Sitting of 27 July 1869

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report— Salmon Fisheries [No. 361]; General Valuation, &c. (Ireland) [No. 362].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 26] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Parochial Schools (Scotland) (re-comm.) [215]—R.p.
Third Reading—Metropolitan Poor Act (1867) Amendment * [53], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

INDIA—RAILWAY EXTENSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, If the Railway to Darjeeling has been recommended by the Government of India; and, if so, whether it is to be an extension of the East India Railway from Rajmahal, or of the Eastern Bengal Line of Railway from Kooshtea?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend, I have to say that an extension of the Eastern Bengal Railway to Darjeeling has been recommended by the Government of India, and that the Secretary of State in Council has sanctioned a preliminary survey of that line from Kooshtea.

  NAVY—CHANNEL AND MEDITERRANEAN FLEETS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the present Board of Admiralty have considered the proposal understood to have been contemplated by their predecessors, of bringing together the Channel and Mediterranean Fleets during a part of the summer months.
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply, Sir, to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that, although I have no official information on the subject, I have reason to believe that the late Board of Admiralty had this proposal before them, and received it favourably; but I imagine that there was some difficulty in carrying it out in consequence of the two Commanders-in-Chief being Vice Admirals of nearly the same standing, and of the objection which might be felt to place one under the orders of the other.
  798
  We are much impressed with the advantage of bringing the two fleets together for some weeks, and we have it in contemplation, if the state of Public Business permits, to get over the difficulty I have alluded to by my gallant Friend (Sir Sydney Dacres) and myself going out with the Channel Fleet towards the end of August, hoisting the Admiralty flag in the flag-ship—or one of the ships of the squadron—and joining the Mediterranean Fleet at Gibraltar for a cruize.

SCOTLAND—WATERNISH CHURCH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAMERONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will inform the House upon what authority he admitted the accuracy of a statement to the effect that the attendance in the quoad sacra parish church of Waternish, Isle of Skye, consists of only two old men; and, whether his attention has been drawn to a counter statement, that the congregation in that church varies from thirty to 120; that more Baptisms and other ordinances of the Church have been hitherto performed by the minister of the parish than by any clergyman of another denomination; and that if a young man were settled there the attendance in the parish church might vie with that of many congregations in the North?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the statement he made was based upon the authority of a Petition which was signed by 194 male residents in the parish. It contained the signatures of the only two heritors in the parish. One was Mr. Gordon M'Leod, and the other a gentleman personally known to himself. The Petition contained the statement that the whole population were members of the Free Church, with the exception of two old men; one of whom was over seventy, and the other over sixty, who availed themselves of all favourable opportunities of attending the preaching of the Free Church ministers. He was bound to say that his hon. Friend had furnished him with a statement of a clergyman who had preached in the parish—to the effect that the congregation occasionally numbered from sixty to 120. Since then he had received a letter from Mr. Gordon M'Leod, saying that the attendance on certain special occasions reached ten or

  799
  twelve, five or six of whom consisted of the minister's family. It was impossible for him to reconcile this conflict of testimony, and he could only give both statements.

SCOTLAND—THE CUMBRAE LIGHTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRIEVEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the revenue of the Cumbrae Lights, in the River Clyde, which arises from tolls upon shipping, amounted in the year ending 31st May 1869, to £9,710 13 s. 8d, whilst the expenditure for maintenance and management of the Lights amounted only to £1,341 7s. 9d, and that the surplus, amounting to £8,369 5s. 11 d., is divided between the Glasgow and Greenock Harbour Trusts in the proportions of five-sixths and one-sixth respectively; and, whether the Board of Trade can take any steps to put a stop to this anomalous state of things?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the subject the hon. Member has referred to, and I believe he has correctly stated the application of the Clyde Light Dues under the authority of a local Act. I need hardly say that the policy advocated by the Board of Trade for many years past has been entirely opposed to such anomalies, and if the parties locally interested will bring before Parliament a fair and reasonable measure for putting an end to it the Board of Trade will render them any assistance it can.

INDIA—ROUTE TO CHINA, &c.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he objects to lay upon the Table of the House, Papers relating to the route of Captain W. C. McLeod, from Moulmein to the frontiers of China, and to the route of Dr. Richardson on his fourth mission to the Shan provinces of Burma, or Extracts from the same?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, my attention having been called to the documents by an hon. Member, I found that, so far back as 1867, Colonel Yule wrote of them in the following terms:—
  "As the only modern records of visits to the
  800
  obscure regions of which they treat, and the sole trustworthy materials for their geography, surely they ought to be published."
  I have little doubt that, if the events of the Mutiny had not called off the attention of the Indian Government from the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, Colonel Yule's suggestion would have been followed up; and now, in happier times, I am glad to be able to show my respect for the opinion of that very distinguished man by laying the Papers on the table of the House.

  DIVIDENDS ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.—QUESTION,
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is proposed to change the system of paying the Dividends on Government Securities by the Bank of England, and to remit, as in the case of Railway and other Companies, Dividend Warrants to the holders of such stocks?
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has under consideration the proposal to change the system of paying the dividends on Government securities by the Bank of England. Legislation will be necessary, however, to effect a change of that extent.

  PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) (re-committed) BILL— [Lords.]

    [BILL 215] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. CAMPBELL MR. CAMPBELL, who had given notice to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, no system of education will be effectual or just which, while involving compulsory rating, does not include the power of enforcing the attendance of children at school,"
    said: Sir, I think it is very much to be regretted that this important Bill—the most important Bill that can be brought forward for Scotland—comes before us at so advanced a period of the Session that we can only be promised one day for its discussion, and on that account, having no desire by a side wind to defeat the main object of the measure, I do not intend to persevere with the Motion of which I have given Notice, and which stands in my name upon the Paper. But I think the question of such importance that I hope the House will excuse me if, in a very few words,

    801
    I state what I think to be the facts of the case with regard to Scotland, without going into the general question of compulsory education. I may say that there is the greatest mistake as to the state of feeling in Scotland on this subject. In general, we, who are in favour of compulsory education, are told that it is impracticable. Now, that may be true in two or three ways. It may be impracticable to pass a measure involving such clauses through the two Houses of Parliament. Of that I am no judge. But this I may say, that it would receive the support of a great number of representatives from Scotland. Then we may be told that it is impracticable, because it is opposed by the general feeling of Scotland. Now, I can assure the House that that is not the case. As far as my experience goes, I believe our countrymen in the North are far too shrewd to be misled by any fear of the horrors attendant on compulsory education, and the interference which it is supposed to create with the liberty of the subject. They have only to look to another part of Europe, where a people very similar to themselves in every respect—I mean the Swiss—have introduced this system some twenty or thirty years ago, and compulsory education has now become so incorporated with their national life that they accept it with the greatest pleasure; and so much is that the case, that I find, from the reports which have been received through the Foreign Office from Switzerland, that the penalties attached to the system are now never required to be enforced, so readily do the people embrace it. Then, on the other hand, we are constantly asked how are we to introduce the machinery to work the system? This point seems to have been the stumbling-block in the way of the Commissioners, for they say that it is difficult to devise the means. Now, I cannot conceive that it is very difficult, seeing that compulsory education exists in some of the United States, in Prussia, in Saxony, in Baden, in Austria—in fact, in all the States of Central Europe, and, as I have already stated, in Switzerland, which is, perhaps, the most apposite example of all, because they are a perfectly free people, and are in no way under a military despotism. I lay stress not upon any high-flown or fantastic theories of the duties of the State. I merely say,
    802
    in a Bill like this, in which power is taken to exact rates from all inhabitants in support of education, you are bound to furnish the rate-payers with a guarantee that the object for which the money is raised is attained. I consider it absolutely unjust to do otherwise. What is the case with regard to Scotland? We are told that it is most necessary and urgently important to pass this measure this year, because there are 90,000 children who are not receiving education. How many of these children are there in Glasgow? In the largest city of Scotland there are 60,000 of them, and I think it must be patent to everybody that the great bulk of these will belong to a class of children who will not be affected by any measure which does not include compulsory clauses. Build as many schools as you like, and provide as many schoolmasters as you choose; but if you have not the power to take those children to the schools it will be useless. I would express my regret, which I know is shared by several other hon. Members, and which I know is the general feeling in Scotland, that in this great and important Bill, which is intended to be a great step in advance in the educational history of Scotland, the most important part of the measure has been overlooked.
    MR. STAPLETONsaid, he wished before the Bill proceeded any farther to call the attention of the House to a matter in connection with it which he regarded as of a constitutional character. He alluded to the manner in which the Bill was brought before the House. It came down to them from the other House. He thought it should have been introduced in the House of Commons. Of course, he was aware that the House of Lords could in strictness of law initiate any Bill except a Money Bill; but he thought that for the Government to bring a Bill of this sort— a Bill concerning education — a Bill therefore affecting the social interests of the people—in the other House, was not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. It appeared to him that it was not fair to either House. The other House was not in that intimate relation with the people which they were. They had no means of ascertaining the feelings, the wishes, or the opinion of the people. However anxious they might be to do their duty they

    803
    could not feel the pulse of the people. When a Bill went up to the other House from this House the other House discharged its proper function — that of reviewing their decision, with the advantage of knowing what had been done in the House of Commons. By knowing what had been done by the representatives of the people in that House they knew, in a constitutional way the feelings and wishes of the people. Had this Bill been introduced into the House of Commons, as he contended that it should, and then gone before the House of Lords for the first time, they might have deferred to the opinion of the people expressed through the House of Commons in that, as they had done in other things. They could have done it more easily than they could do it now, for now they had expressed their opinion, and the matter was prejudged. Neither was it fair to this House. They had a right to expect that Government would bring before them such measures only as it approved and could recommend. It was of the very essence of the Constitution that the Government should be in harmony with the majority of that House; therefore that it should only bring forward such measures as it had reason to believe would be acceptable to the majority on which it rested in that House. But this Bill when it came down to this House was the Bill of the Government no more. It had become the Bill of the Opposition; because the Opposition had a majority in the House of Lords, and they had availed themselves of that majority to re-model this Bill during its passage through that House. The Lord Advocate felt the difficulty. He could not recommend the Bill as it came down from the other House as a Government measure. He got the House to allow the Bill to be committed pro formâ, in order that he might alter the Bill which had been sent down to them so as to bring it back somewhat nearer its original form, and then take the discussion, on the re-committal of the Bill, which, in the ordinary course of things, would have taken place on the second reading. But this mode of proceeding produced a fresh complication. The Bill which had come down to them was set aside and a fresh Bill substituted for it. The learned Lord became dependent on his opponents. For unless they
    804
    brought forward the principles of the Amendments made in the House of Lords, the Lords would say that their views had never been presented to the House of Commons; that Amendments which they had fully considered and carefully prepared, involving principles to which they attached great value had never been considered in the House of Commons, but had been set aside without discussion and without deliberation. Under those circumstances he did not think the Bill when it had passed their House would have much chance of being accepted by the other House of Parliament. Instead of gaining time by the course they had pursued he feared the result would be that all their labours over this Bill would be in vain. But he must say he did not attribute the blame of this wholly to the Government. He well remembered that, at an early period of the Session, there was a discussion on the advisability of dividing the business between the two Houses. Members on both sides took part in it, and he remembered an hon. Friend of his, an advanced Liberal, recommending that some of the important measures of the Session should be initiated in the House of Lords. He regretted that advice had been taken. He had mentioned this matter in the hope that, before another Session, the Government would consider of some means by which these complications might be avoided, and the services of the House of Lords rendered available in the early part of the Session. It was not for him to point out the means— certainly not then—it was enough to say that there were means.
    MR. MILLERsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell) had brought the question of compulsory education before the House. Great as was the importance he attached to this Bill, it was nothing compared with that with which he would have regarded it if compulsory education had been included in it. At the last election he had the opportunity of bringing this question repeatedly before large bodies of the working classes among his constituents—those who would be most affected by a power of compulsory education— and they were unanimously in favour of compulsory education. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would take the question up, and that, if not in the

    805
    present Bill, then at the earliest opportunity afterwards, they would take steps towards effecting so desirable an object.
    MR. HIBBERT MR. HIBBERT, as an English Member, desired to say that, as this Bill was likely to be in some measure a precedent for the English Bill which was promised them next year, he trusted the Government would pluck up courage, and would not be afraid to introduce a clause into the English Bill compelling the attendance of children at school. The feeling of the working classes was decidedly in favour of compulsory attendance. It was only the ignorant and the drunken who would be brought under the penalties of such a system, and it was in their case that it was most desirable.
    COLONEL SYKES COLONEL SYKES, in confirmation of the statements which have been made, begged to state, that when addressing his constituents in November last, he found the working classes of Aberdeen unanimous in favour of compulsory education.
    MR. GRAHAMsaid, that not long ago he attended an Educational Conference in Manchester, at which resolutions were unanimously carried that compulsory education must form part of any satisfactory educational measure. From that Conference he proceeded to Glasgow, where a great public meeting was held, and from what he then learned, and had since learned, he might say that the desire in Scotland, and especially in Glasgow, that there should be a system of compulsory education, was as strong there as it was at Manchester. A few days since he received a letter from the Glasgow Working Men's Association, in which they said that no Bill would be satisfactory to them unless made compulsory, and they asked him rather to hinder the progress of the measure than otherwise, provided compulsory clauses were not inserted in it. His reply was that he could not do that because he thought that this Bill contained something which was valuable apart from the question of compulsory education. Although, therefore, he quite approved of the course taken by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell) in withdrawing his Motion, it ought to be perfectly understood by the House that the people of Scotland were exceedingly anxious to have compulsory clauses carried in the course of next year.
    LORD GARLIESsaid, he did not propose to discuss the question of compulsory education, inasmuch as the Question before them was that the House should go into Committee on this Bill. But he wished to call attention to the course which the Government had pursued with regard to the Bill. It was introduced in the Speech from the Throne in February last; and now, nearly six months afterwards, on the 27th of July, they were practically asked to read the Bill a second time. They were told that the Bill would be introduced into the other House, and, no doubt, some delay took place from their Lordships' desire to discover, from what took place from the May meetings in Scotland, what was the general wish of the people of that country on the subject. The Bill was carried through the Committee of the House of Lords on the 10th of June, and was sent down to this House on the 14th of June. When it was brought forward in this House, a fortnight ago, it was brought in at midnight, and then the Lord Advocate— who, he felt convinced, was only "riding to orders," because nobody was more anxious to pass the Bill than he was — told them that there was a compact entered into that there should be no discussion on the second reading—he did not tell us by whom that compact had been made— and, further, that it had been arranged that the discussion should be taken when the Bill was in Committee. He (Lord Garlies) had already absolved the Lord Advocate as regards the delay in bringing in this Bill into this House; but he could not absolve him for the course he had since pursued. He (Lord Garlies) understood on that night—and it was also understood by many other hon. Members —that the Bill was to be read a second time as it came from the other House; and that, when in Committee, it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward those matters to which the Government objected as regarded the action of the House of Lords. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had not violated the strict letter of the law in having acted as he had done, in restoring at once the Bill to the shape it stood when originally introduced; but he thought the course which had been pursued might not improperly be described as "a right and left hander" in the face of both Houses. The right hon.

    807
    Gentleman did not propose to go into Committee on the Bill which came from the House of Lords, but he asked them to go into Committee on another Bill altogether. He had been assured by many hon. Gentlemen on both sides that the course which had been taken was quite unprecedented; and that, although not in the letter, yet in the spirit, it was neither formal nor constitutional.
    MR. CRAUFURDsaid, there was a time when he thought there was a chance of an Education Bill for Scotland being passed this Session. But all those hopes were dashed by the answer of the Home Secretary to the Question of the hon. Member for Invernessshire (Mr. Cameron) last night, that no second day could be given to this Bill till after Supply should have been disposed of. When they were asked to read this Bill a second time sub silentio, it was on the understanding that they were to have an opportunity of discussing it on going into Committee. Then he (Mr. Craufurd) hoped that they should have some statement from the Government of what they meant to do in Committee, what Amendments they proposed to adhere to, and what changes they yet proposed to make in the Bill. There had been three meetings of Scotch Members, each of which lasted for several hours, and yet they were not enabled to get through all the clauses of this Bill. They had now had three Bills—first, the Bill as it was introduced by the Government in the House of Lords—then the Bill as it was sent down from the House of Lords —and now a third Bill to go into Committee upon. How was it to be supposed, then, that they would get through it on that one day's sitting, with only five hours to discuss it in? He did not deny the competency of the Lord Advocate to take the course he had done in going into Committee pro formâ; but if the noble Lord, or any other hon. Member, objected, the objection should have been taken at that time. It did not lie with him to do so now.
    LORD GARLIESsaid he did not understand the Motion at the time, or else he should have objected.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had distinctly stated what his intention was in the speech which he made upon the second reading.
    MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he could support that statement of the Lord Advo-
    808
    cate. He did say in his speech on the second reading that he would present the Bill in the shape which the Government intended it to take. But he complained that that promise was not now to be adhered to, and they were in utter ignorance—he meant official ignorance —of what the Amendments of the Lord Advocate were to be. The Bill was first proposed as a national Bill; it came down from the House of Lords a denominational Bill; and now it was a mongrel mixture of national and denominational—and denominational chiefly in favour of one sect—which would leave in the future to Scotch Members and to Parliament a little Maynooth agitation to the end of their days. It might be said that the Irish Church Bill had stopped the progress of this Bill; but the fact was that this Bill came down to this House just as the Irish Church Bill left it; and here they were now, on the 27th July, with only one day, with a sitting of five hours—one of which is already gone—to discuss a Bill of sixty clauses, and about fifteen pages of Amendments. If the Government really desired to pass the Bill, and had put their heart into it, they would have dealt with it as they did with the Bankruptcy Bill, or the Contagious (Animals) Diseases Bill, or the Telegraphs Bill. He would remind the House that the Bill contained matters of vital importance to the people of Scotland, and that it was utterly impossible to proceed to the discussion of it without a clear indication of the course that the Government intended to pursue. There were two main points—the constitution of the Central Board, and the question of the 66th clause, upon which he hoped the Government would give them an intimation that they intended to revert to the original plan. It was of vital importance that they should know how the Central Board was to be constituted; and he thought it hardly right that all the powers now proposed should be given to a Board sitting at Edinburgh. His right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate entertained, he knew, a different opinion on the question of the constitution of the Board or Commission. He did not quarrel with him in that respect; but he regretted that he had misunderstood the object he had in view in calling attention to the constitution of the Board. The right hon. and learned Lord had said that he

    809
    wanted to establish the central management in London. That was utterly to mistake his object. He (Mr. Craufurd) stated, on the second reading, that the Board ought to be a Scotch Board; that it ought to have the control of education in Scotland, in accordance with the wishes of the Scotch people; and that it was not well that, as would be the case as the Bill now stood, the whole control, power, and management should be in the Privy Council. But the Government had rejected even the proposition of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing)that the Central Board in Scotland should be allowed to act in conjunction with the Privy Council, in framing the Code — they were told that the Privy Council would not submit to even such a modification of the Bill. He would ask who was really in favour of centralization — the learned Lord or himself? He desired that the Central Board should be truly a Scotch Board, and that its members should be properly paid men, intended to devote their whole attention to it, and not with the niggardly payment of £500 or £600 a year. Why, he found that our Fiscals were paid more than that, though they were not required to devote the whole of their time to their public duties, and were allowed to continue their private professional practice. He did not wish to see a Board sitting at Edinburgh simply to administer the wishes and views of the Privy Council, and to have no independent control. His right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate admitted that we ought to have a Scotch Board. He suggested that there was an opportunity of placing the matter on a proper footing for constituting a really effective Board in Edinburgh. He repeated he had no wish to bring the Board to London; but he did desire that there should be some one here responsible to this House who should control the action of the Board—not the Chairman or any of the working members, but some one here with power to control the action of the Privy Council, and to see that in drawing up the Code one shall be constructed, not fitted to a country like England—which everyone now admitted to be far behind Scotland in education — but a Code that should suit the wants and necessities of the present state of education in Scotland. Upon this matter they had re-
    810
    ceived either refusals or utter disregard of their wishes, or the assertion that such a state of things only tended to the establishment of a centralization in London, and was not for the benefit of the Scotch people. He had hoped that now they had a Scotch Member as Secretary of State for the Home Department, he would have felt it to be necessary to give a really Scotch tendency to this Bill—to give them the real control over the education of the country, without which he was sure the Scotch people would rather see no Bill at all passed this Session. Now he was most anxious that they should not have to go back to their constituents and say they had done nothing in the matter of education for them; but he maintained that it was not right or even discreet to the House and to themselves that they should pass this measure in a hurry and without due consideration, merely that they might be able to say that they had passed it. But if it could be brought into conformity with the main principles on which this legislation ought to rest, if it would give them a thoroughly national system of education, and a thoroughly Scotch Board, he would be quite willing to waive all matters of minor detail.
    MR. BRUCErose to make an appeal to the House. He entreated hon. Gentlemen to go into Committee. He believed that the general feeling of the Scotch Members was that, on the whole, the Bill was deserving of their support, but if hon. Members who thought they had grounds of objection, took this opportunity of enlarging on the subject, the time which could be given to the discussion of the Bill would be entirely absorbed. It was undoubtedly a misfortune that the necessities of the Session obliged the Government to introduce the Bill in the House of Lords, and that the necessities of the Government compelled this House to occupy its chief time with Bills that had to be sent to the Lords, so as to postpone the consideration of this measure to so late a period. But there was a most earnest desire on the part of the Government to carry the Bill. He had not at all intended to imply a doubt that another day for the consideration of the Bill would be forthcoming, if necessary. What he said, was, that at this period of the Session it was absolutely necessary that they should get through Committee of Supply

    811
    and that, until Supply was finished, it was impossible to give a fixed day for the Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Craufurd) had hinted that it was the object of the Government to give to the Scotch system of education an English character by keeping it under the control of the Privy Council. Now he was bound to say that the Members of the Government had—in his opinion, very wisely, but at some pains, and at some sacrifice of preconceived opinions — abandoned some of the leading principles of the Revised Code in this Bill, in order to meet the wishes of the Scotch Members. They had abandoned the limitation of payments to particular classes and the limits of age prescribed by the Revised Code, and, by so doing, had shown their determination to preserve that most important principle of Scotch education by which all classes were educated together, and under the influence of which every Scotch peasant and every individual of the nation endeavoured to keep his children at school as long as possible; and while, in certain respects, a limited control was reserved to the Privy Council, yet large powers were given to the Central Board, and the wishes of the Scotch people had been, and would be, consulted as to the principles on which Scotch education should be based. Under these circumstances he hoped that, without wasting further time in preliminary discussions, they would at once address themselves to the Bill, so that they might be able, during this Session, to confer upon the people of Scotland the lasting benefit of passing this Bill into law.
    MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid he had listened to the words of the right hon. Gentleman with great astonishment. Yesterday he made a statement which was considered fatal to the passing of the measure this Session; for when asked when he would give another day for the discussion, he said that that would depend upon the progress that was made with Supply. To-day the right hon. Gentleman got up to urge them not to discuss the principles of the Bill, but to get into Committee on it. What was the meaning of that, but that the Session could not be wound up until the money was voted, and that after it was obtained the Session would not be prolonged? It seemed to him that if the Government were sincerely anxious to pass the Bill, the proper course would be
    812
    to sacrifice a few more days of August. Was it to go forth to the constituencies that their representatives were so extremely impatient to leave town that the were unwilling, even on a measure of this great importance, to stay for a few days more? Besides the Bill itself there were fifteen pages of Amendments. Two days more, at least, would be required to discuss them. Would any Member of the Government say that those two days should be given? He asked that they should have from the Government a distinct intimation of their intention. If they were willing to make a sacrifice of a few days for the sake of passing the Bill, he ventured to say—though, of course, he was not authorized to speak for anybody but himself — that the Scotch Members would cheerfully defer their departure from town for the necessary time. It was monstrous to suppose that the Bill could pass without due discussion. There were two clauses on which he wished to offer a remark. There was the 2nd clause, appointing Commissioners to be paid by the Crown, and the 66th clause, which contained the proviso that when the Board, nominated by the Crown, should see fit to make a recommendation to the Privy Council that a denominational grant should be given, the Privy Council was to make such grant to denominational schools. Now, that completely destroyed the character of the measure as an undenominational Bill. It becomes a really denominational Bill, call it by what name you would; for it provided the machinery for making denominational grants upon the action of a Government Department. It would be far better that, if it is to be done at all, the thing should be done openly. The provision would keep up perpetual agitation on the subject. It was perfectly well known that the proviso was inserted in order to meet the wishes of the Roman Catholics; that it had been introduced not to satisfy the people of Scotland, but of a part of the people of Ireland. For his own part, he must express his extreme disapprobation of the proviso, and unless they were to have the means of freely discussing the Bill, he did not think it was to be desired that it should pass.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, it was absolutely necessary that the Members for Scotland should know exactly what was settled, and how they

    813
    stood in this matter. The case at present was this—that upon the most important measure, as affecting Scotland, that had been introduced for 200 years, there had been absolutely no discussion of any shape or kind in regard to its principles. Now, the Lord Advocate undertook that there should be a general discussion upon the Motion for going into Committee. Now, however, the Home Secretary appeals to us in the most urgent language to get into Committee without delay, and without any discussion on the principles of the measure. If it appeared to him that the Amendments were such as promised to bring the Bill at all into the form in which the people of Scotland would wish it to be, he would readily stay in town as long as might be necessary; but he had no sort of hope that any such substantial or bond fide Amendments, of a kind to satisfy the constituencies of Scotland, would be introduced.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, that when the Bill was read the second time, not only was the appeal made by the Government that there should be very little discussion, but the distinct promise was given that on going into Committee the discussion on the general principles should take place; and now we have been entreated not to engage in a general discussion. But hon. Gentlemen knew very well that when they went into Committee on a Bill their observations were limited to the particular clause under discussion, and they were very properly called to Order if they wandered into wider questions. On the other hand, he did not think it was possible to discuss the details of this measure satisfactorily until they had arrived at some sort of understanding as to its leading principles. On the second reading, the Lord Advocate explained the character of a number of Amendments which he in- tended to propose; and the Bill passed through Committee pro formâ, in order that they might be embodied in it. Now, if the same course were to be adopted on the present occasion—if the Government were to tell them what further Amendments they intended to pro- pose—not, of course, as to all the de-} tails, but the principal ones—the House would be in a position to say at once whether they were prepared to pass the Bill with these Amendments, or to pass it as it stood. He must say that if the
    814
    question were to be put to him whether he would accept the Bill as it passed through Committee pro formâ, he should most distinctly say "No." He would not have the Bill in that state. If it was to be altered, why not tell them now, as they were told on the second reading, the character and principle of the alterations proposed to be made? He was most anxious that a Bill on this subject should pass; but he repeated that if the only question was to be whether to pass this Bill substantially unaltered, he said it would be better to have no Bill at all. Less than three and a-half hours remained of this Sitting, and there were on the Paper 139 Amendments and thirty-nine now clauses? How could these Amendments and clauses possibly be discussed each in a couple of minutes? He had himself given notice of two only out of the 139 Amendments, so that he did not contemplate taking up much of the time of the House; but one of them was of great importance— that regarding the question of denominational schools. He would stay in London as long as the Government desired; but he should like to know what their intentions were with regard to the amendment of this Bill.
    MR. DALGLISHquite agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He was prepared to stay in London as long as was necessary to pass this Bill, but he should like to have some assurance— if the Government were able to give them such assurance—that if the Scotch Members, at a great sacrifice of time and trouble, put this Bill into a shape that would meet the views of the people of! Scotland, such a Bill so amended, and sent to the other House would have the least chance of passing.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, the Government seemed to him to have taken an extraordinary and erratic course with regard to this Bill. It was clear that there had been a misunderstanding, but how this misunderstanding arose he was at a loss to make out. Some hon. Gentlemen had objected to this Bill because it is a national denominational Bill. To him that appeared to be one of its main advantages. It would be impossible to have a purely national system for Scotland, unless they made it a secular system, which he did not believe the people of Scotland wished. He thought, too, that the question of the 2d. rate was

    815
    rather difficult to understand. He did not see how it was to work.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he certainly would not deny that hon. Gentlemen had made some sacrifice to the cause of education by refraining from the general discussion on going into Committee. It was perfectly true that when the Bill was read a second time some of the Scotch Members agreed to allow it to pass without discussion, upon the understanding that there was to be a discussion upon the general principle when the House went into Committee. But, at the same time, hon. Gentlemen cannot fail to see the difficulties with which the Government had had to con-tend. There had been meetings of the Scotch Members—the general scope of the Bill, as well as the general views of Members, were generally understood— and there had been numerous Amendments placed on the Paper. If they were to pass the Bill at all it would not do to discuss its general principle on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, and again in Committee upon the clauses. He would confine himself to one or two observations upon the present state of the Bill, and then he trusted that they would address themselves really to the work before them. Some criticisms had been made by the noble Lord (Lord Garlies), and he (the Lord Advocate) had been asked to give some explanation upon a matter so simple and clear that he did not understand how a question had come to be raised upon it in this House. When the House read this Bill the second time, he informed the House, at the conclusion of his observations, that the Bill had been considerably altered in "another place" from the shape in which it originally stood; and as the country was not aware of the propositions of the Government upon which this House was to decide, he should follow the course of committing the Bill pro formâ, and re-printing it with the Amendments embodied in it. He stated it quite distinctly, and it could not have been misunderstood. They were now told that there was something disrespectful to the other House in the course that they had taken, and that they were not dealing as they ought to do with their Amendments. Hon. Gentlemen who took that view could not be aware that it was the constant practice in "another place" so to deal with Bills
    816
    that come up from this House. Hon. Gentlemen were quite mistaken, both upon the constitutional theory and the practice of Parliament. The constitutional theory was that this House does not know whether a Bill has been in the House of Lords or not. Although it has passed the Lords, and although it was first introduced there, it appears before this House precisely as if it had been brought in here first. When we deal with it, we deal with it and consider it as if it had been introduced first into this House. Nothing could be further from his desire than to show the slightest discourtesy to the Amendments which had been made in "another place;" but it was indispensable that the country and the House should know clearly the propositions which the Government were prepared to make. They could not possibly accede to the Bill as it came down from the Lords, and therefore he believed he had consulted the convenience as well as the propriety in our proceedings in re-printing the Bill pro formâ. Now, in regard to the Amendments, it was stated that he had not informed the House what the views of the Government were upon the matters in question. He had only to say that the proposition of the Government was embodied in the Bill as it stood now with the few Amendments he had placed upon the Paper last night. The only material Amendment among them was as regards the constitution of the Board. The Lords had altered the original proposition to a Board of three paid members, and he (the Lord Advocate) made a different proposal on the second reading. He then brought the matter before the Scotch Members, and it appeared to be their opinion that a Board properly paid was the best Board. The Government were of of opinion that if that was the feeling of the Scotch Members, it ought to be given effect to; and, therefore, hon. Members will find from the Paper that that course had been adopted. He trusted the House would now go into Committee.
    SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that in the case of all the Bills cited by the right hon. Gentleman there was a perfect concurrence of opinion between the two Houses on the principles of the Bill. He thought that the Bill ought to have been re-printed in the shape in which it had come down from the House

    817
    of Lords. Under the course pursued this House had no means of knowing what were the Amendments made by the Lords in the Bill. He had no doubt that it was perfectly in Order to take the course followed by the learned Lord in cases where there was no difference of opinion; but he thought that the impression created by his learned Friend's conduct in this case would exercise a considerable influence upon the reception' of the Bill when it went back to the House of Lords.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Interpretation clause).
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERmoved, as an Amendment with reference to the qualification of heritors, to leave out the qualification given in the clause, and to substitute the words, "the said heritors shall mean all owners of lands and heritages of the yearly value of £20 and upwards." In proposing that alteration he had only adopted the qualification of the Poor Law Act of 1845. The qualification named in the Bill was as old as the year 1803. The Act 43 Geo. III., c. 64, provided that it should not be lawful for any heritor who had not a property of at least £100 Scots to attend or vote at any meeting held in pursuance of that Act. He could not conceive why this old qualification should be retained in the present Bill. They did not want that these £100 Scots heritors only should provide schools for the people of Scotland—they wanted the people of Scotland to feel and know that they paid for the schools, which they would do under the present Bill, but that they would have the advantage of managing the schools for themselves. But the Bill, as it came down from the Lords, while it retained the old management extended the area of rating. He thought the course of the Government rather strange. It was manifest that these two clauses, as they came down from the Lords, were absurd. They might have opened the management and widened the assessment, or they might have had the close management and at the same time kept the old assessment. Her Majesty's Government had adopted the latter of the two courses. They took out the clause stating that the assessment for the schools should be levied upon the valuation-roll
    818
    of Scotland, and they kept in the clause providing that the management of the schools should be left in the hands of the heritors. He earnestly trusted that the Government would give way upon this point, and would make the management of the parochial schools such as the great body of the people of Scotland desired it should be.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 40, to leave out from the words "The heritors," to the words "fifty-four," in line 42, inclusive, in order to insert the words "Heritors shall mean all owners of lands and heritages of the yearly value of twenty pounds and upwards,"—(Sir Robert Anstruther,)
    —instead thereof.
    MR. ORE EWINGsaid, he also had an Amendment on this clause, its object being to extend and liberalize the pre- sent system by making £20 of the old Scots valuation, instead of £100, the qualification for heritor. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that they could not retain the old system of managing the schools, and at the same time extend the area of taxation for the support of the schools. The hon. Baronet wished to keep the old system of supporting the parochial schools and at the same time to liberalize the heritors. He would take the entire control out of the old heritors. The heritors of Scotland were the landed proprietors, and they had, under the Act of 1803, been burdened with the maintenance of the parochial schools; and if the Committee agreed to the proposal of the hon. Baronet, it would leave the heritors under the obligation of maintaining the schools, but take the management out of their hands. That was not fair. It was admitted by all—even by the hon. Member for Edinburgh—that the parochial schools were better managed than any schools in Scotland. Why was that? It was because they were efficiently superintended by the parochial clergy and by the heritors. He proposed to Liberalize the management by describing the qualification of heritors as—
    " Proprietors of lands within any parish to the extent of at least £20 Scots of valued rent appearing in the land tax hooks of the county within which such parish is situated."
    MR. MILLERsaid, he had also placed an Amendment on the Paper, the object of which was, so far, to obtain the result which his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire sought—namely, to open up

    819
    the management of the parochial schools. He desired to liberalize the heritors under the old Act, and so extend it that every man whose name was found on the land tax books should be an heritor in the sense of this Act, and should therefore have a voice in conducting the schools. He would, however, liberalize that management by bringing it back to the system in use previous to the Act of George III. He should therefore vote for the striking out of the words now in the clause, also against the words proposed by the hon. Member.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the reason why this provision still stood in the clause before the Committee was that the Committee in their Report, after stating the objections which had been made to the management of the parochial schools, and the suggestions made for the alteration of the qualification of heritors, said—
    "There is much weight in these suggestions; but, notwithstanding some diversity of opinion, we are not prepared to recommend those alterations. Many of our number think that the parochial schools ought to possess more of national character, and that such changes should be adopted; but, after considerable inquiry, and after the investigation conducted by the Assistant Commissioners, we have resolved not to recommend that any alteration should be made on the existing management of the parochial schools."
    The Bill, as it was introduced into the House of Lords, was precisely in the terms of the recommendation of the Commissioners. He (the Lord Advocate) was not prepared to say that it would be wise to assent to the parochial schools existing in their present form as a permanent state; but the principle of the Bill was to adopt these schools on their present footing — to leave under their present management both denominational and parochial schools—at the same time providing machinery for adopting them gradually into the national system. This was the compromise which was entered into, and he should feel bound to adhere to that compromise. That compromise, however, was not adhered to in '' another place;" because, while the Lords adopted i that course with regard to the parish schools, they deliberalized the new schools—which was part of the compromise. At the same time they also did this—for which no principle can be imagined—after leaving the management under the restricted body of heri-
    820
    tors, under the Act of 1803, they actually widened the area of taxation, and attempted to lay the burden of supporting the parish schools on the proprietors on the new valuation-roll. After considering the matter, Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that, as they were anxious not to create agitation, but to pass the Bill; and as the Commissioners recommended what they had originally proposed — that they should go back to the compromise. He owned that he did so with regret. The compromise recommended by the Commissioners was, he thought, such as they would be able to pass; and therefore he must vote against the Motion of Ms hon. Friend.
    MAJOR WALKERsaid, that the Assistant Commissioners stated in their Report that the elective body, as at present constituted, was good, especially where the heritors were resident—but they desired that if the system of rating was adopted the rate-payers should have some voice in the management; and this seemed to him but just. At the same time, the Commissioners add an important qualification: they said that it was of vital importance to education that this representation should be continued, as far as possible, to be confined to the educated and influential among the body of the rate-payers. He thought the clauses as they stood provided a very ample representation of the body of the ratepayers— two-thirds being elected by them, and one-third being left in the hands of the heritors—which was by no means an excessive or unnecessary provision.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, the question was who the heritors should be to whom they were to intrust the management of the parish schools, so long as they were not converted into ordinary national schools. There were four Amendments on the Paper, and two of them were identical with the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Miller), which was that they should return to the old principle that taxation and representation go together. But in 1803 an Act was passed depriving all the heritors, except a few large ones, of the right to vote and speak in the management of the parish schools. The object of all the four Amendments was substantially to restore the ancient law of Scotland; but he preferred that proposed by his hon. Colleague, and he hoped that the

    821
    hon. Member for Fifeshire would withdraw his Amendment, and allow the sense of the House to be taken on that of his hon. Friend.
    MR. LOCHsaid, there was no question more important with respect to the management of the parish schools, now that the constitution of the heritors was to be changed from that which was established by the Act of 1803, than to carry it back to the old law of Scotland as it existed previous to that time—namely, that all who were liable to contribute to the payment of the schoolmasters and the maintenance of the schools should have a voice in choosing the masters. He thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh arrived at that object better than the one of which he had himself given notice, and therefore he should withdraw his Amendment in favour of his.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he had not the least objection to the words proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh—in fact, it might very possibly be that they were better words than his own. Their first object was to throw out the Government words, and assist to liberalize the meaning of the word heritors. What words they would substitute he would not say; but he was willing to take the words of the hon. Member.
    MR. CRAUFURDdesired to point out to the Lord Advocate that the Government proposal was refused by both sides of the House. The placing the management in the hands of the ratepayers was the only scrap of liberalism sent down in the measure from the House of Lords, and that it was now proposed to strike out by reverting to the system of 1803.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he was equally opposed to all three Amendments. He would remind the Committee that when some years since the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Education Bill a memorial was very largely signed stating that whatever else might be done with regard to education in that country, the signataries hoped that no change would be made in the management or in the definition of the word heritor. He was satisfied that if this alteration was made it would destroy the whole framework of the Bill.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEhoped that Her Majesty's Government would
    822
    take into serious consideration the strong appeal that had been made. The matter involved a question of great importance, not merely affecting the future management of these schools, but affecting the action of the Bill itself in the transfer of these parochial schools to the new management.
    MR. ANDERSONthought that as the Government would never consent to bribe the heritors by making them a present of their payments as heritors, the process of absorption would not likely be so rapid as some supposed. For that reason he thought it absolutely necessary that they should consider the question of liberalizing the heritors; and as he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh the most liberal, he should vote for it.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh had spoken slightly of the Report of the Assistant Commissioners; but the Committee must recollect that this Bill was founded on the Report of the Commission, and the opinions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh applied equally therefore to the legislation and to the Report on which it was based. The parochial schools of Scotland were a source of pride to them, and he hoped the Committee would not readily overturn a system which had worked well for many years. As a middle course between absorption and alteration, he should support the learned Lord Advocate.
    COLONEL SYKEShoped that, in the face of the general expression of opinion on the part of Scotch Members, the learned Lord Advocate would not think it necessary to proceed to a division.
    MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, it seemed to him that the only reason the Lord Advocate had had in making this alteration was that the Bill might be made agreeable, and might pass more readily in "another place." The Committee could not be actuated by any such a feeling. The people of Scotland would not be satisfied unless the schools were placed under a more liberal management than at present.
    LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he should support Her Majesty's Government. The proposal of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Anstruther) aimed at an entirely new principle, and if it were carried the Bill would no longer be the Bill recom-

    823
    mended by the Commissioners, or as brought, in by the Lord Advocate, but a Bill based upon the principle of national, undenominational, rate-paying, compulsory education, and that was a question which, however it might be proper to discuss it at another time, was not now before the House. The Lord Advocate, in proposing what he had done, had done the best he could under the circumstances. He was willing to maintain the heritors as denned in this clause, and to give them a representation of one-third in each parish, and that he thought a very fair proposal.
    MR. GRAHAM: The Lord Advocate said he had assented to the course he now proposed merely as a matter of compromise, and against his own convictions; and the Commissioners said that they made the recommendation because the Sub-Commissioners reported, them; and the Sub-Commissioners said that the large heritors in the parish and minister were so superior in observation, in freedom from local prejudice, that they were better able to choose a schoolmaster than the other inhabitants of the parish. Now he thought that conveyed an undeserved censure upon a very large class, and he should therefore support the Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought that if they could purchase the accession of both Houses of Parliament to the permanent management, they did not pay a very large price for it in adhering to the compromise that had been come to.
    Question put, "That the words The heritors' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 65: Majority 45.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE moved to add at the end of the clause the words—
    "Except in the Shetland Islands, where it shall mean proprietors of lands and heritages within the parish valued in the valuation-roll at £50 and upwards."
    The exception was due to the rather important circumstance that there were no heritors in Shetland of the value of £100 Scots.
    MR. MILLER: I shall move, as an Amendment to this Amendment, that every owner upon the valuation-roll shall be entitled to vote, instead of drawing the line at £50.
    After short debate, Amendment with-
    824
    drawn, on the understanding that it should be brought up again on the Report.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Board of Education in Scotland).
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had already explained to the Scotch Members of this House the reasons which induced the Government to propose this constitution of the Board, instead of that contained in the previous Bill. No doubt, this was a difficult matter; and he thought it quite true that the views which had been expressed, that this was rather a matter of administration than of principle, were correct. But he thought on the whole, that the management now proposed would be reasonable and just. It was proposed to have paid members of the Board, one of whom was to be Chairman; and there would be also Law Officers for the purposes of the Act, and a Secretary. He proposed to insert in the clause words to the effect that these persons should hold office for three years, with power to the Queen in Council to extend the time to five years; the salaries to be £1,000 for the Chairman, and £750 each for the other two paid members of the Board.
    Amendment moved,
    In page 3, line 6, after "of," leave out to "expense" in line 16, and insert" The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland for the time being, and three other persons to be named by Her Majesty, one of whom shall be named as chairman; and it shall be enough for the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to pay to such chairman a salary not exceeding £1,000 per annum, and to each of the other two persons so to be named a salary not exceeding £750 per annum." —(The Lord Advocate.)
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, this was the most important part of the Bill, because most extraordinary powers were proposed to be given to the Central Board—powers which had never been enjoyed by any other body in Scotland before—and which were entirely novel. The Board, in the first place, was to have power to put down a school wherever it might consider a school to be wanted; and it was also to have the power to tax the people where a school was put down, and to say what amount of money should be paid by them for any specific school. That was a power never yet given to any body in Scotland up to the present day, and it behaved the Committee to watch very carefully that this Central Board was

    825
    such that the people of Scotland at large could repose confidence in it. He had been accused of objecting to the government of Scotland by Boards. He objected, no doubt, because they were constituted not by that House, because they were not represented in that House, and because the public of Scotland had no means of learning their proceedings. And now they were about to create another which was to be wholly irresponsible to that House. He knew that his learned Friend the Lord Advocate represented in the House not only the Boards but the whole administration of affairs in Scotland—and he knew that those affairs did not suffer in his hands. But he must take the liberty of objecting that the whole administration of affairs in Scotland should be left in the hands of the legal profession. That had been the case ever since 1742, when the last Secretary of State for Scotland (the Marquess of Tweeddale) resigned his office, which had never since been filled up. He thought the time had now come when the administration of Scotch affairs should be exercised by its laymen. What he complained of mainly in regard to this Board was that it was not represented in any degree by a lay officer in that House. They had heard a great deal of the Privy Council, and his learned Friend had told them more than once that he was in mortal terror of the Privy Council, and those who administered the grants. Now, the Vice President, who sat beside him, was the most amiable of men. He had conducted a long and important Bill through that House in such a manner as to win the respect and regard of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. Why, therefore, the Lord Advocate should be afraid of the Vice President of the Committee of Education and the Chancellor of the Exchequer he could not conceive. The Committee of the Privy Council was a very formidable body; but there could be no doubt that the vis inertia of that body was very great. The complaint was that it did not apprehend the genius of Scotch education. That complaint was almost universal throughout Scotland; and when his learned Friend admitted that it would be an advantage to the Privy Council to have upon it a Scotch Member who could represent what were really their wishes upon all matters connected with education, he believed he
    826
    only re-echoed the prevailing opinion throughout the whole of Scotland.
    MR. ORR EWINGsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Baronet as to the great importance of the question now under consideration; but he did not exactly agree with him in the conclusions which he wished that the House should come to. The hon. Baronet seemed to consider it of great importance that this Central Board should have a representation in that House. His (Mr. Ewing's) opinion was that it was a matter of far greater consequence that the Board should represent the people of Scotland, and for that reason he had ventured to place on the Paper the Amendment which stood in his name. He had no confidence in a nominated Central Board. He had, on the contrary, every confidence in an elected Board. He had, too, the greatest confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers, on whatever side of the House they might sit, if left to their own free will, to elect men to fill the position of Commissioners; but they all knew the influence brought to bear upon them whenever a vacancy arose, so that they came to a decision, not in accordance with their own opinions, but rather under the political influence which was brought to boar upon them. He wished to have this Board elective, as the only means of procuring a Scotch Board. He wanted it to be not only thoroughly Scotch, but to have upon it a representative of those hardworking and most useful body of men, the schoolmasters, who had been too much ignored by this Bill. He did not know of any better means of giving them a proper position in the country than to give them a representative on the Board which would in future have the management of education in Scotland. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given notice.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that as the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife-shire (Sir Robert Anstruther) had made some allusion to the Department with which he was connected, he wished to state what, as it seemed to him, was the relation of the Privy Council to the matters contemplated in this Bill. He did not understand that the Bill intended that the Board should in any way act under the Privy Council. The object of the Privy Council was that it should be responsible to the House

    827
    and the country for the administration of what might be considered State aid out of Imperial money for educational purposes both in England and Scotland. He took it that the most important object of this Board—an object the importance of which could not be overrated — was to ascertain where there should be rated schools. That was the business of the Board. The business of the Privy Council was simply to superintend the administration of State aid. The Board was in no way put under the Privy Council. It was said there is no power of appeal. That was not correct. An appeal was provided for by Clause 31 of the Bill; and he wished hon. Members to observe that it was an appeal not to the Privy Council, but to the Secretary of State. He thought, also, there might be a little misconception arising in the minds of hon. Members from the words—" Committee of Council of Education." Those were old-fashioned words, which had about the same meaning, or very little more, than the words Poor Law Board. Both in the Educational Department as well as in the Poor Law Board, the business was really worked as in the other Departments of the public service—namely, by officers, one in each House, who were responsible for their Department; but he rose to state that there was no intention on the part of the Government to give the Committee of Council on Education any power over that important part of the Bill which was to decide where in Scotland rate schools should be established, and how the inhabitants of Scotland should be taxed to pay that rate. He thought he ought not to sit down without stating—as there seemed to be a not unnatural jealousy of the Privy Council in the distribution of State aid in Scotland — that they were perfectly aware of the different circumstances of Scotland from England, and that they had no wish to thrust the Revised Code down the throats of Scotchmen. Taking, generally, England and Scotland, and comparing them together, Scotland was in advance of England. He should greatly regret to see anything done, either by the Privy Council or by any other action of the Government, which would injure the present system in Scotland. He rejoiced that in Scotland all classes were brought together in the schools, and that the
    828
    higher education was attained by all classes and denominations. He thought, therefore, that the Scotch Members might rely that it was not the intention of the Government to break down this system, or to extend payment by results —which had worked well in England, and which, it was considered, would also work well in Scotland—in such a way as to injure the present system in Scotland.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he was convinced that the only way in which they could secure that responsibility to Parliament which all desired was that the inquiries and the decision as to what new schools were required for Scotland should rest with a Department of the Government; and for his part he did not know any body upon whom it would be better to confer this duty than the Committee of the Privy Council, if connected with it there should be some department more especially having control in respect of the places in which new schools should be planted. He thought, too, that in the administration of this part of the Bill a Committee like that of the Privy Council would enjoy great advantages. He did not wish to underrate the importance of local responsibility; but he thought a body independent of local prejudices would act with greater responsibility, and a more just effect with regard to the wants of Scotland, than even a Board sitting in Edinburgh. In carrying out this measure far more depended, in his opinion, upon who were to be the Inspectors and who should furnish the reports than upon the Board. The Board would act judicially, and their duties could be equally as well exercised by a body connected with the Privy Council. He owned there was a strong feeling against the Privy Council in reference to Scotch grants. He did not share in that feeling, and thought it was founded, to a great extent, upon misconception, and would disappear when it was found that the inspection was efficient and undenominational. Further, he wished to say he did not share in the jealousy felt towards the Privy Council in regard to the Revised Code. He knew there was a strong feeling on the subject, especially amongst the schoolmasters; but he thought that feeling was unjustly entertained, and he could, if necessary, adduce proofs that the Revised Code was as much

    829
    wanted in Scotland as in England. He, for one, was inclined to place confidence in the administration of the Privy Council.
    MR. BRUCEsaid, the question was not as to whether the Revised Code should be introduced into Scotland or not, but what should be the body to say what means of education were still wanting to Scotland? The Inspectors were not persons who were possessed of the requisite information. Their business was to examine schools—that they could do perfectly— but their business had never been to state what were the educational wants of a district. They had no means of instituting inquiries; and if the Privy Council had to conduct these inquiries, it would be necessary to appoint special officers for that purpose.
    MR. M'LARBNsaid, that, as this was the fourth form of the Board which had been submitted to the House, Her Majesty's Government could not complain that a short time was spent in inquiring whether it was the best possible Board which could be chosen. It was admitted that upon that Board would depend the working of the measure. In the case of the Board of Trade, the Poor Law Board, &c, these were constitutional Boards, although the subordinate members were not seen, or heard of. The President of each of these Boards did what he conceived to be his duty to the public, and when any complaint was made he was answerable for it in Parliament; and that was a system which has recommended itself to the good opinion of all enlightened men in this country. But the Board proposed to be constituted by this Bill was not to have these advantages, and yet was to have far greater power in some respects than any of the Boards to which he had referred. Why, the Board was substantially to enact that hundreds of schools were to be erected in Scotland by means of local taxation; for the Commissioners said that there were 90,000 children in Scotland who were i not at school. The money needed for existing schools other than parochial was also to be raised by local taxation, so that, substantially, this new Board was to be a Board for taxing the people of Scotland to a very large extent. What was required to be done could not certainly be done for less than £1,000,000, and this Board would have practically the power of laying on rates to that extent. Now it had never been known in the his-
    830
    tory of any portion of the United Kingdom—in England, in Ireland, or Scotland —that any Board was ever appointed for laying on taxes. There were Boards to point out what should be done; but their powers were never so large as those which were given by this Bill. If they could, by the Bill, get an executive Board that would be responsible in the House, through its President, like the Board of Trade, such an executive Board would be by far the best. Now, the Members and Secretary were to have salaries amounting to £2,500 a year; but if they were to save £500 of this and give £2,000 to a Gentleman who should be responsible in this House for the action of the Board, to hear complaints, and to give explanations, and acting along with an unpaid Board in Edinburgh or anywhere else, they would have an admirably working organization. It had been said that it had been agreed at a meeting of the Scotch Members, that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General were to be members of the Board ex officio. He (Mr. M'Laren) then, and now, objected altogether to those high officials being placed on the Board. As a security, it was altogether illusory. In the case of the Lord Advocate, he was practically Home Secretary for Scotland, and he believed there was not one Scotch Member who did not believe that the duties he had already to perform were far more than any man living could get through satisfactorily. And, in point of fact, his original duties, as public prosecutor for Scotland, had, for a long series of years, been little more than nominal. The presence of the Lord Advocate on these occasions, on criminal trials, had been becoming more and more rare. The Solicitor General used to be always present in the absence of the Lord Advocate; but of late, he believed, the attendance of either was very rare, and was i only given on very important occasions. As Her Majesty's Government seemed not to have quite made up their minds on some of these points, he would suggest to them to consider whether their propositions, as embodied in this Bill, were not susceptible of great improvement.
    DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, a Scotch Board had been introduced into the Bill in order to satisfy the public feeling in Scotland, and in no place had the idea Scotch or Scotch Board been objected to.

    831
    In fact, it was in consequence of public opinion that the Government were forced to bring forward a Scotch Board at all. Now, the discussion which had taken place had gone in a course rather foreign to the Bill, which provided that there should be, in consonance with public feeling in Scotland, a Scotch Board. But this last form of it was made in deference to the strongly-expressed opinion of the Scotch Members themselves, in the private meeting upstairs, and when the Lord Advocate suggested those modifications which they were now considering, there was no objection on the part of Scotch Members at all. The Board was not so expensive as it appeared to be. A representative Board implied a large number of special Commissioners to do the work all over the country. But this Board was a Board of Commissioners whose whole time would be given to the work, and who would be themselves the special Commissioners who would go to the different parts of the country and settle where the schools should be placed. He believed this Board would be a positive economy instead of an expense to the Government.
    MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to make a suggestion for the amendment of this clause. As to the presence of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General upon the Board, all he could say was that so far as the Solicitor General was concerned, he knew he was out of pocket by his office of Solicitor General, and it would be hard to entail upon him still further duties to which he could not attend; his time was too valuable. With regard to the Lord Advocate, his duties were so enormous that it was ridiculous to expect him to be able to attend. But he did think they ought to have a lay representative on the Board. His right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council had no intention to force on Scotland the English Privy Council. But the whole of the jurisdiction with reference to the issue of codes and regulations seemed to be confined to the Council, without any reference to the Scotch Boards. Now, the fact was, they ought to have a Scotch department in the Privy Council; and therefore he begged to move the insertion of the following words—"a Secretary of Council for Scotland."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was easy to frame an abstract scheme of
    832
    education—the question was, can you enforce it? We have adopted the old Scottish system—a system of rates, and a system of rates which shall be compulsory; and, of course, the problem was how to make the system of rates compulsory without being arbitrary and oppressive. In the first instance he must own he was in favour of adopting the machinery of the Privy Council. But, in the first place, the Privy Council could by no possibility do the work which it was required to do; and, secondly, public feeling in Scotland was so strong on this point that it would be impossible to propose such a system. What kind of management then were they to have? He was not going to go into the question of a Secretary of State for Scotland. It had been before the House many times, and the result had hitherto been the same. As to the administration by a Board sitting in Scotland, much exaggerated language had been used with regard to existing Boards. Now he believed that the Scotch Boards were the cheapest administrative departments in the three kingdoms, and they were at the same time the most efficient. A Board of this kind must do its own work, and the work which the Board in this instance was to do was work which could not be done on this side of the Border—and the only result of attempting it would be that there would be two departments—a nominal department in London, and a real department in Scotland. They could not nave in London a Board for the control of schoolmasters in Scotland. But it was said there ought to be a person in this House responsible. He was not going to express any strong opinion on the matter. Upon the hon. Member for Edinburgh's (Mr. M'Laren's) showing, it was impossible for any person to be really responsible for such work. The hon. Member said the Lord Advocate ought not to be a member of the Board, because he cannot attend. But he wanted another a member of the Board who cannot attend either, because he must be in Parliament. To make the Lord Advocate responsible for the work of the Board is a great mockery; but he might be responsible for work which he could not do. Beyond this they could not unite the two things. They could not have a reasonable responsibility for the Board and attendance at Parliament at

    833
    the same time. He had a strong impression that, while the Board must be responsible to Parliament, it was not desirable that the administration of the Board should change with every new Administration. The discussion of the Education Votes by the Privy Council was essential. Perhaps in some future time something like a Scottish Financial Department might come to exist, together with a Scotch Member of the Privy Council having Scotch matters in hand; but at present they could not tell what was required. He trusted the House would accept the Board. It was not perfect, but he thought it was as near it as possible, and that it would prove to be so.
    MR. CRUM-EWINGconsidered the constitution of the Board, as proposed by the Lord Advocate, exceedingly objectionable. If the Lord Advocate was a member of any Board, he was at the head of it, and he (Mr. Crum-Ewing) objected to this. For his part, he would like to see a person in the House who would answer all questions put to him.
    MR. KINNAIRDsaid, his hon. Friend did not apprehend what the Lord Advocate had said. There were to be three Commissioners. Then, the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General were the legal assessors; and it was much better to have officers of that ability and legal knowledge. They would be able to attend to their duties here.
    COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had always been against Boards. If they wanted executive efficiency, it must rest with one man. They would then have individual responsibility. With a Board, if anything went wrong, it would always be—"Oh! it's the Board." Besides, they were now engaged in a new source of expenditure to the country. Here were three gentlemen appointed at a cost of £2,500, with secretaries and clerks. Then came the rent of houses, as they would see in the Estimates next year. The Scotch Board would be responsible to the Privy Council, from which an appeal was given to the Secretary of State, which meant the man at the head of the Council of Education. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No, no; the Home Secretary.] Well, then, an individual in London. He objected, therefore, to this Board—first, because of its expensive-ness; and secondly, because of its ineffi-
    834
    ciency, there being no individual responsibility.
    MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the suggestion was, that there should be a Board of three, to be appointed for three years, to which he (Mr. Craufurd) wished to add that the Lord Advocate should be put upon the Board, and then that there should be a layman on the Board, and securing a Scotch element in the Privy Council. That was what he proposed, which would carry out what was done in Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was an ex-officio member of the Board, and had a seat at the Privy Council. They ought to have some Scotch element on the Privy Council.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the proposition which was now brought forward was substantially one which met with considerable approval from a large number of Scotch Members. ["No, no!"] His hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd) seemed to wish that there should be a representative of the Board in the Privy Council. Now, he would show him what that meant. It meant confusion between two matters which it was very desirable to keep separate—that was the administration of State grants of Imperial funds and the administration of Scotch funds out of the rates, and he could not help thinking that it would be to the advantage of Scotland that these two matters should be kept distinct. The object of the Board was to see where schools should be built, and where the inhabitants should be compelled to pay rates for their maintenance. That seemed a matter which ought to be managed by Scotchmen in Scotland. He did not think the State money ought to be managed by Englishmen or Scotchmen. There was nothing to prevent anybody —Scotchman or Englishman—from filling the Office he (Mr. Forster) had the honour to hold. The money controlled by the holder of that Office for the time being should be administered without regard to any particular country, and nothing would tend more to confusion and to bad administration than to make two persons responsible to this House for the administration of State money. Whoever had to move the Estimates, and to ask for State money, ought to be the one man responsible to the House, and, therefore, he could not conceive there would be any advantage in putting a fresh Member of the Privy Council into

    835
    this House and on the Board to attend to part of this very thing.
    MR. ORR EWINGsaid, as his Amendment had not met with support from either side of the House, he begged to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment to insert after "the Lord Advocate" the words "a Secretary of Council for Scotland," put, and negatived.
    MR. MILLERthen proposed to leave out the words "the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland."
    MR. BRUCEsaid, his learned Friend the Lord Advocate had undertaken to consider the suggestion whether power should not be taken at some future time to appoint one or more other persons in addition to the three paid Commissioners. Until that question had been fully considered, he thought it would be inexpedient to withdraw the names of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland.
    After short conversation, Amendment (Mr. Miller), by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (The Lord Advocate) agreed to.
    On Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    LORD ELCHOsaid, it was admitted that this clause was the most important one of the Bill. Now, it was very important they should know at what hour of the night the Report would be brought up; because it was manifest that if it was brought up at two or three o'clock in the morning, the Government could do anything they liked in regard to it. If this clause was now passed on the understanding that matters of importance in it were to be considered on the Report, then there ought to be the further understanding that the Report would be taken at an early hour in the evening when the Government might not be able to do exactly what they pleased.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not think it was too much to announce that before the Bill left the Committee the Government would be able to say what course they would pursue on the subject.
    MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNasked if they could not have a decisive declaration as to when the further progress of the Bill would be taken?
    MR. BRUCEsaid, the utmost it was possible to do, under present circumstances, was to put it down for Thursday, and on that day to announce the earliest possible sitting on which it could be taken.
    MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, as to Supply, was not quite understood. Eight days, after Supply was closed, must elapse before the prorogation could possibly take place. Now, this was a Lords' Bill; and supposing that it was the most important measure left for our consideration, and supposing also that Supply was to be finished before they again went into Committee on it, there would afterwards still remain five or six days in which it should be discussed. It being the end of the Session, the Lords would probably not take long to consider our Amendments, but would dispose of them quickly. It did not therefore seem to be unreasonable that the further proceeding with the Bill should be postponed until Supply was closed; and he presumed that Scotch Members were anxious to get to the North as soon as they could.
    MR. ELLICEprotested entirely against the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think that Government was entitled to any consideration at their hands. This was the single Scotch Bill of the Session—and they had been put off to the very end of the Session. Other hon. Gentlemen, who lived within easy reach of London, could get away in the course of the Session and come back again. They could get away now. They (the Scotch Members) could not do so. They were entirely cut off from those interests that naturally drew them in Scotland, in order to wait on this Bill, and he said that they (the Scotch Members) —and also the hon. Gentlemen from Ireland—were entitled to the first consideration. They had the right to expect that the Government should now tell them when they meant to go on with the Bill. Why not give them a Morning Sitting on Friday? He thought the Government might have treated them more liberally at an earlier period; but, now, after they had been sitting there quietly supporting the Government through thick and thin the whole of the Session, they were to be put off to the very end of the Session.
    SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wholly agreed in what had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not understand how things were arranged; but he believed that the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) had something to do with the arrangement of the Public Business—and of course metropolitan matters seemed to him more important than those connected with Scotland. He thought it was the duty of the Government to let them know when the next stage of the Bill was to be taken.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Secretary).
    MR. C. DALRYMPLEwished to ask the Question in regard to the Secretary to the Board, upon which he had already endeavoured to obtain some information. He had spoken to at least half the Scotch Members upon it, and he had found extraordinary agreement among them upon it. Every Member to whom he had spoken was clearly of the opinion that the Secretary of the new Board ought to be a layman. He ought to say that one or two Members, whose position entitled them to great respect, hesitated to say that a minister of religion should never be Secretary; but that at the outset the Secretary ought certainly to be a layman. He did not now ask Her Majesty's Government to pledge themselves to name the Secretary in the Bill; he did not ask them to say that a minister of religion should never be Secretary; but he thought that they might fairly ask them to state that at the outset, at all events, he should be a layman. He had heard it said out-of-doors that the exclusion of ministers of religion from the secretaryship implied a slur on them, whereas their exclusion ought only to be insisted on —at least at the outset of new legislation — in the interests of fairness, and in order to prevent the infusion of any sectarian element.
    Clause agreed to.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, it seemed to him that the clause ought not to have been passed without an answer being given to the question of his hon. Friend.
    MR. BEUCEsaid, he had no idea that it had passed, for, there being other business of great importance, he fully
    838
    intended that Progress should be reported after the second clause. He begged to renew the assurance that had been already given, that the Government would take into its most careful consideration any expression of opinion, either on that side of the House or on this, as to the Secretary; but he did not consider that, before they had made up their minds whom they should appoint, it was right to decide this point one way or the other. It was his most earnest desire that the Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment; but nothing could be gained by fixing its next stage until Thursday. But he repeated that the earliest day that could be would be given.
    LORD ELCHO: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give no information as to the Secretary on the Report?
    MR. BRUCEsaid, he fully expected to be able to do so.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS— First Reading— Valuation of Property (Metropolis) * (229); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * (230); Straits Settlements* (231); Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment* (232); Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment * (233); Millbank Prison* (234); Metropolitan Poor Act (1867) Amendment* (235).
Second Reading— County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (1868) Amendment * (173); Contagious Diseases* (221); Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment* (178); Cinque Ports Act Amendment* (216); Pharmacy Act (1868) Amendment* (108).
Report—Bankruptcy * (208); Imprisonment for Debt* (224); Prevention of Gaming (Scotland)* (225).
Third Reading—Debts of Deceased Persons * (169); Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2) * (205); High Constables' Office Abolition, &c. * (99), and passed.
Withdrawn—Tenants Purchase by Instalments (Ireland) (161).

TENANTS' PURCHASE BY INSTALMENTS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 161.)
( The Lord Dunsany.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD DUNSANY LORD DUNSANY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that though this was a very unpretending measure, he believed a single instance of its successful operation would
considerably extend its usefulness. Its object was to enable tenants, with the consent of their landlords, to purchase the fee simple of their holdings, the purchase money being payable by instalments. It did not in any way interfere between the owners and the public who might be purchasers; it was not in the remotest degree a tenant-right Bill, but simply assumed that the landowner was the best judge of the expediency of the sale, and that the tenant might be the best and, perhaps, the only purchaser; and, while establishing no new principles and conferring no new powers, it would render practicable that which was now virtually impossible. It would operate in this way—If a landlord who did not succeed in selling property in the usual way ascertained that one of his tenants was willing to purchase, the payment of the first instalment would entitle the latter to a certificate as provisional holder. At the end of five years he would pay a second and at the end of ten years a third instalment, being thereupon entitled to a conveyance from the Landed Estates Court. If after paying one or more instalments the tenant failed to complete the purchase, both landlord and tenant would revert to their former position, such instalments being held equivalent to the payment of so much rent. It might, perhaps, be thought that a landlord would not enter into such a contract; but to meet this objection he would be entitled to increase the rent, so as to make it somewhat penal in the event of the purchase not being completed. It would be necessary to add a clause debarring the tenant from subletting or injuring the property. The first step on entering into a contract was usually a very expensive one, but the Bill would simplify and cheapen it. Mr. Bright the present President of the Board of Trade had proposed that the landlords should be bought out by the Government; but his wish would rather be to keep the landlords at home, and he should not favour any Bill which would tend to lessen the already too small number of resident landlords. He thought, however, it might be an advantage if they were induced to sell outlying and distant properties—for it was a fact, which history perhaps might explain, that the owner of land in one county generally held land in one or more other counties. The measure would

775
not require a single shilling to be advanced by the Treasury as the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would do. Mr. Bright contemplated the creation of a class of small proprietors, by converting the present occupiers indiscriminately into proprietors; but under this Bill the occupiers who would become proprietors would be a picked class, being those who by their industry and thrift had saved sufficient money to pay a first instalment. Even those, however, who agreed with Mr. Bright's views might support this Bill as a step in the right direction, while it was free from the objection that it infringed upon the rights of property. He believed that noble Lords on his own side of the House did not look forward with much confidence or hope to land legislation for Ireland, and would be glad if there was no prospect of any; but the Government had promised to introduce a measure next Session, and a very excellent Bill was about to come before their Lordships this evening. Should, however, any subsequent legislation be proposed, this Bill would not in any way interfere with it; and if there should be none it would, in a small way, accomplish some useful ends. At this period of the Session he could not hope to proceed further with this measure, but he hoped the House would give it a second reading, since it did not profess to touch the question of tenant-right and would not stand in the way of more comprehensive legislation.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—{The Lord Dunsany.)
LORD DUFFERINsaid, he would readily acknowledge the noble Lord's intimate acquaintance with Ireland, and his attention to his duties as an Irish landlord entitled any proposal he might submit on this subject to respectful attention. He had, however, in common with more competent persons whose opinion he had consulted, been unable to discover in the Bill any power which the landlord did not already possess of entering into any description of contract with his tenant. Considering the late period of the Session, and that the Government would probably introduce, at the commencement of next Session, a Bill affecting the tenure of land, or at all events for placing on a more satisfactory footing the relations of landlord and
776
tenant, he would appeal to the noble Lord, whether it would not be better to defer till then any suggestions he might have to offer.
LORD CAIRNSalso recommended the withdrawal of the Bill. It appeared to him to be perfectly innocuous, for it pointed to arrangements which might be very desirable; but he was not at all certain that everything which it contemplated might not be already done by agreement between a landlord and a tenant, if they were so disposed. It purported to facilitate the purchase of land by tenants, and though it only pointed to a sale by agreement, it might, if read a second time, give rise to an impression that it went in the direction of a compulsory transfer of land from one person to another. He hoped the noble Lord would be satisfied for this Session with having submitted the Bill.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Bill, remarking, however, that as the law now stood it was impossible to induce Irish farmers to enter into such contracts.
Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TENURE (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 36.)
(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he did not intend to proceed with the measure at this period of the Session. He wished, however, to explain that he dissociated it entirely from what was now called the land question, for it did not affect the ownership of land or the legitimate rights either of owners in fee, leaseholders, or occupiers, but was simply designed to remedy the flaws and obscurities of the existing law, so as to enable parties connected with the letting and holding of land to establish and recover their rights without much expense. In 1860, Mr. Cardwell introduced a measure based on the same principle as this Bill—namely, contract between man and man; but, unfortunately, it permitted implied conditions and constructions which rendered engagements made under it uncertain and obscure, and it expressly recognized, though without defining, implied contracts. Its terms, more-

777
over, were extremely ambiguous, though its principle was admittedly sound. Irish landlords and tenants also were grateful to the noble Lords who in a former Session bestowed so much attention on the present Bill in a Select Committee, particularly to the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Clarendon) and to Earl Grey, who devoted so much assiduity and trouble to it. It had not been pressed in the present Session, on account not of any want of confidence in its provisions, but on account of a question totally different from that of an amelioration of the law having been raised. The question now discussed in newspapers, speeches by agitators, and, he was sorry to add, by many Members of Parliament at the late election, who ought to have known better, was whether the present occupiers were to take possession of the land by lease or in fee simple, regardless of the rights of the landlords. If an occupier obtained a Parliamentary title to a lease under the name of fixity of tenure, he would practically become the owner — in other words, it was confiscation. Mr. Bright, to whose scheme the noble Lord opposite (Lord Dunsany) had referred, desired the creation of a class of small proprietors; but he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) very much doubted whether the condition of any country had been improved by taking land or any other property from large possessors and dividing it among small proprietors. Such measures had not proved satisfactory in France and other countries. To any such scheme as that of Mr. Bright there must be three parties —landlords ready to sell, tenants ready to buy, and the State ready both to buy and sell. Now, he ventured to predict that the only parties who would enter with alacrity into such a project would be the landlords. No doubt plenty of land-lords would be willing to sell their property if offered the full value; but he doubted if Parliament, however strong this or any future Ministry might be, or however many dissolutions might be resorted to, would ever be persuaded to buy the land in order to sell it to small proprietors. As to giving occupiers by Act of Parliament leases for twenty- one, thirty-one, or sixty-one years, this would virtually be conferring on them the ownership of the land. It would, moreover, be a despotism hitherto unknown in any country to insist that
778
an occupier should be made to continue in his occupation for a considerable number of years. Even in Russia the policy of binding men to the soil had been abandoned. He was sorry that such a project had been started at a time when horrible crimes were being committed connected with the land, for he was convinced that the principle of this Bill—that was to say, the principle of regulating the relations between landlords and tenants—was the best that could be proposed. He was told, indeed, that it did not go far enough; but he had no objection to going further, provided the principle of voluntary and well-defined agreements between landlord and tenant was adhered to. Unless the Government introduced a measure at the commencement of next Session, he should re-introduce this Bill, and should endeavour to press it through both Houses. The Government were supposed to be bound to take up the subject, and in that case he entreated them to lose no time, for there had been already too much hesitation and paltering with it, with very mischievous consequences. He would urge them in the shortest space of time consistent with that personal relaxation to which they were entitled as well as private Members, after the labours of the Session, to frame a measure, which need be no Cabinet secret, but should be made known to Parliament and the country at the earliest possible date. he had now to move that the Order for the House to be put into Committee be discharged.
Motion agreed to: Order discharged.

NEW ZEALAND.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON THE EARL OF CARNARVON, who had given notice to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the present position of Affairs in New Zealand, said, the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Granville) has lately laid on the table, by command of Her Majesty, a bulky volume of 600 pages of correspondence on the affairs of New Zealand. The first portion of it consists mainly of complaints on the part of Sir George Grey with reference to the course I pursued when I held the Seals of the Colonial Office; but I do not think it necessary to address myself to those complaints, though I shall be prepared, whenever the necessity arises, to justify

779
the policy which I recommended the Crown to adopt. It also contains recriminatory matter which it would serve no useful purpose to enter into; and it raises various questions of possible and impossible policy as regards New Zealand, which I likewise propose to pass by. The only points to which I invite your Lordships' attention are the present position of the colony, and the difficulties arising from a certain sense of financial exhaustion, from the undoubted danger with regard to the Maories, and from a strong feeling of local irritation. Now, there are in New Zealand two parties and two policies—the party and policy of independence, and the party and policy which looks to the mother country for protection and assistance. It is easy, of course, to lay down the broad rules that in colonial matters the Home Government is concerned only with the external relations of the country, and that the Colonial Government is concerned solely with matters of internal regulation and police. That rule is perfectly sound; but the lines of external and domestic policy are constantly intercepting and crossing each other, and they are very difficult to define. Moreover, in New Zealand there are complications caused by the presence of the native tribes and their warlike character, by the peculiar physical geography of the country which cuts it up into various parts, with various feelings and difficulties, by a Constitution hastily and I think inadvisedly given, and by the conditions under which Imperial troops have from time to time been employed. They have sometimes been employed solely at the charge and under the orders of the Home Government—the objection to which is that this country is thus called upon to bear the expense of native wars; sometimes under the orders of the Colonial Government — which is still more objectionable, for it would involve our carrying on a war while the policy by which that war was caused would be determined by others; and there has more than once been a tendency to regulate their employment by the joint councils of the Home and the Colonial Governments—which of all policies seems to me the most objectionable, since it would necessarily lead to a division and confusion of power. All these questions and considerations, though perhaps not very familiar to your Lordships, have
780
been discussed over and over again in the colony, and have greatly complicated this matter. I think the independence of New Zealand was in former years somewhat prematurely given, that the Constitution was not calculated to work well, and that the abandonment of native affairs was premature on our part; but, whether or not this be so, the fact remains that it has been done, and that we must accept it. I feel satisfied, too, that when the temporary irritation existing in the minds of the colonists has passed by they will be ready and anxious to accept that fact also. There can, it seems to me, be no retreat from the course we have adopted, and in its main lines the policy pursued by successive Colonial Secretaries, by Mr. Cardwell, by myself, by my noble Friend (the Duke of Buckingham), and by the noble Earl (Earl Granville), must be adhered to. I believe the present irritation is not founded on any solid or substantial grounds of policy, and that the colonists themselves are far too self-reliant and manly to wish to be relieved from their duties, or placed in a position unlike that of any other British colony. That irritation, I am convinced, is due to misconception—not on both sides, for I do not think there is any in this country, but in the colony. It also arises from a very simple cause, the operation of which I have more than once remarked. We, in England, are sometimes so engrossed with the mass of Public Business, with one first-class question crowding upon another, that we are obliged to pass by colonial questions with comparatively little debate, and to appear sometimes as giving them apparently less attention than they deserve. Now, to the colonists, a question which to us is only one of a hundred, is one of vital moment, and they fancy we are indifferent when we are not really so; and such is their feeling for this country that I believe they would sometimes bear injustice rather than indifference. I believe both parties in this case entertain the warmest feelings towards each other. I have seen enough of the colonists to know their strong attachment to this country, and I am sure that as warm feelings are entertained for them in this country as for any part of the United Kingdom. It is no slight advantage to us that in all parts of the world there should be communities speaking the same lan-

781
guage, holding the same institutions, animated very much by the same sympathies, and subjects of the same Sovereign, and we are not likely to undervalue it. On the other hand, these colonies give a free vent for all the activity and energy which find insufficient scope in this country; and it is no slight advantage to them that they bear the name of Englishmen, and are members of the British Empire. History furnishes no example of such a colonial Empire as ours—an Empire from which we exact no tribute, on which we impose no restraint, and to which, sometimes on being asked and sometimes without being asked, we have freely accorded perfect independence. It has been the fate of other great Empires — Spain and Venice for example—to be detested by their colonies, and I believe it was because they pursued a, policy exactly opposite to that which for the last quarter-of-a-century we have adopted. I cannot believe, therefore, that there exists in New Zealand any feeling of misconception or irritation which goes deeper than the surface, for the essential lines of our policy are lines recognized both by them and by us, and nobody can say that we are laying a burden upon them, and requiring them to strain their resources for our own private advantage. As to the course which should be pursued in the present state of affairs, it is very difficult to give an answer. New Zealand claimed some time ago the control of their own affairs, and it was given them by Sir George Grey, when Governor, on his own authority and responsibility, the act, however, being subsequently endorsed by the Duke of Newcastle. Mr. Cardwell, on succeeding to the Colonial Office, made various offers in respect to the troops, which were substantially declined; and on succeeding him I renewed those offers with little variation, when they were again substantially declined. The colony, or a part of the colony—for I doubt whether the feeling be general—seems now disposed to retrace their steps; but the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has declined, as I understand, either to leave the troops there or to resume the control of native affairs; and the Treasury has refused, under present circumstances, any financial guarantee to the colony for the purposes of war. It is difficult to say what can be advised; but I may
782
venture on this suggestion, whatever it may be worth. A great part of the present difficulties is due to the distance by which we are separated from New Zealand and the importance of carrying on communications with that colony. Misunderstandings are under those circumstances very likely to arise; and it seems to me to be possible that some one on the spot, accredited by Her Majesty's Government, enjoying their confidence and also the confidence of the colonists, and armed with whatever powers the Government might think fit to entrust to him, might make inquiries and offer suggestions which might bring about a better state of things. Your Lordships will recollect that this is not altogether a novel proposal. Years ago, when matters had assumed a very formidable appearance in Canada, and when the differences between the two Provinces brought things almost to a dead-lock, Lord Durham was sent out from this country, and no one can doubt that great benefit resulted from his mission. In like manner, in the case of Jamaica, Sir Henry Storks was sent out to restore order; and, lastly, when in 1859 difficulties of a peculiarly delicate nature arose in the Ionian Islands, no less a person than the present Prime Minister undertook a mission to those islands, which, although it did not at the moment effect all that was thought desirable, yet produced this result—that his presence there allayed in a great measure the discord which prevailed, tended to soften the asperities and bitterness of feeling which existed, and paved the way for a more satisfactory state of things. I throw out this suggestion, my Lords, without in any degree insisting upon it, for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. If some such course be not adopted with regard to New Zealand, then the only alternative it appears to me to which we can have recourse is to allow the colonists themselves to work out their own fortune and policy, while we give them every assistance which we can legitimately afford in working out that fortune and policy, the main outlines of which have been laid down by successive Secretaries of State. I have always taken a deep interest in the colony of New Zealand, and I should be very glad to see this feeling of temporary misunderstanding removed and a much

783
more satisfactory state of feeling as to the relations between the colony and the mother country substituted in its place.
EARL GRANVILLE: I think the noble Earl has been very judicious in what he has omitted to notice in the speech which he has just made. As your Lordships will observe, I came down to the House prepared with a considerable amount of ammunition in the event of any attack being made on the policy of the Government; but I am bound to say that all that has fallen from the noble Earl tends to justify and strengthen the Government in pursuing the course which they have followed, and which is a course really consistent with that which has been adopted by their predecessors in Office. I feel also greatly the advantage of not being obliged, by the observations which have been made by the noble Earl, to enter very much into this question. Tilling unworthily as I do the position which I happen to occupy with regard to the colonies, I should not like to be compelled to come forward in this House at all in the shape of an advocate against New Zealand; and it is, unfortunately, very difficult, when complaints and attacks are made in Parliament on the policy of the Government, not to enter into full explanations in order to show where we think others have been wrong and we ourselves in the right. I quite agree with the noble Earl in what he said with regard to the position in which the country might find itself in the case of an internal war in the colony. First arises the question whether the mother country should take upon herself the defence of the colony and the perfect control of that war. Then comes the question whether, losing a portion of that control, she is still liable to furnish the colony with military aid, and by means of the double government, to which the noble Earl has referred, to lead the Crown and the colony into very great difficulties. Lastly comes the question whether, the whole power being vested in the colony, it should bear the entire responsibility. In the history of New Zealand each of the two former courses has been pursued from time to time; but it now appears that, after considerable delay we have come to adopt the last course, which seems to me to be the right one in the interest both of the
784
mother country and of the colony itself. The policy of the Government, as indicated in the Papers which have been laid before Parliament, has been in the main approved by the noble Earl, and has, I believe, met with the general approval of the country. I do not wish to enter further into the question. I am of opinion that the great and important thing is to declare on the part of the Government their determination to adhere to that policy. The objection which I entertain to the suggestion which the noble Earl has thrown out, and which has been acted upon with advantage under some circumstances—though I think there would be great practical difficulties in the way in the present instance—is that it may create some doubt as to the principles on which the mother country is determined to act with regard to the colonies. The most important thing of all, with the view of removing that dissatisfaction, which I quite concur with the noble Earl in regarding as being of a temporary nature is, in my opinion, that we should understand perfectly our mutual relations, and that, with all those friendly offices to which he has also alluded, we should throw upon the Colonial Government the responsibility of shaping their policy in such a manner as that they should make up their minds to do that which is necessary to put an end to— what I can hardly call war, but that system of brigandage and outrage which exists, and—which I regard as being still more useful—to adopt those conciliatory measures towards the natives which are most likely to result in peace and conciliation. It only remains for me to thank the noble Earl for the manner in which he has brought the subject under your Lordships' notice.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, he would not enter into the past history of New Zealand, but he thought he should be wanting in his duty towards the colonists of New Zealand, as well as towards the natives of that country, if he were not to address a few words to their Lordships on the present occasion. Against the general policy which had been enunciated by the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Department he had nothing to say, because he believed it to be strictly sound. It was but fair to add that the rejection of aid from England came from the colonists themselves in the first instance, and that

785
one Prime Minister, Mr. Weld, had taken office on the distinct reliance upon local resources. He therefore entirely concurred with the noble Earl as to the strict justice of the view which he took. He at the same time agreed with the other noble Earl who was formerly at the head of the Colonial Office (the Earl of Carnarvon) in the opinion that there was nothing which the colonists felt more than indifference or neglect on the part of the mother country; but they probably forgot that they were but one of fifty colonies that required the attention and consideration of the Home Government. But it was not only the colonists, but the natives, whose interests were concerned, and he would ask whether it was not the Imperial Government who made the first contract with the latter? Had that contract, entered into in 1839, when the New Zealanders, who were broken up into small and hostile tribes, confiding in the power of England received the British Government for the express purpose of putting down anarchy and bloodshed—evils to which no one was more alive than the New Zealanders themselves—been fulfilled? He feared that contract had not been fulfilled; and on that ground alone he begged the Government to pause before they refused all further aid to the colony. New Zealand was at present composed of about 200,000 English settlers and about 30,000 or 40,000 natives, of which number he would undertake to say more than one-half were attached and loyal subjects of Her Majesty, while another portion was neutral and ready to be made loyal; those by whom the murders were committed—which had been properly called acts of brigandage—being only a contemptible minority. He therefore appealed to the Government, seeing how great the cost of employing soldiers in the colony was, and how difficult it was to keep colonial forces in any degree of discipline or subjection, to lend such assistance as would enable the colonists to put an end to that system of brigandage in a country in which the wars which, from time to time had occurred, had, he must say, been conducted in a most honourable and chivalrous manner. There were repeated examples of that. He must say that never were wars conducted by any European nation in a more honourable and chivalrous manner than the wars of these New Zealanders,
786
so long as they were national wars. Now, however, that the native forces were broken up into small sections, the same results had followed which always ensued in other countries under similar circumstances. The principal chiefs, finding that they were unable to make head against the British troops in open fight, retired under the leadership of their native King into the heart of the country, where they shut themselves up in their fastnesses and maintained a sort of armed neutrality: others had divided themselves into small parties, and taking advantage of their knowledge of the country had attacked the outlying settlements. He had received a letter from the late Chief Justice, Sir William Martin, who went out to the colony in 1839. The writer said—
"After the great calamity at Poverty Bay a storm arose in our newspapers of plans for preventing the like doings in other parts. Among the most prominent was one from Sir David Monro. He urged the suspension of the Constitution and the transfer of all power in native matters to a Dictator, to be sent out hither from England."
That, he believed, was the plan proposed by the noble Earl opposite.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had not proposed such a scheme.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, that something similar had been proposed by the noble Earl. He had understood the noble Earl to say that the case was analogous to that of Jamaica and the Ionian Islands, and that it might be necessary to send out special Commissioners. He admitted, however, that the word "Dictator" had not been used by the noble Earl. Sir William Martin went on to say—
"This met with some favour, but the extreme improbability of the English Government consenting to resume the management of native affairs, and various points in the plan itself, diminished the feeling in its favour. After waiting until it had become clear that Matutaera— the native King—and his people were minded to keep the peace, I addressed the enclosed memorandum to the Resident Minister, Dr. Pollen."
The word "King," he might remark, had been the source of much unnecessary offence. There had never been a King in the colony of New Zealand. The natives had only heard of a Queen, and their notion—not a very exalted one of a King—was taken from the Book of Judges. Well, Sir William Martin, proceeded as follows:—

787
"He forwarded it with an expression of his entire concurrence to Wellington. No answer has as yet been received, but Dr. Pollen tells me that his letter was crossed by one from Mr. J. C. Richmond to himself, in which Mr. Richmond expressed his readiness to throw up the confiscated lands to a large extent. Since then our case has been strengthened by a letter from Mr. Serancke, full of details, of the accuracy of which he is satisfied. It appears that the murders at the White Cliff were committed by four men— whose names are known—from Mokau; that a raid was actually set on foot by a body of eighty men under one Reihana, and that on their march to Alexandra they were intercepted by Matutaera and his friends and driven back. Further, Mr. Serancke certifies that Rewi is clear of complicity in the late crimes, and has been steadily supporting Matutaera and Tamati. At the request of Dr. Pollen, I have written to Tamati to suggest for consideration three bases of peace, not as from the Government, but as suggestions made to them and to the Government—namely—1. That a district may be defined within which they may make and administer laws for themselves, and appoint their own chief magistrate. 2. That lands in Waikato shall be given to all who are willing to settle quietly down under the law. 3. That both sides shall co-operate for the purpose of repressing crimes of violence."
On this point he would call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to a despatch sent by his predecessor, the Duke of Newcastle, to Governor Gore Browne — which was explained in my hearing to the native King by the well-known chief, William Thompson—to the effect that if the latter thought fit to assign a district to the chief magistrate chosen by the natives, in the same manner as the superintendents of the English provinces, he was quite at liberty to do so, provided that the laws made for such district should be submitted to the Governor for his confirmation. This might have been easily done. The island was at that time divided into six provinces—there were now nine — each of which had its own chief magistrate and its own provincial council, and it would have been easy to form a province in which the so-called native King should be superintendent; and if the native King would act with us and pass laws to be submitted to the consideration of the Governor he saw no reason why such a system should not be adopted. Governor Denison was of the same opinion— he said there was nothing to be afraid of in the name of King; the thing to be done was to recognize him, and make use of his authority for the maintenance of order. The possibility of doing this
788
was proved by the fact that in the very district of which so much had been lately heard — the native-King district — he found, some years ago, the laws so carefully administered by the native magistrates that a traveller might leave his baggage by the wayside with the most perfect safety, because nobody stole there. He asked how it was that they did not steal there. They said— "Some do not steal from the fear of God, while others do not steal from the fear of the £5 "—the fine imposed by the native King for every theft that was committed in the district. The stories told of the force of law in the reign of King Alfred were literally fulfilled in this part of New Zealand. And this it must be remembered was done by the natives themselves. He believed that at that period the King might have inaugurated a system of good government in the very heart of the country. The people most earnestly desired that this might be done, for the New Zealanders were essentially a law-loving people. When he first went out to that colony the natives paid willing deference to the authority both of the magistrates and missionaries, and it was not until the effect began to be felt of what is called the Queen's right of pre-emption—that was to say that the natives might sell their land to the Crown only—that the idea of the Queen's sovereignty began to be degraded in the eyes of the people. Those who referred to the earlier documents would find that this was the very result predicted by acting Governor Shortland. When the sovereignty of the Queen was ordered to be proclaimed over the whole of the Northern Island in 1840, Governor Hobson wrote to Lord John Russell to the following effect:—
"If I am to carry out this instruction I must have a much larger force placed at my command, as there are many breaches of the peace and civil wars among the people which I must suppress."
What the answer was he did not know; but from the failure of that despatch in procuring any sufficient assistance from England he dated the source of all the present troubles in New Zealand. The agents of the Government for the purchase of ground had done incalculable in-jury by going about the country in a very injudicious manner buying up the land —often from the wrong man—and from that the civil wars and bloodshed had arisen. In the neighbourhood of New

789
Plymouth two sections of a tribe engaged in civil war, in consequence of a Government agent having bought land from an individual against the will of the tribe to whom it belonged. It was only when they came within the boundary of the English settlement that a proclamation was issued warning the natives that if they fought on what was called the Queen's ground they would be considered the Queen's enemies. Of course it was understood that outside that boundary they might fight as long as they pleased. This was very far from being a fulfilment of the contract originally entered into with those tribes who accepted the Queen's sovereignty. They had accepted our government on the condition that we should preserve them from the consequences of anarchy among themselves; and yet twenty years after that contract was entered into we found them making war against one another in every part of the colony. He might sum up all by referring to a text cited on a public occasion by William Thompson, who was called "the King-maker." It was this verse from St. Paul, — "Ye have reigned as kings without us; would to God ye did reign." In the eagerness for land the Government had abdicated all those functions of government which alone induced the natives to accept our rule. He would ask their Lordships were they to listen to those cold-blooded persons who said that the natives were perishing fast, that this was a war of extermination, and that it must take its course? If, indeed, the natives were to perish in God's providence from off the face of the earth, let us lift up our prayers for the remnant that is yet left—let us act in the spirit of that prayer by trying to fulfil the contract that we made twenty years ago—that the English and the New Zealanders should be one people. When on one occasion a native chief gave him some land on which to build a College, he said—
"I give you this land as a site for a place of education for the youth of both races, that they may grow up together in the new principles of the faith of Jesus Christ, and in obedience to the Queen."
That, he would undertake to say, was the prevailing feeling throughout the; whole of New Zealand. Every New Zealander desired to be a faithful subject of Her Majesty until that unfortu-
790
nate article of the treaty of Waitangi, the Queen's right to the pre-emption of land, took the precedence over every other idea, and the whole notion of government and of the sovereignty of the Queen was lost in the simple question of in what manner and by what quickest possible means the property of the soil in New Zealand; should be transferred from the natives; to the Crown. Their great mistake in New Zealand had been their asserting from the beginning a sovereignty over a country which they could not govern. Within a few years they had repeated all the errors committed in Ireland centuries ago. There had been repeated ' confiscations of land, large tracts had been taken from the natives, and so-called military settlers were placed in them to defend the district. These military settlers speedily sold their lands. On one occasion he knew that a dealer came to those settlements and bought up in one day the land of thirty of those supposed defenders of the country, who went away leaving the place unprotected; and then a number of peaceful settlers came instead of those military men, and scattered themselves over the district, and although they were exposed to every; kind of danger they were never injured, because they were living in the King's country and the King's word was for peace. In other parts, indeed, where peculiarly exasperating circumstances had occurred, the case had been different. The men who had done all the mischief on the East Coast and at Poverty Bay were men who had been carried off as prisoners to the Chatham Islands. They were told that if they conducted themselves well at the end of two years they would be set at liberty. They behaved in the most exemplary manner that they might earn their freedom; but at the expiration of the two years they were informed that they were not to be set at liberty. The magistrate who was instructed to read this dispatch to them had asked a friend to watch the countenance of the prisoners as he read the letter. A look of despair at once came over them, as if every hope they had in life were cut off. They had been placed on lonely and remote islands, 600 miles away; they had looked forward to the day of their emancipation, and with that view they had behaved exceedingly well. But when they saw no hope left to them,

791
was it surprising that they took matters into their own hands, seized a ship, and escaped? Those men went back to their own country: they offered to remain quiet if they were let alone; but they were followed up by a military force, driven into the woods, their places stormed, and their houses burnt. The most unwise thing of all was that, in spite of warning, the military officers who had followed up those escaped prisoners went and settled down on the land which had just been taken from them. The New Zealanders would not be like the Scotch, the Irish, or the Welsh if, under such circumstances, they had not taken their revenge. He trusted that none of their Lordships would believe that the New Zealanders were naturally a cruel and treacherous race. There were, no doubt, a few murderers among them at the present moment under the force of circumstances; but there was not one cannibal among them, except when, stimulated by frenzy or goaded on by a false prophet, they acted under the same maddened impulses that led French women during the frenzy of the Revolution to lap the blood of persons who had been decapitated by the guillotine. When maddened by the influence of some fanatic, some excesses of that kind might, perhaps, have been committed by a native New Zealander; but as to cannibalism in the real sense of the term, which was sometimes gravely charged against them, and at other times, he grieved to say, alleged against them in order merely to point a jest, such a thing had entirely ceased since the colony was established. He therefore appealed to Her Majesty's Government to give some assistance to New Zealand. He thought it might be done in two ways. He hoped that the use of the Imperial credit might be extended to the Colonial Government to enable it to raise a loan on reasonable terms for one simple purpose —namely, to compensate the settlers who must be removed from the disturbed districts for a time, because their remaining there was likely to provoke a continuance of these murders. Another way in which he hoped New Zealand would receive some assistance was in the maintenance of a small force to act as a police force—because he did not think the Colonial Government ever could maintain such a force as was ne-
792
cessary to follow up and suppress brigandage and murder. The native who had lately murdered a missionary was now at large, and was known to be living some twenty or thirty miles from our frontier settlements on the Waikato river; and, after the expenditure of millions of money and the loss of the lives of so many British officers and soldiers, no attempt had been made to bring to justice that notorious murderer. If that man and other notorious murderers were once given up to justice, and if we once made a treaty of peace with the New Zealanders, there was nothing in our experience of the country before or since its colonization to warrant the belief that any solemn covenant entered into with them would ever be broken. He thought that it would be very beneficial if, instead of the regiment now shut up in the towns, a flying body of about 500 men, under the authority of the British Government, yet acting in conjunction with the Colonial Government of New Zealand, were held ready at any moment to go to any part of the colony wherever a crime had been committed—not in any way to protect the settlers in the possession of the land, nor to be mixed up at all with the land question, but merely to arrest murderers; and he believed that such criminals would be apprehended with the good will of the native population themselves. He was convinced that the colonists, instead of looking to some other Power for the protection which might be denied them by England, would far rather cling to this country, as they had ever yet clung to it as their own mother, their own friend, and their own protector. He did not ask for assistance to enable the colonists to do acts of injustice towards the natives. Such acts, he must say in defence of his own brother-settlers, had not been attempted excepting on very rare occasions. The general feeling of the settlers, he could assure their Lordships, had been for many years that of friendliness towards the native race. There were a few persons among the settlers, as there were also a few among the New Zealanders, who would, at times, rush into violence; but the great majority of the colonists lived in peace and harmony with their native fellow-subjects, and their good will was, in a great degree, reciprocated by the natives.

793
He, therefore, entreated Her Majesty's Government to pause before committing themselves finally to the principle that, under no circumstances, would they depart from the rigid policy of entire abstinence in future from any interference in the affairs of New Zealand; and he made that appeal to them on the ground of mercy both to the settlers and to the natives.
LORD LYVEDENsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) who had opened the debate, in a speech remarkable for its moderation, had stated that there was nothing the colonists so much disliked as indifference. His own experience was that they did dislike indifference. But let the House look at this debate, and see to what all the difficulties which had been spoken of would lead. It would lead to so many things the colonists would dislike that he feared very much they would prefer our indifference. Even the noble Earl himself mentioned two things which would give rise to great difference of opinion in the colony. The one was that our acknowledgment of the independence of the colony was premature, and the other, that our giving up the native tribes to the colonists was also premature. Mr. Fitzherbert, in a letter to his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, stated that in the beginning there was a great determination on the part of Government to establish the colony, and great encouragement was given to induce people to go out and settle there. But his noble Friend said, very properly, in his answer, that a number of Englishmen, without any encouragement from the Government, took upon themselves to form one or more settlements in the colony of New Zealand, and the Government of the day only thought it their duty to place the relations between the settlers and the natives upon a safe and honourable basis. And not only was that true—not only was it true that the Government gave no encouragement whatever to the settlers, but they gave them discouragement. The New Zealand Company were determined to establish themselves in New Zealand, whether under the authority of the Crown or any other authority, and they planned all sorts of schemes to induce people to go out. But so little encouragement was held out by the Government that only this morning, in looking
794
over some despatches of that time, he found a letter addressed to himself as Under Secretary of the Colonies on the part of the Company, in which he was informed that they would write to him no more, his tone was so discouraging, but it was their desire to see Lord Russell himself, under whom he served at the time. But Lord Russell gave the same answer as he had done—; so that the fact was that they had met with discouragement from the Government, instead of encouragement. He agreed with the noble Earl that it would be idle now to enter into old questions of disputes, in which General Cameron, Sir George Grey, and others took part. At present the only question was whether we were to pursue a particular line of policy or not. Nothing could have been more interesting or instructive than the speech of the right rev. Prelate, who had spent almost all his life in the colony. But what were his proposals, and what had he said? He said that the Imperial Government had made a treaty with the natives, and that it had been departed from. But was it really the case that it had been departed from? for he (Lord Lyveden) did not know in what respect. Then the right rev. Prelate asked to have loans made to the colonists; but for what? To carry out the policy which the right rev. Prelate himself so strongly condemned as injurious to the Maories. If the right rev. Prelate had attacked any one, it was the Colonial (Government that he had attacked. No doubt the policy of self-reliance was an excellent policy; but it was a miserable policy if, whenever a difficulty arose, it called out for "Help, help." If, now, because of the horrible massacre at Poverty Bay, and other calamities of the kind, the colonists were to come to the Imperial Government and say—"We can no longer rely upon ourselves, and must now come to you," it would put an end to responsible government altogether. The noble Earl opposite had suggested to send out a Commission—
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had not suggested that a Commission should be sent out, but that some person accredited by Her Majesty's Government should be sent out to make inquiries on the spot.
LORD LYVEDENsaid, the noble Earl must remember that every inquiry, whether conducted by a single person

795
or otherwise, must give rise to new hopes and expectations, the effect of which would be to a great extent to make the government of the colony still more difficult. Every inquiry on the spot must, to a great extent, supersede the authority of the Governor; and when once the authority of the Governor was superseded, not only the settlers, but the natives would come to think that their friend the Queen was taking their part against the Governor—so that every chance of the pacification of the colony would be overturned. There was one suggestion which he thought might be acted on by his noble Friend, and that was to enter into some negotiation with the Maori King. With regard to money and troops, he hoped his noble Friend would not recede from his original determination. He imagined that by this time all the troops had left New Zealand. [Earl GRANVILLE assented.] A loan had been already guaranteed to New Zealand, and he saw no reason why there should be any other guarantee. The colonists must be left to themselves to work out their own safety. No doubt that might be a very great difficulty, but it was one which they must meet, and which they would never meet as long as we sent them troops. If the settlers were left to their own resources he could not help thinking that those in the Southern Island, who had not hitherto been so active as the rest, would combine with their brethren in the north to put down the insurrection. With the stern determination of British men in them, and the resolution to use their best endeavours to promote the interests of the colony and defend themselves, he could not but think that we might look forward in a short time to the prosperity of New Zealand—as one of those favourite colonies in which Englishmen at home, from the Sovereign down to the pauper emigrant, felt the greatest interest, and which was regarded as one of our noblest colonies, and one which afforded to all emigrants the greatest advantages for settlement.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (INDIA).

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE, in moving an Address for Copies of Correspondence relating to Weights and Measures (India), said, that he wished to draw attention
  796
  to the valuable Report which had been laid upon the table of the House on Tuesday last. He advocated the adoption of the metric system in India in preference to our complicated method of measuring, because then the people of India would have no difficulty in the way of trading with all the civilized world.
  Moved for—
  Address for Copy of despatch from the Government of India to the Secretary of State, of the 6th November 1868, relating to Weights and Measures for India, omitting enclosures: Also,
  Correspondence between the India Office and the Board of Trade on the same subject, omitting enclosures, with the exception of a minute by Mr. H. T. Prinsep, Member of the Indian Council, and of a letter from the Warden of the Standards; also further minutes by Mr. Prinsep: And also,
  Copy of despatch from the Secretary of State to the Government of India, dated 10th June 1869, omitting enclosures.—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, there was no objection to the presentation of the Papers. A short time ago a despatch was received from the Government of India explaining that the weights and measures of that country were in an extremely confused state, and recommending that the metric system should be adopted throughout India. He had much pleasure in sending out a despatch permitting the adoption of the metric system. One of the Papers moved for consisted of a dissent from the course by Mr. Prinsep, a Member of the Indian Council, who had, some time since, taken a distinguished part in reforming Indian weights and measures; but he was alone in his opposition.
  Motion agreed to.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the separation of the Straits Settlements from the Diocese of Calcutta—Was presented by The Earl GRANVILLE; read 1a. (No. 231.)

  MILLBANK PRISON BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable military offenders to be confined in Millbank Prison—Was presented by The Lord NORTHBROOK; read 1a. (No. 234.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.