retain at Dresden a mission, costing some £4,000 a year, would be needless expenditure of public money. But it is a fact that there is a considerable resident English population in that capital, and many complaints have been made to me at various times of the absence of any British official to attend to their requirements. I find that all the other great Powers have retained Ministers there; and though not proposing to re-establish the mission, I do intend to compromise the matter by sending a Secretary of Legation to reside there as Chargé d'Affaires. This can be done at small cost, and it will, I believe, be satisfactory to the public and meet the wishes of the British population in Dresden. With regard to the question of removing Mr. Barnard, I think the arrangement I propose would be found more convenient. I am disposed to doubt whether the appointment of a Vice Consul would be necessary; but that is a point which may be reserved for future consideration.

INDO-EUROPEAN TELEGRAPH LINES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FINLAYasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the following statement in the morning newspapers was correct:—
  "Communication by the Indo-European telegraph lines is interrupted owing to a defect in the Persian Gulf cable;"
  also, whether there was any certainty of a land line of telegraph wires from Egypt to Massowah being completed before the rainy season commenced in Abyssinia?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was true that the communications by the Indo-European telegraph lines had been partially interrupted, but it was not in consequence of any defect of the cable, but of a breakage which appeared to have taken place about 100 miles from Constantinople. That circumstance occasioned some small delay; but the communication was kept up over the injured part by means of messengers. He yesterday received separate telegraphic despatches from India which were rather behind their time, the earliest being dated the

  521
  25th and the last the 27th of November. He apprehended, therefore, that communications were still open, though messages were partially delayed in consequence of the break. With regard to the second Question, he was not aware precisely of the state of forwardness of the Egyptian land line telegraph; but he did not think there would be any means of telegraphic communication completed to Massowah before the commencement of the rainy season.
  Lord JOHN HAYIn reply to Lord JOHN HAY,
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he presumed commercial messages were forwarded by messengers over the broken part of the line in the same manner as Government messages; but he had no information on the subject.

  INCOME TAX BILL— [BILL 16.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hunt.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Additional Rates of Duty to be charged on half-yearly and quarterly Assessments.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that this was the first time such a Bill had been introduced after the commencement of the second half year, and that there were several Indian and other securities on which both the half yearly dividends had been already paid. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Government proposed to adopt any plan for making those dividends chargeable?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the attention of the Government had been given to this point, but they were advised that the amount in question was so infinitesimal that it was not worth while to make any special provision for bringing it into charge. The amount, as they were advised, that could in any case be collected did not exceed £18,000, and they saw no method of bringing it into charge.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Relief to Persons whose Incomes are under two hundred a Year.)
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHpointed out that the effect of the Bill would be to double the tax for the last quarter of the year, which would be a serious burden on persons of limited incomes. He wished
  522
  for an explanation of this clause, which was taken from the Act of 1863, and was very obscurely worded. He believed, indeed, when first adopted, very few Members understood it.
  MR. HUNTreplied, that he was unable to say whether very few Members understood the provision when first introduced. He perfectly understood it himself, and had not till now heard it charged with ambiguity. No doubt, such provisions were often drawn in rather technical language by officials skilled in the management of the public finances; but this clause had been in operation without leading to any difficulty, and he hoped therefore his hon. Friend would not suggest any.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

TOTNES, &c., WRITS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that on a previous evening his attention had been called by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) to the form in which the 12th section of the Reform Act had been framed, in which it was provided that the election of Members for the boroughs of Totnes, Great Yarmouth, Lancaster, and Reigate should cease and determine after the Reform Act came into operation. He had since looked into the matter, and found that it was not sufficient to meet a possible case that might arise by a Resolution of that House. He had therefore brought in a short Bill which provided that no writ or warrant should be issued for the election of a Member or Members for these boroughs after the passing of that Act, and that no registration of voters should take place in any of those boroughs.
  Bill to forbid the issue of Writs for Members to serve in this present Parliament for the Boroughs of Totnes, Reigate, Great Yarmouth, and Lancaster, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 20.]
  House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—East London Museum Site* (2); Sales of Reversions* (5); Metropolitan Streets Act (1867) Amendment* (4).

ABYSSINIA.
Message from the Commons communicating the following Resolution to which they desire the Concurrence of this House; viz.,
"That, Her Majesty having directed a Military Expedition to be despatched against Abyssinia, consisting mainly of Troops both European and Native at present maintained out of the Revenues of India, the ordinary Pay of such Troops as well as the ordinary Charges of any Vessels belonging to the Government of India that may be employed in the Expedition, which would have been charged upon the Revenues of India if such Troops or Vessels had remained in that Country or Seas adjacent, shall continue to be so chargeable; provided, that if it shall become necessary to replace the Troops or Vessels so withdrawn by other European or Native Forces or Vessels, the Expense of raising, maintaining, and providing such Forces or Vessels shall be repaid out of any Monies which may be provided by Parliament for the Purposes of the said Expedition."
The said Resolution to be considered on Thursday next.—(The Earl of Derby.)

EDUCATION.—RESOLUTIONS.
EARL RUSSELL, who had given notice to move the following Resolutions:—

"1. That in the Opinion of this House the Education of the Working Classes in England and Wales ought to be extended and improved: Every Child has a moral Right to the Blessings of Education, and it is the Duty of the State to guard and maintain that Right. In the Opinion of this House the Diffusion of Knowledge ought not to be hindered by Religious Differences; nor should the early Employment of the Young in Labour be allowed to deprive them of Education:

"2. That it is the Opinion of this House that Parliament and Government should aid in the Education of the Middle Classes by providing for the better Administration of Charitable Endowments:

"3. That it is the Opinion of this House that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge may be made more useful to the Nation by the Removal of Restrictions, and by the Appointment of a Commission to consider of the better Distribution of their large Revenues for Purposes of Instruction in connection with the said Universities:

"4. That the Appointment of a Minister of Education by the Crown, with a Seat in the Cabinet, would, in the Opinion of this House, be conducive to the Public Benefit:"—

rose and said: My Lords, in rising to move the Resolutions of which I have given notice on the subject of Education, I suppose there are none of your Lordships who would at all question the importance of that subject; and I shall endeavour to explain, as shortly as I can, the reasons which have induced me to bring forward the question in the shape in which I have placed it upon the Paper. It seems to me that we are often placed in a very unpleasant, not to say an humiliating, position when Bills are brought up to this House at a late period of the Session. I remember being very much struck, soon after I had the honour of a seat in this House, by a statement of the noble and learned Lord, now on the Woolsack, when several Bills were brought from the other House relating to the amendment of the Criminal Law. The noble and learned Lord stated that the amendment of the Criminal Law was a very important subject, and was one upon which this House was peculiarly qualified to form an opinion; and one on which he might have added, that the House, if it liked, could have the assistance of the Judges—but that owing to the late period of the Session, he did not think it advisable to propose any Amendments, and he therefore consented to the Bills. We have since had other Bills of great importance brought to this House at so late a period that it appears to me the House is

479
placed in this position—that your Lordships must either assent to these Bills without examination, or else must reject them without consideration. It would be much better then, if this House could be enabled in some way or other to take a more deliberate view of questions of this magnitude, which so deeply concern the condition of the country and affect the welfare of the people. What I am proposing on this occasion is not to bring before your Lordships the details of any plan, still less to interfere with the privilege of the House of Commons of providing the means for any extended education, but to lay before your Lordships certain principles which, I think, ought to be the guide for any legislation on this subject, and which can alone carry your Lordships to safe and useful conclusions.
My Lords, it appears to me that the first matter with which we have to deal, is the deficiency of education that now exists, and I will take a description of that deficiency from a draft Report which was proposed, though not assented to, in the Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1865–6 on the subject of the Education of the Poor. It was stated in that Report that there are more than 11,000 parishes which derive no assistance from what is called our educational grants, and it is stated that the population of these parishes may be fairly estimated at not less than 6,000,000. According to the usual computation now made, that one-sixth of the population ought to be at school, that would leave a deficiency of 1,000,000 among those who ought to be receiving the blessings of education. In a speech lately published of Mr. Bruce, who in the former Government filled the office of Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, it is stated that of the population of England and Wales amounting to 21,000,000, 3,500,000 ought to be at school. But only 2,450,000 of these are borne on the books of all the existing schools, including those assisted and unassisted by the State; leaving, therefore, 1,050,000 unaccounted for. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with any long array of figures; but I may state that there are in existence statistics showing the number of persons who could not write their names when they were married, and these are so unevenly distributed that of those married at St. George's, Hanover Square, there were only 3 per cent of each sex who could not write their names in the
480
marriage register, while of those married at Bethnal Green, 34 per cent were in this state of ignorance. The proportion generally over England and Wales may be taken at about 30 per cent. These figures, however, do not exhibit completely the deficiency of education which exists, because there are many who have attended at school very early in life, having been kept there but a very short time, but who entirely forget what they have learnt there, and afterwards relapse into complete ignorance. It appears to me, then, I confess, that this state of things justifies some proceeding of a very wide and comprehensive nature to carry the blessings of education much further than at present. In the first Resolution I have inserted the word "moral" to prevent the cavil which might be made against any supposed legal right of a child to be educated. It accordingly runs thus—
"That in the Opinion of this House the Education of the Working Classes in England and Wales ought to be extended and improved: Every Child has a moral Right to the Blessings of Education, and it is the Duty of the State to guard and maintain that Right."
In 1835, in the discussion which took place when Lord Brougham proposed a series of Resolutions in this House—which, I believe, were agreed to, as they have certainly formed the foundation for measures which have since been passed—Lord Denman said, and without any rhetorical phrase, that he very seriously doubted how far the State was justified in inflicting punishment for offences against the commission of which they had taken no pains to guard. I conceive that this statement is perfectly well founded; and it does seem to me that to allow children to go out into the streets of towns and villages without any education whatever, totally ignorant, as in many cases they are, of the name of God or of Christ, and knowing nothing whatever of the laws of the country, if afterwards you punish them for any offences they may commit, when you have taken no pains to educate them, is to sanction a degree of injustice which ought not longer to continue. I believe the people of this country are perfectly right when they say, "If we are ignorant, why do you not educate us?" I believe they are quite justified in making that claim, and that the principle is one which ought to be acted upon by Parliament.
The next question that arises is as to the manner in which we are to educate

481
these children. And here we are met with the difficulty, how we are to provide means for the establishment of schools that will reach these children throughout all the districts of England. This is no impracticable object. It has been done in other countries. In Prussia about one-sixth of the people are receiving education; it is done in France; it is done in Scotland under a law of 1697 which established parish schools; and it is done to a great extent in Ireland. I was assured by a person possessing an intimate knowledge of the country that "you could not go two miles in Ireland without finding a school." That statement may have involved some exaggeration; but on consulting others who had official cognizance of the circumstance I was told, "If you put it at every three miles, very likely it may be the truth." These facts show, at all events, that it is possible to establish schools in every part of the kingdom. The question as to how funds for the education of the people are to be provided is one that peculiarly affects the House of Commons, and therefore it is not my intention to enter into it further than to say that it must be done either by local rates or by Parliamentary grants, carried to a much greater extent than they have hitherto been carried. The proposition to meet it by a rate was introduced last Session in a Bill brought in by the Gentleman I have already mentioned, Mr. Bruce, in the other House. In that Bill, which was entirely permissive, Mr. Bruce proposed to enable any borough or district to levy a rate for the purpose of maintaining existing schools, or where necessary of erecting and maintaining new schools. I think it is a proposition which can hardly be refuted that if persons themselves wish to establish a school they should be at liberty to levy a rate for this purpose. This, however, might not be sufficient; and then comes the question, whether it may not be necessary to supplement the rates by further and larger grants from the general taxation of the country. I own that I think both sources must be applied to. But we need not now discuss that branch of the subject. A proposition with regard to local rates was embodied in a very able Report made by the Commission issued in the time of the late Duke of Newcastle. The Government of that day did not adopt the Report, or rather postponed its consideration. But the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who applied himself very seriously to this question, and
482
whose judgment on the subject ought always to be respected, said that the fault in the Report of that Commission was that it did not propose to give local control; and he further observed, that it was perfectly clear that if local rates were levied for the purposes of education the persons who paid those rates were entitled to decide in what manner they should be applied.
The next question is as to the improvements to be made. I do not wish to enter into detail; but there are many, and include the restoration of arrangements which existed in former times, but which are now partially or wholly abandoned; among these is the exceedingly useful institution of pupil-teachers, of whom the number has lately very much decreased. Masters also have decreased; and the question is, as to whether those not educated at the training schools should be allowed to participate in the grants at the schools of which they become masters. That is a very serious question. I am myself in favour of certificated masters, but I think the question of certificated masters should not be so exclusively dealt with as it has been; and, at the same time, I think that the pupil-teachers should receive greater encouragement.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Does the noble Earl think that the system of certificated masters should not be invaded in any way?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I am of opinion that the certificated masters ought not to be invaded directly; but, at the same time, there might be other schools of a superior kind whose masters might be at liberty to secure a degree from the London University, something similar to what is given to other persons who take degrees for higher classes of education. But I was about to say that there is another great improvement which might be adopted, and that is the system of half-time in schools; the giving of three hours instead of five or six for the purposes of education. Mr. Chadwick, who has written much upon this subject, has transmitted to me a speech made by him in the Academy of Moral and Political Science in Paris, a part of the great establishment of the Institute; in it he says, from experience and various facts, that the plan of dividing the time of factory children between work, schooling, and recreation has been most successful, and he says that those children who have attended school for three hours

483
a day only, being persons of tender age, are advanced in knowledge quite as much in the shorter period as those who nominally give an attendance of six hours. This short time system is one of the improvements that I think should be adopted.
I now come to a question of very great importance, which is, perhaps, likely to prove the grand difficulty of the matter as it at present stands, and that is the question of religious instruction in schools. This is of so much importance that I think it necessary to state what appears to me to be the true principle which should have been adopted by Parliament a long time ago, but which, at all events, should be adopted at the present time. In the olden times before the Reformation there was one Church and of course but one system of education; in the time between the Reformation and the Revolution there was a constant and bitter struggle going on between the Church and Dissenting bodies of various kinds as to the manner in which education should be conducted. By the Toleration Act all these Dissenting bodies were acknowledged and permitted to carry on their services in their own chapels according to their own conscientious views, and schools were established by them throughout the country. It appears to me that from this time there ought to have been this clear separation with regard to Dissenters and the Church—that while the Church had a perfect right to insist upon its own standard and its own formularies in respect of those who had taken Holy Orders in connection with it, the Church had no right whatever to interfere with matters of civil concern, and to deprive Dissenters who had been acknowledged by the State, of any civil right. This distinction was not drawn as late as forty years ago, as we know by the history of the system of registration of births and marriages. Forty or fifty years ago, unless a person had his child baptized in the Church, he could not obtain for that child civil registration; but the act of registering a birth is not an ecclesiastical act, it is the exercise of a civil right; this applied to Dissenters of all kinds. The Baptists could not obtain registration unless the infant was baptized in Church, nor the Unitarians unless they went to the Church and received the blessing in the name of the Holy Trinity, contrary to their special doctrine and belief. In respect of marriages they were similarly circumstanced; they could not have a registration of marriages unless they submitted
484
to the religious ceremony of the Church. By the Act passed thirty-five years ago, registration of births and marriages was made a purely civil act. In France and Italy the ministers of the Established Church have no power in this respect, except the voluntary power of registering marriages. It is entirely a civil act. If we endeavour to apply this maxim to the question of education we are, no doubt, involved in a difficulty; nevertheless, the same principles appear to me to hold good, and that all Dissenters, Baptists, Independents, and Roman Catholics alike, have an equal right to instruction as soon as the nation declares that there shall be national education. A good many years ago, when Lord Melbourne's Government introduced a plan for education by a Committee of the Privy Council, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) quoted a decision of Chief Justice Twining, in the time of Henry IV., as follows:—"La doctrine et information des enfans est chose spirituelle." The noble Earl quoted that, I think, without remembering exactly that at that time all England had but one form of religion. But the noble Earl went on to quote another decision by Chief Justice Holt in the time of William III.
"Without doubt, schoolmasters are, in a great measure, intrusted with the education of youth in principles, and therefore it is necessary they should be of sound doctrine, and in order thereto subject to the regulation of the Ordinary."
No doubt Chief Justice Holt was an eminent authority on the laws of this country; but those who were enemies of toleration were not satisfied with this clear declaration, and in the latter part of the reign of Queen Anne a most curious decision was come to with regard to the education of Dissenters. It was said that Churchmen sent their children to the schools of Dissenters, and that the children were in consequence perverted from Church principles, and that it was therefore necessary to prevent the practice altogether. For this purpose it was resolved that Dissenters should no longer be allowed to keep schools. Some Peers, however, thought that Dissenters should be, at least, allowed to educate their own children. Lord Halifax, Lord Somers, Lord Cowper, and others, argued, I think most justly, against this proposition; and Lord Halifax moved—
"That since the Bill was occasioned, as was suggested, by the Dissenters endeavouring to engross the education of the youth of both persuasions, they might be allowed schools to instruct their own children."

485
This Motion being formed into a Question, was debated nearly three hours. The Lords Cowper and Halifax and some other Peers made several speeches for the affirmative; but the Lord Bolingbroke—at that time a great defender of the Church and of religion—the Earl of Abingdon, and the Lord Chancellor, insisted on the negative, which was at last carried by 62 votes against 48. This was protested against, and the Protest, speaking of Protestant Dissenters, says—
"We should not drive them from us in a matter which, of all others, must most sensibly grieve them—viz., the education of their children, which reduces them to a necessity either of binding them in a way they do not approve, or of leaving them without instruction."
This Protest was signed by all the most eminent men in the House of Lords; it included Somerset, Nottingham, Halifax, Carlisle, Devonshire, Somers, Townshend, Oxford, Buckingham, Cowper, Derby, and the Bishops of Lincoln, Ely, St. Asaph, Bangor, and Llandaff. The Ministry came to an end by the death of Queen Anne. The noble Earl opposite, not following in the footsteps of his ancestor, the Earl of Derby of that day, raised a very curious clamour against the proposal made by Lord Melbourne's Government in 1839. He was so successful that we only carried the power of going into Committee by a majority of 5, and when in Committee we only carried our proposal by a majority of 2. That which a Tory Government contended for in the reign of Queen Anne was again contended for in 1839. We met with so strong an opposition that we had to consider how we might come to an agreement with those who represented the Church. Lord Lansdowne and myself met the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London at Lansdowne House, and an agreement was come to by which the Church was satisfied and the grants were made. Now, the question arises again, when it is proposed, as it has been of late, that there should be an education of the whole people; because if you carry on that education by rates, or if you carry it on by taxes which are paid by all persons, whether Dissenters or Churchmen, it then becomes necessary that you should provide for the education of the whole of the people, and exclude none on account of their religion. This is a principle which must be recognised, and is maintained most strongly in the draft Report which was drawn up by Sir John Pakington, who has
486
always been a great friend of education, who has never concealed his opinions on the subject, and who has manfully, and in a most straightforward manner, on all occasions defended and proposed the most liberal measures with regard to education. In 1865 and 1866, about the time when the present Government was formed, Sir John Pakington, as Chairman of a Committee on this subject, entered very deeply into the question. A great number of witnesses were examined, and at last he drew up a draft Report which in itself deals with the subject in a very able and exhaustive manner, and in which he laid down what he regarded, and what I certainly regard, as a very just principle on this subject. Shortly before this what was called "the Conscience Clause" was adopted, and it has been introduced into five out of seven, or six out of seven, of the forms of the deeds of grants made by the Committee of Education. This clause allows parents who do not wish their children to be taught any particular doctrine to withdraw their children from the schools at the time religious instruction is given. The principle of that clause is, I think, perfectly fair, and it has been, I believe, adopted both in Scotland and Ireland. It is a principle to which the Church in France does not object, and to which the Church in Prussia does not object; indeed, it commends itself to every one on account of its fairness and its justice. It is only justice that those who belong to the Church shall be entitled to have schools to which Dissenters shall not be admitted; but that if admitted they shall be required to abide by the rules therein observed. In the draft Report of the 5th of February, 1866, to which I have just referred, Sir John Pakington says—
"In considering a question of such magnitude as the Conscience Clause your Committee are of opinion that it must be boldly treated, and either adopted as essential to the education of the people or abandoned as inconsistent with the duties of the National Church. It should be regarded as a question whether or not we ought to remove a great and unnecessary impediment to education, and your Committee cannot hesitate as to the opinion they ought to express. They recommend that no building grant shall be made without requiring, as an indispensable condition, that a Conscience Clause shall be inserted in the trust deed; and they further recommend that in any case in which complaint shall be made to the Education Office, and found, upon investigation, to be correct, that the children of Dissenters attending a National School have been constrained either to submit to religious teaching to which their parents object, or to attend the church or the church

487
Sunday school, the Educational Minister should be empowered, at his discretion, to suspend the annual grant to such school."
Now, that statement is very clear and straightforward; it lays down a principle which appears to me to be just to all parties, and I think it is useless to consider the extent of education or to introduce the subject of education to the consideration of Parliament unless Parliament is prepared to assent to a declaration of that kind, and to enforce it upon all those who are to receive the grant. There is only one other course by which all parties could be reconciled, but that is a course which does not recommend itself to my mind nearly as well us the Conscience Clause. It is that of having secular schools and secular education. I should be sorry if it were found necessary to exclude religious teaching in schools. At the same time, I cannot think that even if you had secular schools you would at all diminish the amount of religion in the country. It would be a great misfortune not to have religion taught in the schools; but if education extended all over the country you would find, I think, that that education included religion, and included morality, although they were not directly or expressly taught in the schools. And I do not say this without authority. A gentleman of great intelligence, Mr. Fraser, has made an examination of the American schools, and reported that he found that there was no system of general inspection. He pointed out, also, that though many of the schools were undoubtedly very good, others were exceedingly inferior, and in an able Report he pointed out in what those evils consisted. To the American schools, however, as a whole, he bears the following testimony:—
"What we can borrow from America, remembering the difference of our social circumstances and the different principles that animate both our ecclesiastical and civil polity, I can hardly say. The thing, however, which I should like to borrow, and which we might certainly borrow without revolutionizing our institutions, is the noble public spirit, almost universally prevalent, which considers that to contribute to the general education of the people is the first duty, as of the commonwealth at large, so of every citizen in particular, and which places religion, morality, and intelligence in the forefront of the elements that constitute the strength and guarantee the prosperity of a nation."
I think it is an extraordinary and a most striking tribute to the excellence of the American schools that this noble public spirit exists, and in particular that the system "places religion, morality, and in-
488
telligence in the forefront of the elements that constitute the strength and guarantee the prosperity of a nation." After this testimony therefore I cannot believe that even if you were obliged to adopt secular schools in this country, owing to the refusal of the Church to adopt the Conscience Clause, or from the dislike of others to such a clause, you would by any means lose the guarantee for the inculcation of religion and morality which you at present possess. If persons belonging to the Church object to the Conscience Clause, it is due to them to say that if their religious convictions compelled them to reject the Conscience Clause the State would not insist upon their adopting it; but then, on the other hand, the State has its own duty to perform, and could not, on account of the unwillingness of the Church, to be fair to all classes of the people, relinquish its great duty, which is to educate the people of this country without reference to their religious opinions. What they may do I know not; but I find among those who gave evidence before the Committee of which Sir John Pakington was Chairman was a gentleman well known in this country, who, as a clergyman, held a very strong opinion and objected to any system of education in which the ordinances of the Church were not adopted. What he said was this—
"Here are children brought into this school, and they are taught no religion. No catechism is taught them, and no formularies are taught them, and the utmost that is demanded is that at some time or other in the day they read the Bible. Now reading the Bible is not teaching a child religion."
I entirely disagree from that opinion of Archdeacon Denison. I am myself the President of a Society—the British and Foreign School Society—in whose schools the Bible and the Bible alone is taught—they teach Christianity pure and simple, they teach the doctrines which Christ and His Apostles taught, and I own it appears to me that the doctrines of Christianity are much more clearly taught in the Bible in the words of Christ himself than in any formularies of the Church of England or of any other Church. For instance, in the Catechism the words of Christ are paraphrased in a manner at once incomplete and inaccurate; and I therefore think it far better that the Bible should be read than that these formularies should be exclusively used. That, however, is a matter entirely for the Church itself to consider.

489
If the Church thinks that its formularies are necessary, I would not interfere with that opinion; but I will say that the public money should not be given to those who, as they will not educate the whole of the people, are not entitled to the public grants or to the rates, because as public grants as well as rates are procured from taxes levied upon the whole population, Dissenters as well as Churchmen, there is no justice whatever in giving instruction partially by not admitting the Conscience Clause. Therefore, with regard to all those bodies which now receive the grants—the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Wesleyans, and the British and Foreign School Society, which is not denominational—I should say the Conscience Clause ought to be adopted, and I go the whole length of the assertion made by Sir John Pakington upon this subject. His proposal, I am sorry to say, was not adopted, and Sir Stafford Northcote proposed a short Report as they could not come to any decision upon the question, and the draft Report of Sir John Pakington was thrown aside. I have always been of the same opinion with Sir John Pakington. I used to be opposed by Mr. Hadfield and those who declared that the State ought not to contribute anything for the support of schools; but I am happy to say that the great body to which he belongs, the Congregational Dissenters, although they agree with him in insisting upon the voluntary principle, have of late yielded upon this subject, and have come to the conviction that they ought to accept the grants. This, therefore, is another inducement to adopt this plan at the present time. I have therefore come to this conclusion with regard to the first Resolution that there ought to be a larger extension and a great improvement in school education; that the numbers who are now excluded ought to be included in our system of education; that every child has a right to the blessings of education, and that it is the duty of the State to regard and maintain that right; that the diffusion of knowledge ought not to be hindered by religious differences, nor should the early employment of the young in labour be allowed to deprive them of education. With regard to these last words of the Resolution I have maintained that the course which has been adopted for more than the last thirty years in factory labour and education might be advantageously extended, not only to all manufacturing classes, but to the agricultural class,
490
so that there might be schools established within convenient distances in which the children might be kept in school only three hours, having the rest of the day at their disposal for their labour.
These being the principles which must be adopted by Parliament if they are to extend our system of education, the next Resolution which I propose is this—
"That it is the Opinion of this House that Parliament and Government should aid in the Education of the Middle Classes by providing for the better Administration of Charitable Endowments."
With reference to this Resolution I have to say that the noble Lord near me (Earl Stanhope) is at the head of a Commission which has been making inquiries into this subject, and which I understand will soon present its Report. I trust that that Report will be laid before Parliament in February next, and that we shall be able to adopt the view, or a modification of the view, which the Commission may entertain upon the subject of this Resolution. Under these circumstances, I shall not enter into any particulars upon this part of the question until after the presentation of that Report.
I next propose a third Resolution—
"That it is the Opinion of this House that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge may be made more useful to the Nation by the Removal of Restrictions, and by the better Distribution of their large Revenues for Purposes of Instruction in connection with the said Universities."
I have left out of my Resolution the words "by the appointment of a Commission," because the House of Commons has already gone very far into the question as to how the revenues of the Universities should be dealt with, and therefore I think they will be able to legislate upon it without a fresh Commission being appointed to make further inquiries with reference to it. I do not suppose that any person now objects to the removal of restrictions which debar all persons who do not believe in the efficacy of the formularies of the Established Church from taking their degrees, and from participating in the benefits which those degrees confer, and I also hope that there will be no very serious objections on the part of the various Colleges to grant their Fellowships to persons who may not belong to the Church of England. One or two matters of principle are involved in this subject. In the first place, there is the question whether these Universities are National institutions, or whether they belong solely

491
to the Church. Following the principle which I have already stated—that education in science, art, and languages is not a matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction nor of religious instruction, I think the whole nation should have the benefit of these Universities. The only way to enable all to share in the benefits is to give every one unrestricted admission to the Universities; and secondly, by not limiting the rewards of learning solely to those who have made classics and mathematics their study, but to extend them to those who are proficient in the physical sciences—which since these Universities were founded have made such astonishing progress—and in the history, literature, and laws of this country. It would be somewhat disgraceful if a knowledge of the laws of the country, which Sir William Blackstone taught with such eminent ability in the University of Oxford, did not form a necessary part of education; and therefore I think that those who make them their study, should be entitled to all the benefit which taking a degree can confer. Another proposition to which I wish to draw attention is that University education ought to be made cheaper. The expenses of a University education are so considerable that a great proportion of the people of moderate means are not able to take advantage of it in this country as they are in Scotland.
The last proposal I have to make to your Lordships is—
"That the Appointment of a Minister of Education by the Crown, with a seat in the Cabinet, would, in the Opinion of this House, be conducive to the Public Benefit."
If Parliament were to adopt a great scheme of the nature I have proposed—if they were to make education commensurate with the wants and greatness of the nation—I think it will be admitted that there should be in this, as in other countries, a Minister of Education, who would be capable of taking into consideration all affairs relating to education, and whose whole attention should be devoted to the furtherance and improvement of our educational system.
Having said this much upon this most important question I will not longer occupy your Lordships' time further than most earnestly and emphatically to express my conviction that not only the future promotion of education in England, not only some advantages which thereby this country may acquire, but, in fact, the whole future of this country depends upon our
492
adopting a large and wide and unsectarian system of education, which will reach to the highest and go down to the lowest. Your Lordships last Session consented to a great measure which extended very much further than had heretofore been done—the right of voting for Members of Parliament. Your Lordships well know that in the changes that have taken place such power has been given to the House of Commons that neither your Lordships nor any other power in the country can successfully resist a decision upon any great question which may be arrived at by a large majority of that House, should that division be supported by the opinion of the people. Now, I hope your Lordships will consider that it is a matter of no slight importance whether the Bill which you passed last year turns out in its effects to the benefit of the people or to their disadvantage and loss. If the House of Commons has that great power which I have stated—and which nobody denies—what a misfortune would it be if those who had the power of electing them should be so ignorant, so easily tempted by bribes and treating, as to degrade the great power you have given them, misuse the franchise you have bestowed on them, and send to the House of Commons a set of persons unequal to the care of this great Empire, unequal to the preservation of this great country! I am persuaded that you run no small danger of that kind if there should appear to be great numbers of persons who are so ignorant and so poor that they may be easily misled and deluded; but I am convinced, on the other hand, that if the people of this country—if the householders of this country—are well and properly educated, you may rely upon them for sending a House of Commons not only equal, but superior in wisdom to any that has hitherto sat within its walls. My persuasion is that great as your Empire is, great as your power has been, vast as your fame has been all over the world for having established a model of liberty and a constitution of unequalled wisdom, your fame will rise still higher, and your prosperity will be still greater, if those who have to elect the House of Commons are fit for that duty, and if they perform that duty without fear or favour, without listening to the attempt of any party to corrupt their votes, and really send a House of Commons worthy of the country to which they belong, worthy of the constituency they represent, and worthy of the Parliament to

493
which they have been elected. Such being my convictions, I heartily commend to your Lordships these Resolutions.
Moved to resolve,

1. That in the Opinion of this House the Education of the Working Classes in England and Wales ought to be extended and improved: Every Child has a moral Right to the Blessings of Education, and it is the Duty of the State to guard and maintain that Right. In the Opinion of this House the Diffusion of Knowledge ought not to be hindered by Religious Differences; nor should the early Employment of the Young in Labour be allowed to deprive them of Education:

2. That it is the Opinion of this House that Parliament and Government should aid in the Education of the Middle Classes by providing for the better Administration of Charitable Endowments:

3. That it is the Opinion of this House that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge may be made more useful to the Nation by the Removal of Restrictions, and by the better Distribution of their large Revenues for Purposes of Instruction in connection with the said Universities:

4. That the Appointment of a Minister of Education by the Crown, with a Seat in the Cabinet, would, in the Opinion of this House, be conducive to the Public Beneat.—(The Earl Russell.)

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I assure your Lordships that it is with no small sense of responsibility, and with no slight degree of diffidence, that I rise to reply to the remarks which have fallen from the noble Earl on a subject with which he is so intimately acquainted, to which he has given such earnest, and, I have no doubt, such conscientious attention, and on which he has had such vast experience. The difficulty might have been diminished, had the noble Earl proposed either in his Motion or in his remarks anything definite for your Lordships' consideration; but, on the contrary, in listening to the noble Earl's remarks, I have failed to discover anything of a character sufficiently definite to lead your Lordships to any conclusive opinion, or to arrive at any practical result on the question. So far as I understand the remarks of the noble Earl, he has entered into a very able and elaborate discussion of the various topics of education; but, at the same time, that discussion has been of so general a character, and he has himself admitted that many of the questions are still connected with so much doubt and uncertainty, require such great consideration, and are open to such variety of opinion, that it is almost impossible to come to any definite opinion in regard to them. The difficulty of meeting the noble Earl's propositions is increased when I consider the mode in
494
which they are brought forward; and I am not clear whether he intends these Resolutions to be a challenge to the Government to state what they are going to do on the subject, or as a trumpet-note sounded by the noble Earl to his own adherents to show what he is prepared to do if again called to power. In the first instance, if intended as a challenge to the Government for a statement as to what they are prepared to do on the subject, I think your Lordships will agree with me that the time is singularly ill-chosen for putting forward these Resolutions. Your Lordships are aware that this is an exceptional Session of Parliament. Under ordinary circumstances the Government would now be engaged in considering the measures they might propound to Parliament at an early period of the coming year, and it is somewhat unusual at such a period, assembled, as we are, almost accidentally, to challenge the Government to state what they are prepared to do on one of the most momentous and most difficult questions that could engage the attention of the Government. But if the noble Earl intends to put forward the Resolutions as an indication of what his own policy would be—as picturing forth what, were he again placed in the position of the head of the Government, he would be inclined to propose and carry out—then I must say I think it a great pity that a question of this nature should be reduced to the level of a mere party watchword, and that these propositions should be used by the noble Earl as a standard for rallying round him his political adherents. Although I have some difficulty in replying at this period, and under present circumstances, to the remarks of the noble Earl, there are certain points on which a good deal may be said, and now I would ask your Lordships to bear with me, while I point out some of the fallacies into which the noble Earl has fallen. One of the first cases put forward by the noble Earl is the presumed deficiency in the existing means of education, and the large numbers of our population who are not sufficiently brought within the means of instruction. The noble Earl put forward a statement which I believe he derived from the Report of the Chairman of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend Sir John Pakington—not the Report of the Committee, but a draft Report prepared by the Chairman but not adopted by the Committee—as to the number of unaided parishes amounting

495
to 11,024. But a very serious error has been committed. I do not say it is a positive error, but a mis-statement equally calculated to lead to erroneous conclusions. It arises from the manner in which these Returns were drawn up. The fact is this—the parishes stated in the public Return as "unaided" are the Poor Law parishes—parishes recognised by the Poor Law for Poor Law purposes. But the number of ecclesiastical or school parishes is very considerably less, and the results of that difference are very striking. The total number of Poor Law parishes returned under the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, is 14,877; the entire number of ecclesiastical or school parishes 13,763. But when we come to the proportion of the aided parishes, comparing the Poor Law parishes with the ecclesiastical or school parishes, we find the school parishes considerably in excess of the Poor Law parishes, while the school parishes unaided have very considerably diminished. The figures stand thus:—Whereas 3,853 Poor Law parishes are being aided, the real fact is that 4,897 ecclesiastical or school parishes are receiving grants; and while in the public Return the unaided parishes are stated at 11,024, the real number of school parishes unaided is 8,866. And when we come to parishes with less than 500 population, where the greatest amount of destitution is felt, we find that whereas the Poor Law parishes unaided, having a population under 500, amount to 7,996, the school parishes unaided, with population under 500, amount to 5,392. That was the state of things in 1863–4. But in 1866, to which the Report of the Committee of Council laid on the table reaches, I find that the total number of Poor Law parishes unaided has been reduced from 11,024 to 10,404; and giving the same proportion of difference between the Poor Law parishes and school parishes, the entire number of unaided parishes is 8,368. Then, when we come to the ecclesiastical parishes with a population under 500, they amount in 1867 to 8,219, of which there are aided 924, and unaided 7,295. The population of the unaided parishes is 1,772,276, and the children of school age, 563,849. But it would be an erroneous conclusion to suppose that all these parishes which are unaided have no schools at all, for the unaided parishes are in many instances very well supplied with schools. I will give an instance from the Report of one Inspector, Mr. Bellairs. He is the Inspector for Buckinghamshire,
496
Berkshire, and Oxfordshire. That gentleman states that out of a total of 429 parishes in his district, all of which have schools, 141 are aided schools and 288 are unaided; but that they all contain Church of England schools supported by voluntary contributions. [Earl RUSSELL: I took Mr. Bruce's statement of the number of unaided schools.] But the noble Earl, in stating that there were no aided schools in certain parishes, may have led your Lordships to suppose that there was no education for the children in those parishes at all; and the point I wish to impress on your Lordships is that, although there are no aided schools in particular parishes, it would be wrong to conclude that nothing is done in them for the cause of education. There are in the district I have just adverted to, besides 141 which received grants, 288 unaided parishes; but every one of those parishes contains a Church school, supported by voluntary contributions from the resident proprietor or the parishioners generally. With respect to this point I will read to your Lordships the statement of another School Inspector, Mr. Capel, the Inspector for Warwickshire—
"By a comparison of two independent returns—one forming part of the population tables compiled after the Census of 1861, and another, furnished in the same year to the editors of the Worcester Diocesan Calendar—I am convinced that in the Warwickshire villages very few children are growing up without any schooling, and that, on any ordinary day, scarcely any between five and fifteen years of age would be found to be neither at work nor on the books of some school."
I think it only fair, when your Lordships hear various statements about the great want of education in the country, to state that we must not form our conclusions merely from returns of parishes aided by the Parliamentary grant, for there are a great number of schools not receiving State aid which are regularly and silently carrying on the work of education and diffusing those blessings of education which the noble Earl—and no doubt your Lordships—desire to see spread among the population. The noble Earl has said that he wishes to see the means of education increased. I think the noble Earl must admit that these means are being increased and extended. Having pointed out the fallacy in the noble Earl's statement, I will now endeavour to let your Lordships understand what is really being done in regard to the progress of education generally; and though it must be admitted that there

497
are spots where the means of education are still deficient, yet it would be an unfair conclusion to suppose that the country is in such a defective state with respect to education as the noble Earl attempted to describe, and that under the operation of the measure of last Session extending the franchise there would be the greatest possible danger unless the great mass of the people should be educated. I do not mean to say that there may not be room for improvement; but still, I repeat a great deal is being done, and from what is being effected we may fairly hope that, before many years are over, the state of education in this country will bear an advantageous comparison with its condition in any other country of Europe. By a Return presented to your Lordships not long ago, it appears that in 1859 there were 5,531 institutions receiving aid from the Government, with an average attendance of 674,602 scholars, and there were 757,082 present at inspection. In 1866, the number of institutions had risen to 7,081; the number of children in average attendance was 871,309; and the number present at inspection was 1,086,812. With such a progress in the course of seven years, I see no need for entertaining the discouraging ideas which seem to possess the noble Earl. I will now show your Lordships how far the spread of education is overtaking the increase of population—and that is the real point to consider; for if it does not overtake the increase of population, then we are going back; and if it does, then we may hope to arrive at a time when, with improved means, we shall be able to say that there is no child in the country without education. The following is a statement made to me in reference to the increase of supply for educational wants as compared with the increase of population:—
"It cannot be denied that great progress has been made since 1861, the date when the Royal Commissioners reported on the subject. The annually aided schools in England and Wales in the year ending 31st of August, 1860–1, were 5,141; the average number of children attending them, 712,193. In the year ending 31st of August, 1865–6, the schools had risen to 6,694, the scholars to 903,561. In other words, within five years the annually aided schools had increased 30·2 per cent, or at the rate of 6·04 per cent per annum, and the scholars 26·8 per cent, or at the rate of 5·36 per cent per annum. The population of England and Wales increased in the last decennial period from 17,927,609 to 20,066,224, or at the rate of 1·19 per cent per annum. It is evident, therefore, that the annually aided schools and
498
scholars have been increasing five times as fast as the population."
Therefore, with these facts before us, I do not feel all that discouragement in reference to education in this country which the noble Earl appears to entertain. We must also remember that we have a system at work which the noble Earl himself was instrumental not only in bringing into operation, but also in fostering, and the noble Earl cannot be ignorant of the great improvement in the Department of the Educational Committee of the Privy Council. In 1856, the noble Earl moved some Resolutions connected with Education, and the first of them was to the effect that the Minutes of the Educational Committee of the Privy Council should be brought into a more intelligible and codified form. That has been done, and a Revised Code was prepared, and is now generally acted on. A great improvement has taken place in the mode in which the Parliamentary Grant is distributed, and in the quality of the education given. I will ask your Lordships to allow me to read a statement of one of the School Inspectors with respect to the effects of the Revised Code. Mr. Parez states in his general Report for 1866—
"The principles of the Revised Code, its advantages and its drawbacks, have been so often discussed and re-discussed, that I think it will be sufficient for me to record very briefly the results of my observation of its working. That the searching individual examination which it prescribes compels teachers to make the education of their schools, as far as it goes, more sound and thorough, and to bestow especial pains upon their less-gifted scholars is allowed on all hands; its power to exhibit the worthless character of showy and superficial teaching is unquestionable, and the good it has effected by this power very substantial."
It is not a matter of little importance that the quality of the education should be satisfactory to the public generally in return for the large amount of money expended in the shape of the Parliamentary Grant; and your Lordships must not forget that part of the scheme of the Educational Committee of the Privy Council is to provide, not only the best kind of education for all those brought within their reach, but also a class of trained teachers, who should communicate the instruction hereafter to be afforded in the schools in the best possible manner and under the best possible regulations; and as the noble Earl alluded to pupil-teachers, it is a remarkable fact, strongly attested by Inspectors and others well acquainted with the subject, that the deficiency in the

499
number of pupil-teachers, though it may be in some degree attributable to no payment being made to them, yet is also due to the superior education they have received in the schools; for as soon as they have acquired a good education they take to other employments and decline to follow the profession of schoolmasters. Then, as to the impediments which may exist in carrying out the present provisions of the Privy Council with regard to promoting the spread of education throughout the country, it cannot be denied that the objections which have been taken to them in some quarters are not without a certain amount of foundation. It has been urged that assistance is provided where assistance is already forthcoming, and that we do not initiate education in a district, but leave that to be done by the voluntary efforts of individuals. But, although there may be some disadvantages connected with such a system as this, the benefits derived from it are so great that I, for one, should be unwilling to do anything which would in any way tend to discourage or diminish those voluntary efforts by means of which so vast a sum is now collected and so much accomplished towards giving a sound religious education to the children throughout the country. Upon that subject I ought, I think, to remind the noble Earl of the remarks which he himself made in 1853, when stating in the House of Commons the views of the Government with respect to improving the system of the Privy Council. The noble Earl then commented on the amount of voluntary subscriptions sent in by individuals, and the amount which was obtained in the shape of school pence from persons who paid for the education of their children. He said—
"Now, there is one of those sources of income to which I would wish to call the attention of the House—it is the item of £413,044 derived from the school pence. I have no doubt that that is an under-estimate; and I think if we were to say that £500,000, or half-a-million, had been contributed from school pence, we should not have an excess in estimating that sum. Now, I think the House will feel that, considering that half a century ago there were none other than Sunday schools which could be called public schools for the poor, the result of these efforts is striking, and likewise satisfactory. That the people of this country—above all, that the working and poorer classes of this country—should contribute £500,000 a year towards the expense of instructing their children, I think the House must consider a most gratifying circumstance. I confess it induces me to think that the steps which we ought to take should be such as would rather strengthen and improve the system of education which has grown up chiefly
500
by voluntary efforts than attempt to set up anything in its place which, while it disturbs the existing system, might fail in supplying its place by anything like an equal sum for the support of the instruction of the poor."—[3 Hansard, cxxv. 528.]
Now, I fully endorse that sentiment, and I trust never to do anything which would impede the voluntary action of individuals to promote education in this country and to render it more effective by every means in their power. In regard to some of the wants to which the noble Earl has called attention, I do not deny that in some places, especially in boroughs, great wants and deficiencies exist. The numbers may not be so great as the noble Earl seems to suppose; but it is at the same time, I fear, true that there is in many large boroughs a class of children whose parents do not, either from poverty or indifference, send them to school, The noble Earl himself at one time thought that it would be impossible to raise rates from persons in the rural districts, but that they might be raised in boroughs. I am not prepared to say what steps the Government may take with regard to this portion of the subject; but, as the result of my own observation, I may state that there is a class of children in boroughs which requires special attention, and I am ready to admit that in any measures which may be adopted by Parliament in reference to education that is one of the first points to which their notice should be directed. The noble Earl, I may add, went on to make some very lengthened observations in reference to the Conscience Clause. I was very much surprised at the tone of his remarks on that subject, because it would seem from his argument as if there were no such clause in existence. Now, the Conscience Clause is one of those modifications of the Privy Council system which has obtained the sanction of the great body of the public, and against its present application no very general or valid complaint is, I believe, made. It cannot be denied that when the clause was first introduced, and applied to the Church of England schools, the clergy felt themselves considerably aggrieved by its operation. The objections to it have, however, I think, very much subsided. The Reports of the Inspectors, indeed, seem to lead to that conclusion. Mr. Hadley, a very valuable member of that body, who lately died, says in his Report—
"As a result of my experience, I may, I think, fairly state that the supposed difficulty of recon-

501
ciling the consciences of the clergy to the now famous clause introduced into the deeds of management of certain schools has not been felt by the majority of the clergy in my district. Most of the schools—indeed, nearly all in the large towns—are worked according to the principle of the clause, and I have never heard of any real difficulty in the working of it. Neither have I heard of any clergy in my district being debarred from applying for a building grant from fear of having it imposed upon them."
I find, too, that the sums voted by the Committee of Council for building purposes being in 1865 £18,882, and in 1866 £24,222, the sum granted in 1865 for building purposes for Church of England schools was only £15,458, while it amounted in 1866 to £20,445. It must be borne in mind that the principle on which the Conscience Clause is based is acted upon in almost every school. There are very few schools which are not conducted exactly on that principle. The instances in boroughs are now, I believe, very rare in which a clergyman thinks it to be his duty to compel a child to receive any religious instruction to which its parents object, and Mr. Hadley stated that most of the schools in his district are worked upon that principle. What the clergy have an objection to, however, I understand is what they are disposed to look upon as the onesidedness of the clause as it works. If the Conscience Clause is to be just in its application it must operate equally in giving security, not only to the parents of the children but to the managers of schools. While it allows the parent every possible latitude in withdrawing his child from the influence of any religious teaching to which he may object, it ought also to provide that the schools should not be obliged to lose their distinctive character, and that denominational teaching in them should not be interfered with. As far as I can learn, one of the strongest objections of the clergy to the Conscience Clause is that it is thought to tend to destroy the denominational character of the school, and that a parent might under its operation interfere so far as practically to do away with religious teaching altogether. The clause therefore, in my opinion, if it is to be rendered generally applicable, must bear equally in the two directions which I have indicated—it must give protection and liberty to the child, and secure the denominational character of the school. The noble Earl, in his first Resolution, says—
"The Diffusion of Knowledge ought not to be
502
hindered by Religious differences; nor should the early Employment of the Young in Labour be allowed to deprive them of Education."
The noble Earl has, I think, fallen into considerable error in the statement which he has made on this subject, because he has spoken as if Parliament had not already done a great deal in requiring a certain amount of education to be given antecedent to the employment of children in labour. He says that it would be a very great advantage if Parliament would extend the action of the Factory Acts to other trades. That, I would remind him, has been already done. An Act was passed last Session, of the passing of which he does not seem to be aware, extending the operation of the Factory Acts to all workshops. Under that Act no child, after the year 1870, under eight years of age, can be employed at all, and no child between eight and thirteen, unless he can produce a certificate from the master of a certificated school that he has attended that school for ten hours in the week; every sort of manual labour, except agricultural labour, being thus included within the scope of the law. As to the employment of children in agricultural labour, the noble Earl ought to be aware that that subject is under the consideration of a Royal Commission at the present moment, the terms of whose Commission are these—
"We do hereby enjoin you, or either of you, to inquire into and report on the employment of children, young persons, and women in agriculture, for the purpose of ascertaining to what extent and with what modifications the principles of the Factory Acts can be adopted for the regulation of such employment, end especially with a view to the better education of such children."
Under those circumstances it would, I think, be highly inexpedient that your Lordships should come to any conclusion on this subject of the employment of children in agricultural labour until you have the Report of the Commission before you. I now pass to the other Resolutions of the noble Earl. On the second he does not lay much stress. Then the noble Earl drew attention to the subject of certificated teachers, and, indeed, I interrupted him with the object of eliciting his views upon that subject. With regard to certificated teachers I quite agree with the opinion frequently expressed by the noble Earl, and still, I believe, entertained by him, as to the great advantage of that system. It is, I think, the basis on which Parliamentary grants ought to be made. I perfectly

503
agree, too, with the noble Earl that it is necessary to give not only a certain kind of education, but the best kind—of such a quality as will repay the expense and outlay incurred by the State in giving it. But it is, no doubt, equally true that the Revised Code has introduced to a certain extent a new principle in regard to the mode of payment, and that payment is now made according to results; and though I do not think the State ought to depart from the principle on which grants have hitherto been given—that is, principally and essentially, for the promotion of education imparted by certificated teachers—I am, nevertheless, of opinion that it may be a question worthy of the consideration of the Government whether, without impugning the principle of certificated teachers, some modified assistance might not be given to schools which come up in all other respects to the requirements of the Privy Council—not with a view of enabling them to substitute a system of teaching different from that which has received the sanction of Parliament, and been recommended by practice and experience, but in order to aid them in struggling through their preliminary difficulties, and in bringing them up ultimately to such a state that they can employ a certificated teacher. I desire it to be understood, however, that I state this as my own individual opinion, without pledging the Government to any particular course. It has been said, with a great deal of justice and truth, that if some latitude were given in this direction it would lead to the employment of more certificated teachers than are employed at present, because the very fact of a certain amount of grant being given to a school which had not a certificated teacher, and which was consequently open to inspection, would render so apparent the deficiencies arising from the want of a certificated teacher, that the managers would be induced by the failures in the examinations to employ such a teacher in order to raise the standard of the education. This subject has not been lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government I can assure the noble Earl, and though I am not prepared to state their views upon it, I am bound to admit that it is a subject in regard to which a fair and impartial inquiry may be instituted. With respect to the third Resolution of the noble Earl—namely—
"That it is the opinion of this House that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge may be
504
made more useful to the nation by the removal of restrictions,"
I have only to remark that, as the noble Earl has himself stated, a Committee of the House of Commons is considering this question. But the noble Earl, in the first instance, told your Lordships that a Royal Commission ought to be appointed to consider it. Now, as a Royal Commission was appointed about thirteen years ago to investigate the condition of the Universities, nothing could be more indiscreet at the present time than to appoint another Commission to revise the work then done, and to declare the reforms effected by the previous Commission inadequate to the wants of the times, and inefficient for the proper education of the country. I, for one, will never agree to such a proposal. I believe that the changes which have been made in the University staff, and which are from time to time being introduced in consequence of the Report of the Commissioners appointed about thirteen years ago, have been productive of great benefit. In my opinion it will be far better to leave Oxford and Cambridge to their own action, and to wait until changes are effected in consequence of public opinion and the enlarged views of the persons connected with those Universities, than to endeavour to bring about changes by means of legislative enactments. Indeed, nothing can be more prejudicial to the Universities than constantly pressing changes upon them. With regard to the third Resolution of the noble Earl, respecting the appointment of a Minister of Education by the Crown, I confess that is a subject far too wide for me to express any opinion upon. I suppose, however, that the noble Earl, by placing this Resolution at the end of the others, intended it to be a logical sequence that a Minister of the Crown should undertake all the various duties which the previous Resolutions shadow forth. That may or may not be a politic and wise proposition; but, my Lords, I, for one, am certainly not prepared to advocate it. I cannot but think, for instance, that with regard to the Universities it would be a change in the wrong direction if they were to be ruled in any other manner than that now sanctioned by their statutes. There are very great advantages in the arrangement under which any change in the statutes of the Universities comes under the notice of the Committee of the Privy Council; and I do not see how, even if a Minister of Education were appointed to control matters

505
of this kind by his sole Ministerial authority, many of the advantages accruing under the present system could be maintained. No doubt this question is one of great importance, and one which every Government ought to take into consideration; but in replying to the noble Earl on the present occasion, I must say that I myself have very great objections to the appointment of a Minister of Education. There is another reason which occurs to me against the proposal of the noble Earl. In the year 1856 the industrial and reformatory schools under the control of the Home Office, and the schools under the Poor Law Board and the War Office, were all placed under the direction and supervision of the Committee of Council on Education; but in practice it was found impossible to carry out the arrangement, and the result showed that schools relating to particular departments were best administered under the supervision of those departments. I do not think it is necessary for me to detain your Lordships longer. I can only assure your Lordships that the question of education, important as it is, and connected as it is, and must continue to be with the highest interests of the country, is one which Her Majesty's Government have not lost sight of. Indeed, the noble Earl opposite might have learnt that from a sentence which occurred in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session. Her Majesty's Government have the question of public elementary education under their consideration, and as long as I am connected with the office which I now have the honour to hold, I shall feel it my duty to bestow on this subject my best and most earnest attention. I cannot say how deeply I feel it to be a question on which the most vital interests of the nation depend; but in addressing myself to its consideration, I shall never deem it my duty to do anything which would disturb the denominational system, which I believe to be the keystone of the education of this country, which I believe to be intimately associated with the religious feelings, with the habits, and with the sympathies of the people, and conducive to their best interests in promoting a sound and healthy education, and in making this country—as I hope it ever will make it—great and glorious and happy. I trust your Lordships will not pass these Resolutions; but as I do not altogether dissent from many of the propositions contained in them, I will ask your Lordships to agree to the Previous Question.
Then a Question being stated, the previous Question was proposed, "Whether the said Question shall be now put?"
EARL RUSSELL, in reply, said, that in introducing the Resolutions, he was actuated solely by a sense of public duty, and the sole object he sought by them was to obtain a declaration of opinion that the time had arrived when the education of the country ought to be extended so as to embrace every child in it, and that religious questions ought not to stand in the way of such extension. His statements as to assisted and unassisted schools were founded upon those of Mr. Bruce. He could not say that the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) afforded much reason to hope that the Government would act on the propositions he had submitted; but he hoped that if any measure were introduced by the Government in the House of Commons, it would be sent up to this House in time to allow their Lordships ample opportunity to discuss it. He would not divide the House on his Motion.
Question put.
Resolved in the Negative.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.