Sitting of 10 May 1869

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICK, further on account.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation: Diplomatic Services [Salaries and Allowances].
Ordered—First Reading—Courts of Justice (Now Site) [1131; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation *[114].
Committee—Report—Recorders' Deputies * [107]; Municipal Franchise * [85]; Evidence Amendment * [25].
Considered as amended—Pharmacy Act (1868) Amendment* [37].
Third Heading—Stannaries * [101] and passed.

NATAL—THE CHURCH IN THE COLONIES —CASE OF THE REV. MR. GREEN.—QUESTION.
MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. Whether, not with standing the interdict of the Supreme Court of the Colony of Natal, dated the 9th of January 1868. by which Mr. Green (the then Colonial Chaplain) was prohibited from officiating in any church or building in the Colony belonging to the Church of England, the same Mr. Green is still recognized as Colonial Chaplain by Her Majesty's Government, and in receipt of the salary attached to that office; and, if so. why?
MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that the attention of the Colonial Department had not been called to the position of Mr. Green since the present Government came into Office. It appeared that Mr. Green had been for nineteen years colonial chaplain in Natal, that his salary had been paid out of the colonial revenue, and that there never had been any desire expressed by the colonial authorities, so far as he (Mr. Monsell) knew, that Mr. Green should be removed from his position. On account, however, of his having promulgated the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the Bishop of Cape Town against Dr. Colenso, the Bishop of Natal, Dr. Colenso appeared to have deprived and inhibited Mr. Green. The Supreme Court, on the matter being brought under their consideration, ratified the decision, and pronounced an interdict prohibiting him from officiating in any church or building set apart for the use of the Church of England, and for winch
468
the Bishop of Natal was trustee. From that decision Mr. Green did not appeal. Looking at the question, it was a matter of some difficulty to be sure of the relative legal positions of Dr. Gray, Dr. Colenso, and Mr. Green. The decision of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, by which those rights had hitherto been supposed to be ascertained, rested on the assumption that, in 1857, Natal was not a Crown Colony, whilst the judgment of the Supreme Court, on which it was now suggested that they should act, was based, by the majority of the Judges, on the opposite assumption that at that period Natal was a Crown Colony. The Judicial Committee having thus been declared mistaken on a most important fact, in this conflict of opinion and authority, his noble Friend Lord Granville had thought it right, before taking any step, to submit the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown for their opinion

PILOTAGE DUES ON FOREIGN SHIPPING.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true, as has been stated by the Nantes and Havre Chambers of Commerce in a recent Memorial to the French Government, that in the trade between London and the French ports the Customs authorities in London demand receipts for pilotage from French vessels previous to granting clearances, which demand is not made in the case of British vessels engaged in the same trade; and, if so, on what ground such demand is made, and on what grounds the vessels of the two Countries are subjected to different treatment?
  MR. BRIGHT, in reply, said, it was quite true that, under the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign ships were required to pay pilotage dues in the way specified, and that British ships were not required to pay in the same manner. Both, however, were subjected to the same rates of pilotage, and under the same obligations with respect to the employment of pilots. There was some difficulty about knowing what was the reason of the difference made between them; but it was assumed to be the case that the owners of foreign shipping were often not here, and therefore were not so easily accessible in case the

  469
  pilotage were not paid. Another reason given was, that it was a better plan for the owners of foreign shipping, as it secured them from the chance of imposition. However, he suspected that neither of these reasons was of much weight, and he believed it was intended that the point should be considered in the Amendments of the Merchant Shipping Act, and that in all probability the distinction would be removed.

ARMY—PATRIOTIC FUND COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether there can be any objection to lay upon the Table Copy of the last Report of the Executive Committee of the Patriotic Fund Commission; whether that Report contains a very painful account of the present state of management of that institution; and, whether he is prepared to state the defalcations which have occurred, and the position of the parties who are answerable for them?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the Royal Commission on the Patriotic-Fund reported to Her Majesty through the Secretary of State for War, and, as soon as the present investigation was concluded, no doubt the Commission would make a Report, which, if the hon. Member would then move for, he should be perfectly ready to lay upon the table. He understood that the Executive Committee had made a Report to the Commission, which the Commission had referred back to the Executive Committee for further information upon certain points. With regard to the defalcation which it was known had occurred, it had been ascertained to amount to between £200 and £250, and instructions had been given that the clerk, the person suspected, should be prosecuted.

  THE EDMUNDS SCANDAL.—QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Copy of a Paper entitled "The History of the Edmunds Scandal, by Leonard Edmunds," is now on record in the Treasury, and, if so, whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?
  MR. AYRTONin reply, said, it was true that Mr. Edmunds had written a letter to the Lords of the Treasury to say that he had the honour to enclose a copy of a Paper entitled ''The History of the Edmunds Scandal," and to request that they would cause the same to be made a record of the Treasury. The Treasury was not exactly the place for recording everything that any person chose to send there, and therefore, if Mr. Edmunds was anxious to have the Paper presented to Parliament he thought he had better choose some other channel than that office.

  COLONIAL RETURNS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When the Colonial Returns in continuation of that of 1859, ordered by the House on 11th May 1868, will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that the Colonial Returns in continuation of those of 1859 were Returns to be made by the Treasury, and he had been constantly pressing for them, he trusted rather than hoped, that they would be laid on the table shortly.

IRELAND—PROTECTION OF LIFE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measures for the better protection of life in certain districts in Ireland? Every day accounts of fresh outrages continue to be received.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, I have to say there are no possible efforts or exertions which the Government and the police are not making for the purpose of detecting the perpetrators of the crimes which have recently disgraced certain districts in Ireland; and they have by no means abandoned the hope of succeeding in the detection of some of the criminals. But I need not tell the noble Lord the enormous difficulties that have always been found in devising legislative measures that would ensure the prevention of agrarian crimes in Ireland; and especially in view of that which lies at the root of the whole mat-

  471
  ter—namely, the difficulty of procuring evidence which would lead to convictions. However, the Government are most anxiously considering the best means of rendering the Lord Lieutenant's powers in this matter more speedy and effectual.

  SCOTLAND—INCOME TAX.—QUESTION.
  MR. MILLERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is now satisfied that he received the Memorial from Scottish Bankers and others in Edinburgh, referred to in the Question put to him on Friday by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), and if so, if he will favourably consider the prayer of the Memorial?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that he had received the Memorial in question. He had inquired about it previously, but found it was not in the office, having been sent to the Inland Revenue to be reported on. He was sorry that there had been any mistake in the matter. As to the substance of the Memorial, he admitted that there was a grievance or a difficulty owing to the different days on which the income tax was collected in Scotland: but he believed that the difficulty arose only on occasions when the income tax was altered, and he thought that it would be a greater mischief to adopt any change in the days now, as it would cause much inconvenience to persons in making their calculations. He believed there would be less inconvenience from leaving things as they were than from introducing fresh anomalies.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notices of Motions relative to Pauperism and Vagrancy in England, and the Courts of Justice (New Site;).—(Mr. Gladstone.)
PAUPERISM AND VAGRANCY (ENGLAND).

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. CORRANCE: Let me first acknowledge the kindness of the right hon. Member who has afforded me the present opportunity of bringing the matter before the House; nevertheless, in rising to call the attention of the House to this important subject, I must feel conscious of a task beyond my strength, and no less so, that it might have
  472
  been better undertaken by many hon. Members of this House. My excuse must be that I have waited three years in hopes that this might be the case, and it is under these circumstances that the bounds of prudence have been passed. It has semed to me a strange thing, I confess, that a matter, exciting throughout the country so great and deep an interest, so widely debated, so much discussed, should form so small a part of the consideration of this House. It is true, perhaps, that here and there a detail is altered, or through the increasing discontent of some local body it comes before us in a fragmentary state; but discussions raised upon such issues are never satisfactory, and have a strong tendency to assume a most objectionable shape, a mere question of self-interest or of class, blindly oblivious of the general interests at stake. It will be my endeavour to keep clear of this; to deal honestly and fairly with the question itself, and if, from an admitted incompetency. I fail to solve the grave difficulties of the ease, I may claim, upon such grounds, the indulgence of this House. And now let me leave no doubt upon one point as regards this question, to which I wish to call the attention of the House; I do not believe it can be dealt with in any manner less than complete, and that any reform to be beneficial must be thorough if it is to meet the case. Upon what does the necessity rest? Now, I do not propose to enter at length into statistics, local or general, to prove this part of my case; they are well known, accessible to all, and sufficiently admitted to allow me to assume it as a fact, that the growth and progress of this social malady is both formidable and on the; increase, and upon such grounds to argue the case. A very few figures will, therefore, suffice. Starting from 1834 we find that the expenditure to poor's rate was £6,317,255, while the population stood at 14,322,000. To meet this enormous evil, the Poor Law was passed, and in the next decennial period—namely, up to 1844, we find that, while the number relieved amounted to 800,000. the expenditure had fallen to £4,976,093, while the population stood at 16,410,000. This decrease may then fairly be attributed to the working of the new Act. By the figures for the next decennial period it would seem that a stationary point had been reached, for,

  473
  in 1854. the figures stood thus—paupers, 884,617; expenditure, £5,232,853; population, 18,617,000; the price of wheat averaging 61 s. for the year. But at the end of the next decennial period matters are far worse, for in 1804 the number of paupers were 1,014,078; the expenditure, £6,423,383; the population, 20,881,000; wheat being at 39 s. 8d. only. Now this is a most significant fact, and what follows is by no means re-assuring, for in the nest succeeding years—namely, 1865, 1866, 1867 and 1868, the case is no better—until reaching 1867 and 1868, we attain the maximum point of 916,152 average in year 1867, and £6,439,517 expenditure; and 931,546 average in year 1868, and £6,959,810 expenditure; the population standing at 21,429,508, or nearly £500,000 more than at the worst of our previous periods during the old Act. Apparently, then, between 1861 and 1867, while the population increased only 7per cent, the number of in-door paupers increased 9 per cent; while, in the same six years, not regarding the initial year, the poor rate levied increased by £2,382,000, or 30 per cent; and the relief expenditure taken alone, rose in 1867 £1,181,000 over that item in 1861, or by 20 per cent. Now, it may be urged that this is, after all, by no means conclusive as against the action of the Poor Law, and that we ought to rest satisfied so long as the ratio to population does not increase. I cannot agree to this, nor will such an opinion hold good upon a closer examination of this ease. Look at the other circumstances of this case. First, take the price of wheat. According to calculations I have made, the average for the decennial periods, since 1844, run thus—In 1844, average for last ten years, 56 s.; in 1854, average for last ten years, 51 s. 7¼d.; in 1864, average for last ten years, 52 s. 4½d.; or a difference of 3s. to 4s. a quarter, the effect of which upon both rates and pauperism is great. Once more, take the statistics or emigration extending over the same period, and note its gradual increase. Taking the quinquennial periods since 1810 it stands thus—

  1840 to 45

  473,640

  Average per year

  94,728

  1845 to 50

  1,024,146

  Average per year

  204,829

  1850 to 55

  1,643,945

  Average per year

  328,689

  1855 to 60

  895,640

  Average per year

  169,128

  1860 to 65

  773,931

  Average per year

  154,786

  1866

  209,801

  Average per year

  209,801

  1867

  204,882.

  Average per year

  204,882

  1868

  195,953

  Average per year

  195,953

  The difference between the first five years after 1840 and the last three (1866–7–8) being more than double in amount. Surely this fact is worth something against the account. The increase of friendly societies is also an auxiliary which we must not neglect, and upon comparison with the former period they stand thus—In 1844 their members were 2,500.000; 1864, 3,500,000: capital, 1844, £10,000,000; 1864, £20,000,000. These are computed, upon no mean authority, to save £2,000,000 rates. And if, to such facts, we add the progressive increase of national wealth, surely this steadily maintained ratio of misery can scarcely be held to convey satisfactory assurance of a healthy social state, nor can we dispense with the obvious duty of an examination of the circumstances under which this has taken place. And now, assuming these to be facts, ought we to feel any possible satisfaction at the rate with which pauperism has decreased? And ought not our attention to be next directed to the laws? and to the alteration of the law which has taken place? First, as to the laws themselves, let me honestly confess that, while they appear to me to have been carefully devised to meet circumstance of an exceptional class, and while they appear to me to have been applied with judgment and admirable tact to meet an almost desperate case—that while nothing appears to me more admirable than the principle upon which the application of those laws took place under the given conditions—it is impossible not to recognize the fact that the greater part of the desired effect had been actually produced within the first ten years after they came into operation, and that notwithstanding the successive acts of legislation since introduced, the subsequent operation of the Act has proved by no means capable of meeting the requirements which exist. Now, in connection with this, there is one really remarkable fact, which I recommend to the attention of hon. Members of the House. For the first ten years these Poor Laws were not only grossly unpopular, but they were exposed to all the opposition which party feeling could bring to bear against them. At that time—namely, 1844, this feeling would seem to have died out, and, just at the very period when it is probable we had derived the ultimate amount of good which the system was capable of yield-

  475
  ing—just at that time, I say, instead of seeking out the new line of natural development, the old opponents of the measure settled down into contented inertia and unprogressive belief. First, let me call attention to the original Act, and the circumstances it was framed to meet, they were almost desperate, no doubt. In some parishes the system of rates, in fact, constituted a system of communisees of a distinct class, and labour, relief, and wages came out of a common fund—the rate. The whole character of the people was depraved, no doubt, and the essential function of the Poor Law was to create a more wholesome public feeling, as well as conditions of a corresponding class. The one enemy to the honest labourer was relief; I put hon. Gentlemen in mind of this, lest, under other circumstances, they form erroneous ideas as to this. The principles were sound principles, and the laws were sound laws to meet what they met. The question I shall raise is not this—it is whether, when the conditions were much changed, and the remedy had administered to the disease, it was politic to continue the dose? Now I do not think it will be disputed that, if the disease was very malignant, the treatment was drastic enough. Dependence upon rates was the evil, and it was by no means over rose beds that the patient was led back; it was by the sternest of masters, necessity, that he was to be taught. Utter destitution was to be the qualification, and the House the test. In 1809, under Article III., we find it laid down—
  "That the fundamental principle with respect to the legal relief of the poor is that the condition of the pauper ought to be, on the whole, less eligible than that of the independent labourer. But an inmate of a well-appointed union-house lives in rooms better ventilated, more spacious, and better warmed. His meals are better and more regularly served. He is more warmly clad, and he is better attended in sickness than if he was in his own cottage. Moreover all these benefits are supplied to him with perfect regularity and without any forethought or anxiety on his part.
  "Thus far relief in a public establishment violates the principle above adverted to, and places the pauper in a more eligible position than the independent labourer. The only expedient, therefore, for accomplishing the end in view which humanity permits is to subject the pauper inmate of a public establishment to such a system of labour-discipline and restraint as shall be sufficient to outweigh in his estimation the advantages which he derives from the bodily comfort he en-
  476
  joys. This is the only mode, consistent with humanity, of rendering the condition of the pauper less eligible than that of the independent labourer, and upon this principle the English union-houses have been organized."
  Now it is impossible to read this without a feeling almost of terror at what might be the effects of its application upon a wholly dependent class. No doubt the work was written and the system devised by humane and enlightened men, but who could foresee the effects of such words upon men of a rougher mould and of a less discriminating class? It has been accused of producing acts of inhumanity, and in isolated instances this no doubt has been the case, but as a general rule great discretion has tempered the application of the rate. Nevertheless, when we remember that under these sweeping conditions were and are included every inmate of a union-house, I think that we must begin to doubt whether such a system can be applicable to all times and all circumstances alike. Now, when I say this I would not be misunderstood. No one who has deeply studied this question can doubt the difficulties with which it is beset. No one who has read the able Reports of the Commissions, from 1834 to 1844, can doubt the soundness of the principles upon which they framed their Reports, least of all myself. And no one more readily recognizes the depth of Bent-ham's summary of this. He writes thus—
  "But compassion is one thing, and relief efficacious and unmischievous is another, The one may be bestowed in any quantity; the other should never be attempted to be bestowed, especially at the expense of the community, until after the most strict and comprehensive inquiry whether the undertaking lies within the sphere of practicability, and whether the removal of the evil be not inseparably connected with more extensive, and not loss permanent, evil."
  Let us give full scope to tills, and recognize all the ultimate consequences which may proceed from ill-directed attempts at relief. Acknowledge the necessity for inquiry into the conditions which exist, but do not, I say, rest satisfied upon less than conclusive evidence, that your present system contains a panacea for all evils which exist. Recognize, at least, the fact that it is simply repressive, and its operation purely mechanical; that it admits of few distinetions—that all are paupers who come

  477
  under its scope—and that the test applied alike to crime, to sullen idleness, and to misfortune, or unsuccess is the test of utter destitution and the union-house. Now, the only justification for such a system must be complete and final success. If this is not attained, then the failure is gross, and it becomes actually mischievous and intolerable from that point. In a recent treatise upon friendly societies (Charles Hardwick) this is well put—
  "Extreme privation," he says, "has ever a powerful effect in the deterioration of the moral sentiment. Hope speedily forsakes the mind, and despair lays its benumbing hand upon the once thrifty and industrious man. He gradually submits to be pauperized; he has forfeited his most cherished treasure—the sense of self dependence—and habitual pauperism is but too often the stopping stone to crime."
  Surely there is force in this, and if we recognize, as I think we must, the insufficiency of our system, there should, at least, he a searching investigation upon this point. But it will doubtless be said that these laws are not inelastic, and they have already suffered considerable changes in important respects, and that, as now administered, they are essentially different from that contemplated at first. Well, this is the case, but if it proves anything—it proves that the experience of actual practice is against the theory upon which these laws were built. It is true that since 1844 about forty such amendments have been passed, and to them I propose to apply the test of success. The laws relating to irremoveability and chargeability are by far the most important in their effects. But there have been some others calculated to produce remarkable results, which from being permissive have fallen dead. Of these I will presently say something; but let us take irremoveability first. Concerning this we have several successive Acts—namely, 9 & 10 Vict., 1816, by which the term of five years was set. Then comes 11 & 12 Vict. c. 111. by which it was amended. After this, 24 & 25 Vict., 1861, c. 55, shortening the term to three years; and subsequently 28 & 29 Vict, 1865., c. 8, which once more reduced the term to one year. Concomitantly with this was widened the area of relief under successive Acts. By 10 & 11 Vict., c. 110; 11 & 12 Vict., caps. 110, 111; 12 & 13 Vict. c. 103, s. 16; and 22 Vict. c. 29.
  478
  By the 24 & 25 Vict., the period of three years was substituted for that of five, specified in 9 & 10 Vict.; and residence of any person in any part of the union has the same effect in reference to the provisions of the said section as residence in the parish. By 28 & 29 Vict., s. 17, one year was substituted for three. What has been the effect of these successive enactments? Now, there are some reasons why we should not pass by these important Acts without challenge, and as I thought myself, perhaps, the strongest might have been found in a debate which recently took place in this House. Reviving some arguments, the speaker seemed to hold that some evils of a local nature had been produced or increased under the operation of statutes of a different class, and by the direct pressure of landlords upon labourers, by which they were forced to quit their houses, the burdens of others had been increased. Now, upon a perhaps more general, and I trust impartial inquiry, I cannot arrive at that conclusion myself. I am far from denying that, by absence of cottages, and under pressure arising from the fear of rates, such a congestion may, in the immediate vicinity of a large town, have taken place; but let the hon. Gentleman remember this—that such circumstances cannot operate beyond the neighbourhood of the town to any great extent, and as a disturbing element its force is not great. Let him remember that we live tinder the influence of far greater natural causes, the action of which, as it seems to mo, he has neglected to trace, and that the very action of that measure which he thinks remedial might absolutely and actually accelerate the movement he wishes to check. That it has been found so in England I have no doubt, and that the relaxation of the restrictive laws has given an impetus to the movement they were meant to check I can give the House some evidence of this under some Returns lately made to this House. In the metropolis the total number of male paupers was as follows:—In 1858, 71,515; 1859, 79,716; 1860, 88,118; l861, 96,884; 1802, 113,389; 1863, 103,628; 1864, 99,090; 1865, 101,666; 1866, 108,610; 1867, 132,499; 1868, 163,179. In other large towns we find similar results—

  479

  Acres.

  Population.

  1861

  1868

  Richmond

  4,339

  18,802

  178

  284

  Gravesend

  1,541

  18,782

  221

  232

  Brighton

  2,340

  77,693

  705

  982

  Southampton

  2,630

  43,414

  344

  457

  Reading

  4,699

  25,876

  229

  306

  Ipswich

  8,395

  37,881

  300

  394

  Exeter

  1,800

  33,738

  225

  293

  Plymouth

  1,635

  62,599

  482

  605

  Bristol

  1,840

  66,027

  984

  1,254

  Worcester

  6,779

  30,969

  184

  310

  Birmingham

  2,660

  212,621

  1,588

  2,254

  Yarmouth

  1,510

  30,338

  305

  437

  Norwich

  4,325

  71,891

  755

  921

  Coventry

  5,439

  4,164

  326

  371

  Nottingham

  1,750

  74,693

  989

  866

  Derby

  2,970

  51,049

  205

  337

  Chester

  2,758

  29,408

  264

  394

  Salford

  4,830

  105,335

  618

  926

  Manchester

  1,480

  185,410

  2,152

  3,285

  Bradford

  6,590

  106,218

  333

  546

  Kingston

  1,827

  56,888

  333

  460

  Newcastle

  7,102

  110,968

  655

  901

  12, 680

  16,821

  Now what are these natural causes? They are not far to seek. In the first place, during the last ton or fifteen years agricultural employment has diminished, under changed cultivation, under the employment of other power, and the burdens of parish rates. Of this it is also easy to give proof. Since 1831 it has stood thus—In 1831 there were employed in agriculture, 1,076,000; 1841, 1,214,000; 1851, 1,623,000; 1861, 1,547,000: between the last-mentioned periods there was a decrease in thirty out of forty-two counties, and in six only was there any considerable increase; while in the remaining six the numbers were stationary. Once more there is the difficulty of procuring casual work, which is especially felt among the younger labourers; and also that agricultural labour is not fitting for the weak. Persons of bad character also seek the refuge of the towns, and help to swell the list. Then there are the inducements of charities and the like, and the result is, I think, well put in some words I have lately read, namely—
  "The cause is not far to seek. It lies in the difference between town and country life. In a country parish imposition is next to impossible. The lazy labourer—the bad bargain—is soon known. His neighbours are the last persons to waste their money in misapplied charities; but in London the tracts occupied by the metropolitan pauper class are so many vast jungles. The country offering but a doubtful claim of legal relief only, and the metropolis a certainty of charitable doles, to London he comes, and in London he stays."
  480
  Now, against this what was the former check—namely, the power of removal, and settlement confined to one place. I do not say so as an advocate, but it was so, nevertheless. And when I hear hon. Gentlemen who have, perhaps, little studied this question in a general sense, advocates of changes, upon the ground of some special interest or class, I feel inclined to laugh, if, on the other hand, it was not so sad that the poor should be made the sport of conflicting elements such as this. Such, however, is the history of these Poor Laws throughout, and, if I quote the words of a writer in the 18th century, they would seem applicable to every epoch since. Roger North says—
  "The rates in Colchester amounted to 50 per cent. That one thought alone occupied the ratepayer of all classes, and all his ingenuity was employed to evade or utilize his share of the rate. Whatever public interest existed was absorbed in the struggle between houses and land, and while they inflicted upon each other the heaviest penalties, these belligerents with equal selfishness and folly sacrificed the poor."
  And such, I say, if we only take partial views of this question, will ever be the case. But it has been argued from another side I know, and volumes of philanthropy have been expended in its behalf. I think that these have been equally futile. In the first place, such relaxations have been claimed as a poor man's right, and it has been stated as a hardship that any conditions were annexed for relief. The view has been adopted by writers of eminence, such as George Goode, and is worthy of consideration on this account. Why, the very foundation of such a claim is the conditional nature of the ease, and these conditions we have a right to exact. What possible right can one man have to another's goods, or to eleemosynary support? Nor is such a right conferred by law under any statute or Act. Quite the reverse. The Act of Elizabeth prescribes the condition of the case in a manner the most precise, and that condition was settlement and work. The elementary principle was this. Nor can I believe that if society ever relinquished such a safeguard that it would tend to the poor man's good, for it would become an inducement to become demoralized and base. He must feel the degradation of relief. On the other hand, what is the fact? That the helpless mass gravitates to the town, and within

  481
  that town what takes place? The union houses are made almshouses; the able-bodied become vagrants; and the children Arabs in the streets. But it may be objected that these are, no doubt, evils incidental to the existing state of things, and it by no means follows that a remedy can be devised which will not perhaps aggravate the disease. If I venture to enter upon this ground, it is not because I am unaware of the danger of the attempt. Every one has his pet remedy, his general panacea. One says emigration, another national workshops, a third subdivision of land, and if we add a humane baby-farming society to the list, the new light for the regeneration of society would seem complete. I shall not venture to differ with such, but merely state my opinion that they might fall short of the requirements of the case. On one point only shall I venture to express an opinion, that I do not think it would be safe to trust to the temporary relief afforded by emigration as regards ourselves, and it is not hopeful as regards those sent out. It can only act as an auxiliary at all events. For an effectual remedy we must look deeper than this, and recognizing the disorder as one of a moral nature, we must lay the axe to the root. The first duty of those who would prescribe must be to know the patients; who are they in this case? They come under the common head of paupers, but they are of a widely distinct and different class. They come under four subdivisions at least, children, aged, sick, able-bodied. Let me very briefly show the present state under the existing law of each of these classes. It seems to me the children merit our attention first, not only for the hopes they may inspire of an honest and honourable future life, not merely because of the whole social structure these form the base, but no less so because we are confronted with a sad and instructive fact that, even in numerical proportion, these are the important class. Out of a total of able-bodied paupers of 477,169 we find no less a number than 391,539 charged as children under sixteen in receipt of relief. Out of this number 56,500 are within the house, and 34,266 are receiving instruction within the union school. Now concerning this large and important section among those who receive out-door relief, what do we know? That is the first question I must
  482
  ask? I can obtain no information, save that they are in receipt of relief, paupers in fact. What an admission is this, that we relieve 323,475 children per annum without knowledge of their social state; whether they are at work, or play, or the commission of crime we know not. Are they apprenticed, to what industrial occupation do they belong—ignorance is our lot. The existence of such a fact alone would send any system into unutterable contempt. How can you deal with pauperism upon such a footing as this? There is no information upon this point, but we can obtain a glimpse or two which may suffice. From the Leeds Mercury, March 2, 1869, we find that between 10 o'clock and 11·30 (school hours), there were counted in the streets 5,507 of these deserted ones; of these 2,561 were English and 2,946 Irish; of the former 1,274 and of the latter 2,329 had no shoes; many of these were found in the streets after 11 at night. A walk through Westminster to Vincent Square will furnish pretty much the same result within the very shadow of this House. In the country one or two facts are also significant as regards this class. I allude to the utter failure of 18 & 19 Vict., called Denison's Act; to what conclusion would this conduct? We know that such children cannot pay school pence. Their education must be a charitable one, it can come from no other source. What provision is made for this? The inference is painful from this, that here is the recruiting ground of pauperism and crime, the source from which the devil's regiment of the line fills up its wasted ranks. But this is only a part, and there are 56,500 more within the walls of the house. In union schools 34,266 are receiving education, which to some may appear a satisfactory fact; before, however, we admit this, it is necessary to ask what sort of an education this is, and with what moral and intellectual results. Against these union schools grave charges have been brought, and well-qualified persons have never favoured them much. In 1839 we find the Poor Law Commissioners speaking thus—
  "An investigation of the circumstances of the children in the various workhouses, and of the means of affording them adequate instruction, soon convinced us that the instruction of pauper children must remain imperfect so long as the children of each union are reared in the union school."

  483
  At the same date, we find Mr. C. Tufnell speaking to the same effect, namely—
  "Under the old system of the Poor Law, it is well-known how frequently a family which once became pauperized remained so for ever after. In education within the house, there is considerable danger of moral contamination from residence in the same house with adult paupers, for it is perfectly well known to all who have had any experience that a large proportion of the adult residents are persons of the worst character. That this class, morally infectious as they are, should be kept separate from the children is of primary importance; and I am confident that architectural arrangements can never effectually secure perfect classification."
  Now, against this it might be urged that such reasoning was necessarily hypothetical, and that great improvements have been made. Let us see how far this, tested by modern experience, is the case. In 1861 the School Commission—Commission of Sir John Coleridge, Nassau Senior and others—reported thus—
  "That pauperism is hereditary, and that the children born and bred as members of that class furnish the great mass of the pauper and criminal classes; that the best chance of a permanent diminution of pauperism and crime is to be found in the proper education of such children; that the workhouse schools are generally so managed that the children learn from infancy to regard the workhouses as their homes, and associate with grownup paupers, whose influence destroys their moral character and prevents the growth of independence; that the arrangements of workhouses are unavoidably bad, and make it difficult to keep or retain competent teachers; and lastly, that district and separate schools give an education to the children which effectually tends to emancipate them from pauperism."
  Now, against this, the Committee of 1865 no doubt report, but even as hostile witnesses we found them speaking thus of the arrangements within workhouses—namely—
  "That no arrangement existed for the separation of women of infamous character, and removing men tainted with crime, and that proper classification is defective throughout."
  Now, I think, without going further into this question, this evidence should suffice. I need not quote the success of these large establishments, such as Norwood, &c, to prove my case, nor will any testimony derived from mere examination meet the case. The intellectual cultivation may be perfect, but the moral training is a consideration which lies far above it, and it is bad. Let me add my conviction that by district schools it can alone be met, aided by the State. Time
  484
  will permit no more upon this head. It is enough that we have here revealed a source of evil, a fountain of bitter water to dam up, especially binding upon us both for its public interest and the sympathy it should undoubtedly create. Let us turn to aged and sick. Of males they amount to 148,090, and of females 278,390; total, 426,480. Broken by age, misfortune, and sickness, they must be considered as beyond hope, and it is in regard of these that our present system is especially weak. What test can alter the condition of such? The only test of value is the medical test. Are they incapable of work? Of all means of providing for them the house is the worst. Their conditions accord neither with a penal code nor the house. For mere infirmaries these were never built, nor is the function of a public almshouse one suitable to the case. The result must be this. If comforts are increased, you give a premium to an improvident life. If you apply the test, humanity is shocked. How then are you to deal with the class? My answer must be this—that there should scarcely be such a class, and that for these the victims of misfortune, without friends and de-sorted, the proper application of existing charities would for the most part suffice. Take London as an example of this. Of charities for the relief of diseases—bodily and mental—181, income, about £650,000; for bodily wants—food, dwelling, clothes,—537, at about £2,100,000; while of miscellaneous charity there is a further sum of £114,000, probably equally applicable to this, making a total of nearly £3,000,000 of public charities within the metropolis itself especially devoted to such objects as this. Of local charities I take no account, for it is difficult to classify the uses and intents, but about another £500,000 is so annually spent. Organization and good management alone are required to yield a complete and satisfactory result. But these are considerations apart, and although they may help us out of a present difficulty, it is not upon such aids that we should permanently rest. Our attention should be bestowed upon the means which are at our disposal, to meet or obviate the want. I have said it ought not to exist. What is the cause of it? Improvidence for the most part in youth. This then is the point to which our inquiries

  485
  should conduct. Now, it is commonly cast as a reproach to the industrial classes that they are an improvident class. It is so, no doubt. That they dissipate their small surplus in drink, and this too we must admit. Is society blameless upon this point? Towards providence what inducements or facilities does she hold out—what has she permitted to the public-house? In these latter years it seems to me that, in the strivings of society for a more perfect state, there has not been one more remarkable than the formation and development of certain societies by the working class, especially when we consider the circumstances of the case—deficient in education, in means, in all but active intelligence, scarcely, or coldly recognized by the higher classes, and neglected by the State, they formed, at first after a rude fashion, those friendly societies which have done so great things since. I say so great things, and I confess the epithet seems too small in this case. At the beginning of this century they had hardly reached the rudimentary state. They were held at the Red Dragon or the Green Goose, and the accounts were audited by mine host, and the larger portion transferred to his own book. Beyond this they have got but little help. Their present position, though still a very imperfect position, is the best demonstration of their success. Their total numbers have reached 24,300. Their members reach 3,000,000, with £20,000,000 of assets. They are computed to save £2,000,000 per annum to the rates. And far beyond all such material results—far indeed beyond all price, they have raised these 3,000,000 Englishmen above the moral standard of want. Nevertheless, one thing must be confessed, there is a point they cannot reach, and the result is only partial and incomplete. In the agricultural districts especially we mark this. In provision for sickness and medical attendance, these societies are, or ought to be, successful so far as the provision against casual sickness goes, and possibly medical relief, but they cannot go beyond this, or rather they will not. For old age the resort is the rate. Why should they save employers this? Few subscribers will be found upon the superannuation list—and in only one of about twelve of the best managed societies in England will it be found to exist. Even in the
  486
  Odd Fellows' Society it has not been attended with success. The feeling, as well as habit, is against it, unless some superior inducement can be held out, and we may practically hold that the insurance is deducted from wages and added to the rate. Surely the question will arise, is this a desirable state? and, secondly, cannot the rate be better applied? Now I must call attention to certain circumstances respecting this. It does seem to me that so deserving an object as a voluntary effort to attain such an independence deserves the recognition of society, and even substantial help, and of this I feel convinced—that the present is nearly, if not absolutely, the worst application he could make of the rate. Now, what I should propose is this—that discretionary power should be vested in the Guardians to contribute in certain proportions towards such an object as this, perhaps even through the local friendly societies, where such exist, upon sufficiently sound footing, or by means of the Post Office Savings' Bank in any other case. I will not now trouble the House by going into the details of such a plan, but it could, without difficulty, be carried out. I claim no originality for this, for a clause was introduced into a Bill, in 1859, which ran thus—
  "Clause 4. If any parish or parishes shall determine to adopt this Act, and to establish a Friendly Society, then the vestry or vestries thereof shall establish a Friendly Society, &c, and shall direct to be paid to such society out of the poor's rates, such an annual sum of money, not exceeding a sum equal to 25 per cent, of the amount of the annual contributions of the members as the Guardians may determine."
  Restrict this to the superannuation fund, and you will have struck the first blow to the entire dependence of the aged upon rates, and given the first assistance to providence to attain an object comparatively remote. The objections taken have always seemed to me slight. But to this class, more especially, belongs the great department for medical relief—a subject which, within my present limit, I can but inadequately discuss. Trusting to be followed by other speakers of greater experience and more technical knowledge upon these points, one or two brief sketches must suffice. Now, this much must be admitted, that in our Poor Law system it fills the most important place. It might be called the preventive service of the force. Some idea may be

  487
  formed of this from the fact that out of the disorders incapacitating the working class and making them subjects for relief, there were not less than 32 per cent produced by the neglect of preventible maladies, and the absence of medical relief, while 72 per cent of the total relief is caused by sickness itself. Nevertheless, it can be boldly said, that there is no part of the whole English Poor Law system which is more systematically treated with, neglect; perhaps I ought not to say systematic, for it is unsystematic thorough out. Medical men are dissatisfied and underpaid, and drugs and medicines are bad. I refer to notorious facts, upon which I leave others to dilate. As reformers, we have two modes, either assistance from rates to voluntary medical clubs, or the dispensary system as carried out in Ireland, which has produced some remarkable results. With the details of the system I need not trouble the House: they are well-known to most who have studied the question. One or two facts will suffice. Instituted in 1852. the expenditure upon rates in that country, which was at that time £937,556, was £513,048 in 1859, and it has never since reached its ancient point; and although perhaps not the sole cause of the diminution referred to, yet it has a right to claim its share in the reduction of rates. I come nearer home also to illustrate this. In St. Margaret's, Westminster, where the dispensary system has been carried out, during the week ending March 1st, 1869, there were nearly 1,000 less relieved than the corresponding week of 1868, while in Kensington, where the medical man found his own drugs, there was a large increase: and the same comparison will extend to Birmingham, Brighton, Oxford. Southampton, Newport, Salop, and others. To them Leeds may serve as a contrast. Why, then, if so successful, has not this dispensary system been further carried out? No less remarkable is the contrast presented by the system of foreign countries in such respects, perhaps, the most so Paris itself, including public hospitals, maison des secours, and the like, in which the blending together of public and private charities is complete. While such things are possible elsewhere, why not with us? The next great sub-division of the pauper classes will be found under the head of able-bodied, and with
  488
  them must be reckoned the vagrant class. Now, if the present Poor Laws were capable of dealing with any part of the question, it should surely be this. For this is exactly the problem it was devised to meet. It was framed against such, and the test, both of utter destitution and the house, was imposed against such. It is a failure nevertheless. First, the number is on the increase, and the last year, July 1, 1868, showed an augmentation of 27,322 of such, or 5 per cent. It is almost unnecessary to say that all relief given to them must be as much curtailed as humanity permits, and of a nature to which the normal condition of the employed labourer must be a favourable contrast. If any relaxation takes place it must be of a different sort. Aids to emigration, registers for labour or employment on public works; all these may be entertained, and if under proper organization, they may do good. The relief proper must be in the house. Our difficulty is this—they will not come for such relief, but become vagrants instead, especially from the town or vagrant class. In this form the house and the test do not, as at present constituted, satisfy the case. Now let me most strongly urge that, in all cases, the vagrant ward should be placed under the direct supervision of the police, and that all relief should be given at the house. It should be daily visited by the inspector, and no one allowed to go without his pass. Every name, destination, and address should be duly kept, and the vagrant, without credentials, should receive no second relief. He must not only come but be kept under the inspection of the police. Lists should be published every week and sent to the superintendent of police. Such a system may seem stern and repressive, but the class is tainted with crime, and justice as well as mercy, requires no less. One thing is certain, our present ad- ministration has failed in this case, and even to a dangerous extent. Statistics will show the state of the case. In one week of October last there were 22,553 persons in the casual wards of thirty-nine unions, or an average of 3,222 per night. And since 1858 to 1868, this class has trebled in amount. The following table will show this:—It includes in-door and out-door. In 1858 the total number of this class was 2,416. On January 1, 1859, 2,153; on January 1, 1860, 1,494; on January 1,1861, 1,941; on January 1,

  489
  862, 2,830; on January 1, 1863, 4,234; on January 1, 1864, 3,158; on January 1, 1865, 3,339; on January 1, 1866, 4,450; on January 1, 1867, 5,017; on January 1, 1868, 6,129;' and on July 1, 1868, 7,946 relieved as tramps: while it is computed that these represent but one-sixth of the total of the vagrant class. Can we draw no conclusion from this? Mine must be this—It is the effect of our system that they go into the towns as poor, arrived there they become paupers, and as vagrants come back. Of your system this is the effect, and your repressive measures will fail so long as the circumstances and the class shall exist. All that we can hope for is better regulation in this case. Such, then, are the special means which seem to me to be applicable to paupers under the several heads, but it is time I draw some final conclusions upon these points. The present system must I think be held to be a failure under each of these several heads—the training of children, the provision for age, for sickness, for medical relief, as regards the able-bodied: no less. What are the chief causes for this? I trace it to this, the practical impotence of the Poor Law Board, and the faulty administration of local authority constituted as it is. What is the cause for the first? I think it is this, that the central authority cannot exercise authority over funds to which it does not contribute, and any attempt to do so will meet with resistance. I think, under the circumstances, the one remedy for this is a Government contingent to the rate. Rate-payers would be docile enough in that case. Secondly, the faulty and vicious principle of local administration, extending into departments more properly the function of the State—to medical eases, to education, to emigration. For those things you have no right to come upon the local rate, more especially if levied upon the occupier class. Depend upon it you will have no district schools, no infirmaries, no emigration, no prospective permanent measures of improvement so long as this is the case. Their interests do not extend to the extinction of the pauper class at a period more or less remote, and yet this should be the aim of any law throughout. How long shall we blind ourselves to this? It was apparent to men of intelligence prior to the application of this Act; for, in 1825. we find Sydney Smith writing thus—
  490
  "There are two points which we consider as admitted by all men of sense. First, that the Poor Laws must be not amended, but abolished; and, second, that they must be very gradually abolished. We think it hardly worth while to throw away pen and ink upon anyone who is inclined to dispute the above proposition. We shall think the improvement immense, and a subject of a very general congratulation, if the poor rates are perceptibly diminished, and if the system of pauperism is clearly going down in twenty or thirty years hence. We have stated our opinion that all remedies without gradual abolition are of little importance. With a foundation laid for such gradual abolition, every auxiliary improvement of the Poor Laws, while they do remain, is worth the attention of Parliament, and in suggesting a few alterations as fit to be adopted, we wish it to be understood that we have in view the gradual destruction of the system, as well as the amendment while it continues to operate."
  And lastly, it fails through the absolute failure of the principle upon which it is built—the test. The vagrant laughs at it; the aged and the sick are not fit objects for it; and children are beyond its scope. It had a work to do, and it did that work; since that time it is obsolete. In these days our agents must be the actuary, the friendly society, the schoolmaster, and the surgeon. But that a vast work of legislation lies before us, let no one doubt—not less than in 1834, perhaps. Nevertheless, with the work to do and the cause discovered, we cannot be thankful, and we cannot rest; the evil is too active, and the necessity too great. Years ago, in the sight of similar ills, a pungent pen wrote thus—
  "Some persons of a desponding spirit are at great concern about that vast mass of poor persons who are aged, or diseased, or maimed; but I am not in the least pain about them to know how the State can be rid of so great incumbrance; because it is well known that they are every day dying by cold, famine, filth, and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected."—Swift.
  Let us be thankful that the terrible irony of that day is, indeed, inapplicable to this. Nevertheless, let us remember the state of the poor is a thing we dare not neglect, and as long as there is one means untried we lie under the reproach. The question is now before the House. I have been urged by some to ask for a Committee or a Commission upon this question. I cannot undertake so much. It is with the Government of this kingdom that the responsibility of so great an undertaking must rest. As a humble Member of this House I have twice during this Session called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the

  491
  pressing importance of this case; I regretted that it had found no mention in the Queen's Speech. So far, then, I have presumed, relying upon the goodness of my case. Sir, it is in no party spirit that I have appealed to both sides of this House, and it is in no spirit of party that it should he discussed. If, for such a cause, it should fail to attract the serious attention of the House, then even in this there would be a matter of regret. But if, in a juster sense of its social importance, it should lead us to join in willing co-operation to obtain some common end, then I think it will not fail to conduct us to reforms, even now too long deferred; and. even during our own lives, to issues over which, not only as Members here but as Christian men, we can mutually rejoice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the existing state of Pauperism and Vagrancy in England, and the principles upon which the Poor Laws are at present administered."—(Mr. Corrance.)
  MR. A. W. PEELsaid, he could not but congratulate his hon. Friend (Mr. Corrance) on the ability he had shown in bringing forward that subject. He agreed with him as to its gravity and also that it should not be dealt with as a party question. He rose in no spirit of antagonism to his hon. Friend, but merely to state some facts and figures in elucidation of the subject. He did not know why his hon. Friend had selected 1844 as the period at which he started. No doubt that year was an important epoch in Poor Law legislation. The Act of 1844 contained most important provisions—so much so that it. had been called, in the language of that day, the Second Poor Law Amendment Act. But in the years 1846, 1851, and 1853 the total expenditure for the relief of the poor was less than it was in 1844. His hon. Friend would say that remedial measures dated from that period; but those remedial measures were introduced before 1844. The Act of 1795 was a great Act in favour of the poor; and that measure had been followed up by successive steps of beneficent legislation on this subject. He would not compare the statistics of 1834 with those of the present time, because they were not entirely reliable; but he would begin with 1848, the period when the Poor Law
  492
  Returns were carefully organized, and first- he would compare the ten years between 1851 and 1860, the seven years between 1861 and 1867, and the latest year—namely, 1868. The average number of paupers in England and Wales in the ten years from 1851 to 1860 was 892,671. In the seven following years—from 1861 to 1867—the average number was 956,434. For the year 1868 the number of paupers was 992,640. Put in another shape, the figures probably would come more home to hon. Members. For the ten years, 1851–60, the average rate of paupers to the general population of England and Wales was 47 to every 1,000; for the seven years, 1861–7, the average rate was 46 per 1,000; and in the latest year, 1868, though this was an exceptional year of distress, the same proportion of 46 per 1,000 continued. Out-of-doors there was a very general impression that the sum levied for the relief of the poor went entirely to the relief of the poor; but hon. Members knew that there was a great distinction between the sum levied and the sum actually expended for that purpose. Taking the average amount of poor rates levied throughout England and Wales for the same periods of which he had already spoken, he found that for the ten years ending 1860 the average was £7,796,019; for the seven years ending 1867, £9,189,386; and for the latest year, 1868, when a number of other charges were levied, nominally under the same head, £11,054,513. To gain an idea of the amount of relief afforded, it was necessary to look to the amount which had actually been expended. For the ten years ending 1860 the average amount expended for the relief of the poor was £5,476,454; for the seven years ending 1867, £6,353,000; and in the latest year, £7,498,000. Therefore, the amount actually expended in the relief of the poor was, in the ten years ending 1860, at the average annual rate of 5s.. 9½d. per head upon the population; for the seven years ending 1867, 6s. 1¾d.; and for the year 1868, 6s. 11½d. To explain why the Returns were taken in every case from 1850, it was necessary to explain that before 1848 the Returns were made quarterly, but to some extent overlapped each other, and hence at the end of the year did not quite accurately represent the circumstances. But in 1848 the half-yearly

  493
  system was introduced, and had continued ever since. The Returns were made to January and July, and taking the mean between the two half-years the average number of paupers for the year ending Lady-day, 1849, was 1,088,659, while in 1868 they had decreased to 992,640. Thus, in 1849 there were 62 paupers for every 1,000 of the population, and in 1868 there were but 46 for every 1,000, being 16 per l,000 less in the latter than in the former year. [Mr. BREWER said he wished to know whether vagrants were included in these Returns?] Vagrants were not included in the Return for either year. He had been anxious to ascertain what was the amount of relief afforded to the poor in 1834; and, subject to the observation which he had made that the Returns for that period were in some respects fallacious, he found that the rate per head which was paid for the relief of the poor was 9s. 1d. If we continued in 1867 to pay the same rate which was paid in 1849, the amount, instead of being £6,960,000. would be £9,700,000, showing a balance of £2,740,000 in favour of 1867. So far, his figures in many respects corresponded with those given by his hon. Friend; but his hon. Friend had spoken in disparaging terms of the Act of 1834, and there they came into direct collision. He believed that whatever good results had been achieved had been accomplished by following out the principles embodied in the Act of 1831. His hon. Friend seemed to imagine that the effect of recent legislation had been to swell the number of paupers in towns; but he gave to some extent an answer to his own indictment when he said that there were many attractive causes independent of legislation—such, for instance, as ill-administered and lavish charities, which drew large numbers of paupers to the towns, where, no test existing which could be applied to them, they ultimately became a burden upon the rates. If the hon. Member wished to attack the Union Chargeability Act, he (Mr. A. W. Peel) by no means stood up as its uncompromising champion, but he was bound to point out that in many respects its working had proved beneficial. That Act came into operation in 1866, and the expenditure for that year was £6,500,000; to Lady-day, 1867, it was £7,000,000; and to the corresponding period in 1868
  494
  it was £7,500,000. In the metropolis, no doubt, there had been a great increase of expenditure, the amount being in 1866, £976,000; in 1867, £1,175,000; and in 1868. £1,316,000. But that increase was not owing to the Union Chargeability Act: many other causes had co-operated to increase the expenditure under the head of poor rate. Since the Act had come into operation there had been a commercial distress of unparalleled severity, and that which affected the labouring poor above all, an increase in the price of wheat. Wheat had risen from 43 s. 6d. in 1866 to 53 s. 17 d. in 1867, and 67 s. 6½d. in 1868; and hon. Members all knew what a large element bread supplies formed in the maintenance of the workhouse economy. His hon. Friend had wisely declared that one of the great objects of legislation should be to take children out of the atmosphere of the workhouse and to cut off the taint of hereditary pauperism. In that sentiment his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board would no doubt cordially concur, and would labour as much as any Gentleman who had preceded him in Office towards the attainment of that object. The attempt had not been tarried out to any extent sufficient to warrant the giving of any detailed information in the shape of Returns: but in more than one ease a trial had been made of placing workhouse children out in schools where they came into competition with others of their own age, and where there was reason to hope that the traditions of their youth would speedily be lost, and that they would eventually become merged in the general, body of the population. The hon. Member had also recommended the establishment of district schools, but such schools had hitherto failed in consequence of the opposition of Boards of Guardians. If this opposition could be overcome, it would be highly desirable to encourage the system of district schools, as they afforded better organization, greater discipline, and all the advantages of a great public school. In 1839 such a school was in existence at Norwood, and was attended by upwards of 1,000 children from the parishes of the metropolis. He believed the school had been found to work admirably, though he was not in possession of the facts of its subsequent history. The hon. Member had referred

  495
  to the fact that sick and aged paupers were, as a rule, confounded with the able-bodied pauper, and no doubt: an aged or a sick pauper should be distinguished from the common pauper. The hon. Member had gone on to suggest that assistance should be furnished to the pauper through provident societies; but such a system would be a very dangerous one to adopt. He had received a letter on this subject from a clergyman, who put the proposition very neatly and clearly. He said—
  "I have a conviction that one of the most useful ways of helping the poor would be to allow to every benefit club, to which the subscriptions were not more than 1s. 6d. per month, to claim one subscription from the union for every ten or twelve members, upon the condition that the members should receive no relief from the parish."
  It was impossible, however, that such an understanding could be carried out in practice, because in the event of a member of the society becoming reduced, relief would still have to be administered to him out of the poor rates. [Mr. CORRANCE explained that he had merely referred to medical assistance and superannuation funds.] He objected to a system of granting subsidies to provident societies altogether. In dealing with the able-bodied paupers the hon. Member appeared to have made another quick transition to vagrants, and upon the latter subject especially he wished to say a word or two. He felt bound to dispute the accuracy of his hon. Friend's figures, as it seemed almost incredible that there could have been 22,557 vagrants in the casual wards of thirty-nine unions on a certain night in October last. He held in his hand Returns, as far as he could get them, showing the number of vagrants known to the Poor Law Board, and he would compare these Returns with those furnished by the police. The number of vagrants known to the police in April, 1867, was 32,528. It was impossible, however, to ascertain exactly the classes of persons included by the police under the head of vagrants. The number of vagrants relieved by the Guardians of the Poor on the 1st of January, in the five following years, was in England and Wales, 1865, 3,339; in 1866, 4,469; in 1867,5,027; in 1868, 6,129; and in 1869, 7,020; and in the metropolis only, in 1865, 589; in 1866, 1,501; in 1867, 1,452; in 1868, 1,673; and in 1860. 1,882. There was, there-
  496
  fore considerable difference between the figures contained in the police Returns and those furnished by the Poor Law Board. The difference between the 32,528 and the 7,008 would be accounted for to a great extent by those tramps who were sleeping under hedges and in lodging-houses in towns. It had been suggested that buildings should be erected to accommodate the paupers of London; but it was impossible to build places to accommodate 100,000 persons in the metropolis without throwing an enormous burden upon the rates. He had understood the hon. Member to express himself unfavourably with regard to the union system, but he trusted that he did not wish to revert to the old exploded parochial system, with its 15,000 areas of parochial management—a system which had been found to degrade the pauper more than any other system that could be devised, and which in the eloquent language of Mr. Senior, confounded poverty with pauperism, and tainted wages by the admixture of relief.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, that the Secretary to the Poor Law Board (Mr. A. W. Peel) appeared to have anticipated that some attack would be made upon the Union Chargeability Act, which passed some Sessions ago, after full discussion in that House; but, whatever might have been the views which hon. Members took when that Act was tinder discussion, he was not aware that it had been seriously attacked after it was passed. He could not, however, admit that the operation of the Act had been entirely and uniformly advantageous. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Poor Law Board had, no doubt, to a considerable extent accounted for the increase of pauperism by the commercial crisis of 1866. His hon. Friend went on to say that the price of provisions also accounted in some part for the increase of expenditure on the poor; but he did not suppose his hon. Friend could be a large farmer, or he would have known that when he quoted 67 s. a quarter as the average price of corn last year he was naming too high a figure. Now, he did not deny that the Union Chargeability Act had been in some respects beneficial; no doubt it had very much diminished the labours of Boards of Guardians. That was a great advantage. He thought hon. Members would agree with him that the good working of the Poor Law depended

  497
  almost entirely on the persons whom they got to discharge the onerous, laborious, and sometimes painful duties of Poor Law Guardians. But the Act had not been sufficiently long in operation to justify anyone in giving a very positive opinion as to its results. He could have wished, however, that when his hon. Friend (Mr. A. W. Peel) had so strongly deprecated any return to the old parochial system he had expressed an equally strong opinion against any further ex- tension of the area of chargeability—any approximation to what was called a national rate, because he thought that this would be a fatal blow at the independence of the labourer, the interests; of the rate-payer, and the welfare of the whole kingdom. His hon. Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) had divided his subject into these heads—treatment of children in unions or districts of unions, treatment of the sick and aged, and treatment of the able-bodied and vagrants. Some years ago an Act was passed to enable unions to combine together for the purpose of forming district schools: but not much good had resulted from that Act. There were difficulties in the way of carrying it out, which he thought would also present themselves if attempts were made to carry out the suggestion of his hon. Friend on this head. A large number of the children entered workhouses with their parents when the latter were ill or out of employment; but in these eases the children remained only a short time in the workhouses—a few months, or perhaps a few weeks. It would be of no use to send those children to district schools. It was true that a certain number of children remained in the workhouses a sufficiently long time to enable them to receive the advantages of a good school; but if district schools were formed, the number of children left in the workhouses would be so small that the expenditure necessary to provide good schoolmasters and mistresses would be greater than that number would warrant. In his own district the number of scholars was sixteen or eighteen, and if several of these were sent to the district school the local school would have to be given up altogether. With respect to the aged poor his hon. Friend had made a suggestion for which he tendered him his thanks. The great difficulty with that class was to provide
  498
  themselves with house accommodation when they got out-door relief. In the country districts the allowance made to these poor people was necessarily limited, but it was such as would provide them with food and clothing of the humblest description if they had no rent to pay. In many cases country gentlemen provided their poor labourers whose working days were passed with rooms in the neighbourhood where they had been accustomed to live; but where this was not done the pressure was so great on those poor people that they were obliged to go into the workhouse. His hon. Friend had suggested that where there were some local charities not at present very well applied those charities might be applied to found almshouses in which those aged poor could live. As for the able-bodied poor the Secretary to the Poor Law Board said that the hon. Member for East Suffolk had passed slightly over that subject; but the hon. Member had said that the workhouse test should be applied, which was indeed saying almost all that could be said. The other question was that of vagrancy, in respect of which a very considerable difficulty still existed. The Secretary to the Poor Law Board had called in question the figures quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for East Suffolk. He thought that the figures with respect to vagrants must necessarily be incomplete, because vagrants came under very different management in different localities. Until a comparatively recent date not much attention was given to statistical returns relating to vagrants, because it was only within the last few years vagrancy had come so prominently under the notice of those engaged in the administration of the Poor Law and of the public generally. He could fully corroborate the statements made by his hon. Friend with regard to the increase of vagrancy. In the county of Dorset it had been thought advisable to take a course which had been adopted in many other counties—namely, to bring vagrants more under the control of the police than they hitherto had been. The Returns showed that the number of vagrants receiving relief in Dorsetshire in 1868 was 6,000 and odd, as against 3,000 and odd in 1867. He was aware that this had been attributed to the effects of the commercial crisis; but as that crisis occurred in 1866, and its

  499
  effects were felt as largely in 1867 as in 1868, he did not believe that the panic would account for this enormous increase. He was, he confessed, at a loss to assign a cause. They knew, upon the authority of those best acquainted with these matters, that when persons once took to mendicancy they hardly ever became laborious and industrious member of the community, while this class was constantly being recruited by those who, from some cause or another, dropped out of the ranks of those who earned an honest livelihood. Mendicancy was regarded as a profession, and this was a, most alarming feature. Vagrancy had been pronounced by the law to be a crime, and even if they looked at it in its modified character it very nearly approached the offence of obtaining money under false pretences, for it was only by false pretences and by false representations that vagrants were able to obtain assistance from the benevolent and charitable. It was also closely connected with crime properly so called. According to a statement which he held in his hand, and which had been put forth by several magistrates of Westmoreland, the chief constable of that county expressed his firm conviction that ninety nine out of every 100 tramps were professional mendicants, and that a large proportion were convicted thieves, and lived by plunder. The chief constable attributed to them the greater number of the burglaries, highway robberies, and petty larcenies which had been committed in the county for some years, and said that if the present system of allowing professional tramps to wander about the country were put an end to, a great-deal of crime would be prevented, and immense good would be conferred upon the general community. In the course which should be adopted to check this growing evil, he regretted to say he could not concur with his hon. Friend (Mr. Corrance). If he had followed his argument rightly, his hon. Friend proposed that relief should be withheld from a man who had been previously relieved. But, in this opinion, he could not agree. The great cause of mendicancy was, no doubt, the large charitable heart of this country. People in giving recognized the fact that many of those whom they relieved were impostors, and utterly unworthy of their charity; but they felt that, if they refused to give,
  500
  some fellow creature, in consequence of their refusal, might suffer seriously from the privations of hunger and want of shelter. As long as they felt that their refusal might possibly be attended by these results, so long would they open their hand with the same readiness that they now did. The remedy was that every destitute person in the county should find food and shelter forthcoming immediately upon application. That, he believed, to be the solitary condition upon which we might, if not put down, at least, materially check this great evil. Vagrancy was partly the result of old habits and old times, when the first question that was asked was—" Where do you belong?" Instead of that being the first question it should be the last. The first question should be—"Are you in want, and how do you prove it?" If relief were afforded whenever there was destitution there would be no excuse for men to travel about the country and obtain alms on the representation—too frequently utterly without foundation—that they were travelling towards their homes to get relief. He did not understand that the hon. Member's (Mr. Corrance's) Motion went the length of an indictment against Poor Law Act. But, no doubt, the Poor Law Act of 1834 was an Act of severity. As far as he (Mr. Floyer) could understand the intention of the framers of the Act, their object, was to restrict, as far as possible, the relief of the poor to relief in the workhouse. That principle, he believed, to be essentially wrong. He had never hitherto heard it denied that the workhouse should be given to the able-bodied; but to drive the sick, aged, and infirm into the workhouse was not only an error in legislation, but was contrary to the first principles of charity. Fortunately, the administration of the Poor Laws fell into good hands. For more than thirty years, as Chairman of a Board of Guardians, he had from time to time been brought into communication with the Poor Law Board, and he was bound to say that on all occasions, whichever party had been in power, he had found the greatest readiness to promote the views of the Guardians, if it could be done justly and safety; and, on the whole, he believed the law had been administered by the Poor Law Board for the good of the country. But, as he had said, it was a great error to drive

  501
  the aged poor into the workhouse, and it was one of the most important suggestions of his hon. Friend that some provision should be made for the aged poor in respect of that which constituted their greatest difficulty, the means of obtaining house room and lodging. If that suggestion should lead to any result the hon. Member would have achieved something by bringing the subject before the House.
  MR. E. DENISONsaid. he had listened with satisfaction to a large part of the speech of the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance). He concurred with the hon. Member in thinking that the object to be kept in view was the absolute abolition of the Poor Laws, which were incapable of achieving that which they were intended to do. He also agreed that the time was nearly come when the work should be completed. This was not a subject to be dealt with in a partial and half-hearted way: a very serious reform must be introduced if anything were to be done at all. He further concurred in the opinion that one of the most, deplorable features of Poor Law administration under the Act of 1834 had been the marvellous weakness of the Central Board, which had been anything but the despot it had been prophesied it would be and had at times found itself absolutely paralyzed by the resistance of Guardians, and had been repeatedly foiled in the attempt to carry out common-sense reforms. He further concurred in the absolute necessity of confining relief to the able-bodied within the walls of the workhouse. There seemed to be an obvious distinction between their case and that of the sick and infirm; and certainly the framers of the Act of 1834 made a, great mistake in clubbing together the sick, the aged, and infirm, and the able-bodied in one building, and thus confounding in one treatment two classes that deserved to he treated in a different way—those whom every one would admit to be the legitimate objects of the tenderest care of the charitable disposition of the country, and those to whom a bare sustenance should be grudgingly allowed to avert the scandal and disgrace of then suffering absolute starvation. It was obvious there must be some test of the actual condition of those who applied for relief, and it must be a self-acting test; because no human being could
  502
  possibly tell at sight whether a man was actually in want or was not. The test must be acceptable to those who were in want, and unacceptable to those who were not. There was little fear of persons becoming sick to obtain relief, and they could not make themselves aged and infirm. There was, therefore, no danger of increasing the numbers of these classes in receipt of relief by administering relief outside the walls of the workhouse. The importance of vagrancy was to be estimated, not only by the aggregate number of vagrants and the absolute expense to which they put the country, but by the demoralization it produced, the scandal it involved, and the abuse of charity that prevailed. No doubt the success with which vagrants preyed on the charity-giving portion of the population offered a most dangerous and pernicious inducement to the honest labourer in time of temporary depression to go on tramp, seeing that he might earn more in that way than he could by honest labour at the best of times. As the hon. Member for Dorset- shire (Mr. Mover) said, there was only one way in which the Poor Law could be made at all efficient, and that was by affording relief everywhere to every destitute person who applied for it. It had been repeatedly acknowledged that that that was the principle of the Poor Law, although the hon. Member for East Suffolk seemed to call it in question. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) had laid it down that every person who was really destitute was entitled to receive relief upon application, and that a workhouse being full did not relieve Guardians from responsibility. As this principle of the Poor Law could not be repudiated, the only thing to be done was to sec if we could not find out a method of applying that principle which would not render it liable to abuse. This appeared to have been an object long sought for by the Poor Law Board, and in the well-known Minute issued by Mr. Buller in 1848, he described the then state of things in words which might be repeated now—he deplored the remissness of the Guardians in regard to the casual wards, and their neglect to observe the recommendation of the Poor Law Board to apply the labour test, and so compel vagrants to do something in return for the food and lodging they obtained.

  503
  However good the intention of the given of alms, there was no doubt lie did unqualified mischief: and he was not justified in relieving his benevolent impulses at the expense of the community. It was within his knowledge that a certain gentleman was in the habit of giving half-a-pound of bread to every tramp that called at his house, and of course as long as this was done begging would flourish. Mr. Cobbett once drew an extraordinary parallel between the alimentary standard of each of the three kingdoms and the degree in which they had respectively enjoyed the blessing of a Poor Law. The people of England, who had enjoyed a Poor Law for two centuries and a half, ate meat with a knife and fork; the Scotch, with an incomplete system, ate porridge with a spoon; and the Irish, with no Poor Law ate potatoes with their fingers. But a Poor Law system, to be perfect should have the confidence of the people to such an extent that they would recognize it as the only proper system of relieving the poor, and make it the medium for their charitable donations. The Marquess of Salisbury, when in that House, in 1861 had observed that the theory of the English Poor Law is that nobody should be allowed to starve in the streets; and in order to obtain that result it must offer to distressed persons the bare necessaries of life, a roof to their head and a meal. No doubt, if the theory wore carried out, indiscriminate almsgiving would cease then, for people only give to beggars because they fancy they would starve without their aid. But there was a possibility of creating another evil—the increase of vagrancy. No hon. Member had, as yet, charged the Casual Poor Act with having increased vagrancy: but he feared the charge could be to some extent substantiated. A liberal supply of casual wards offering improved accommodation, would, not improbably, tempt many idlers to a wandering life. Food and shelter being offered everywhere to all destitute persons, the question was how to counteract the inducement thus held out to idleness? The counterpoise was to be found in a strict application of the Vagrant Act in all the casual wards, and this could only be done by investing the Board with greater powers over the Guardians, either to coerce or to entice them to act upon
  504
  their suggestions. It appeared very desirable that if coercion was not applicable some form of inducement should be offered, and that it should be in the power of the Poor Law Board to hold out certain hopes to local boards, to be realized on condition that they should comply with the recommendations of the central body. The Vagrant Act had been in existence for about a century, and it was nearly inoperative during the whole of that time, because there was no universal provision for the relief of destitute people, and in the absence of such provision the humanity of the public would not suffer the enforcement of such a law, but as soon as relief of the destitute universally was conceded, it was necessary to find a counterpoise in the proper administration of repressive measures. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire seemed to have spoken very leniently of vagrancy when he said it was almost a crime. It seemed to him (Mr. E. Denison) to be a crime of a very bad description, and it was treated so by the Act. No person not guilty of a crime could be treated in the manner prescribed by the Vagrant Act. The difficulty was to ascertain at what particular point the criminal act was consummated, because, at first sight, the casual who addressed himself to the workhouse for relief could not be set down as a criminal vagrant. But they constantly found that when vagrants were in the wards they professed themselves to belong to the class of criminal vagrants, and brought themselves under the provisions of the Act. One of the most important duties of the masters of workhouses ought to be to prosecute tramps for the violation of the Vagrant Act. Wherever, in return for the wants of the wayfarer being provided for. a task of work was rigidly exacted, wherever the magistrates were willing to convict, and the persons so convicted were committed to the House of Correction or the gaol for two or three months, they very speedily got rid of vagrants. They had recently a very good proof of that in the Reports from the counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland. The chief constable at Carlisle stated that, from the practical experience furnished by these two counties, he felt persuaded if the law were strictly and uniformly carried out tramping and vagrancy and the crimes with

  505
  which they were attended would soon be put a stop to. He attributed these good effects to the operation of the Act, and, the evil consequences of which they complained to the general neglect of the Boards of Guardians to exact the task of work, to the disinclination to prosecute refractory vagrants, and also to the failure, from whatever cause, of the Central Board to secure that uniformity of procedure throughout the United Kingdom which seemed to be absolutely necessary to put a stop to the practices complained of. At present the very best administration of the laws in one or two counties had only the effect of diverting the stream of vagrancy elsewhere. But even if the existing law were administered in the best possible manner, there were three desiderata without, which its operation would be distinctly hampered. In the first place the discretionary powers of detention by the masters of workhouses ought to be enlarged beyond the four hours to which they were now limited. It was also desirable that the charge for the erection and maintenance of casual wards, which in small country unions where vagrants were few would lead to great difficulties, should be laid upon the county rate instead of the Union rate. And thirdly, there should be proper places to which the vagrants after conviction, could be committed to serve out their two or three months at hard labour. Wherever a proper place existed to which vagrants could be sent there it appeared that vagrancy was very much checked. With regard to the enlargement of the power of detention, workhouse masters were almost unanimous as to its necessity for the proper discrimination between the deserving wayfarer and the vagrant, and discrimination was at the root of the due administration of the Poor Law. The only possible way in which the deserving could be sifted out was by putting them under conditions which, while meeting their case, would be unpleasant and distasteful to the undeserving. Providence had fortunately furnished us with a self-acting test in the nature of the criminal vagrant, because there was nothing he so much abhorred as order, regularity, decency, and all that was most acceptable to the moral, intelligent wayfarer. He might quote various high authorities in support of that statement, but he would
  506
  only refer to one, Mr. Arthur Arnold, who said that there was nothing so abhorrent to the nature of the criminal classes as steady discipline and labour. The establishment of new wards and improvement of the accommodation for vagrants had not tended largely to increase the numbers of those resorting to the workhouses. As to the enlargement of the area of chargeability, that would be very much contested; but he did not think it could be contested very logically considering the principles that were laid down during the debate on the Casual Poor Act in 1863. The area of chargeability should be such as could be regarded on economical grounds as having one common interest. It should form, so to speak, an economic unit. The metropolitan area ought fairly to be compared with the area of a county. The President of the Poor Law Board, in a debate some years ago had used words to the effect that the houseless poor did not belong to east or west, but were the common charge of the entire metropolis, and that any measure which made the metropolis support them was a proper one, and would in no degree interfere with the principle that every district should provide for its own poor. In conclusion, he should be glad to receive from the Poor Law Board some distinct assurance that they were at length about to adopt the principles which for twenty years they had acknowledged to be sound. He had confined his observations to the question of vagrancy, not wishing to enter upon the grave and almost overwhelming question raised by the hon. Member for East Suffolk, though he fully believed that next year, or, at all events, before long, a searching investigation must be made into the whole question, and strenuous measures adopted. At present, however, there were a number of laws in existence, and regulations which had been established; but the laws were inoperative, and the regulations were disregarded. Before any new system was introduced they ought, in his opinion, to see what could be effected in the way of improvement, by putting those laws into operation and by procuring some regard for these regulations.
  MR. W. W. BEACHsaid, an attack had been made upon the Act of 1834, but it must be admitted to have been, to a great extent, successful in accomplish-

  507
  ing the purposes for which it was brought forward. At the time it was framed the evils of the Poor Law system had grown confessedly to a very great height. Not only had the charge for the Poor Laws enormously increased, but instead of being applied for the benefit of the infirm, and aged, and reduced in circumstances, that charge was largely carried out in aid of wages. That he felt to be a most objectionable principle: those who employed labourers ought to pay fair wages, and not call upon the general public to assist them out of the rates. The Act of 1834 sprang into existence, he might almost say, by the general sense of the community being enlisted in its favour, and it soon succeeded in checking the evils complained of. Labour received its proper remuneration, and the charge which had grown to so enormous a weight was reduced to its natural and proper proportions. The population of England in 1834 was 14,372,000, and the total amount expended in the relief of the poor—as far the figures could be relied on—appeared to be £6,317,255, or at the rate of 8s. 9½d. per head of the population. The Poor Law Guardians were called upon to perform duties to which they were altogether untrained; but though they might in some cases have overfavoured the poor, and in others have leant to over-hardship, yet, on the whole, everybody must feel that the country was greatly indebted to them for the trouble which they had taken to can out the system intrusted to them, and that, on the whole, the community had benefited by their labours. The present population numbered 21,320,000, and the total amount expended for the relief of the poor was £6,959,841, being at the rate of 6s. 6¼d. per head of the population. It appeared, therefore, that although there had since the year 1834 been an increase in the expenditure, there was a somewhat considerable diminution in the burden imposed on each member of the population. At present, however, the amount expended in relief was steadily increasing. It had been said that that was a result arising from exceptional causes, but still it was one which urgently demanded the serious attention of the Legislature. He would proceed to direct the attention of the House to the charge incurred for the maintenance of paupers. In the year 1867, 134,051
  508
  in-door paupers were maintained at a cost of £1,428,721, or £10 13 s. per head; and 791,493 out-door paupers were maintained at a cost of £3,487,754, or £4 8s. per head. He did not think that the difference in the charge per head was excessive, especially when the terror with which a man looked upon, being an inmate of a workhouse was taken into account. In olden times indoor relief was almost unknown, and but little mercy was shown for the "sturdy beggar," as he was called. Now-a-days, however, the number of able-bodied paupers was considerable. A good deal of this able-bodied pauperism might occasionally be accounted for by a temporary dearth of work, but as a rule ample work would be found by those who chose to seek for it. On the 1st of January, 1868, the number of able-bodied paupers in the receipt of indoor relief was 28,646, and the number receiving out-door relief was 156,984, making a total number of able-bodied paupers of 185,630. That was a large number of able-bodied persons to be destitute of work and thrown upon the general resources of the community. The poorer classes might be divided into three particular classes—namely, the able-bodied labourer, the pauper, and the criminal. The treatment of the latter class of late had been such as to prevent crime being' adopted as a vocation with any hope of success. To a certain extent the pauper was placed in a better position than the criminal. Although his food might not be so generous, his work was less. The case of the labourer was very hard. When worn out by hard and continuous labour his only resource was to go to the workhouse, there to end the remainder of his days. He was glad, however, to say that the aid afforded by friendly societies, which enabled a man by the work of his own right hand to accumulate a provision for old age, was largely on the increase. Ho, however, did not agree with the hon. Member that any assistance should be given to such societies from public sources. The utmost caution was necessary at the present time to prevent relief being doled out when it was not urgently required. He knew a case in which a man who was in the receipt of 14 s. a week met with an accident. His employer continued to pay him his wages, and he got 8s. a week from his club, but

  509
  still he applied for parochial relief. He was detected and refused, but still his application showed the necessity for exercising caution. With respect to the question of vagrancy he found, as a general rule, that so many did not apply for relief at the large houses in the country as there used to be. Their applications were generally made to the cottagers, and they, with most philanthropic motives, no doubt, gave indiscriminate relief, small as far as the individual was concerned—large in the aggregate, and sufficient to encourage large numbers of tramps. The principle of increasing the area of chargeability was a right one It was manifestly unfair that the poorer parishes in the metropolis should be compelled to support their own poor, while the richer parishes, from which the poor were expelled by reason of the class of the dwelling-houses, should escape almost entirely from the burden, It was a system that made poverty sup port poverty. If possible, an equal rate; should be charged, not only throughout the metropolis, but throughout the country. One great difficulty in the way of adopting such a system was, however that it would be almost impossible to obtain an adequate local supervision. He would be for a national rate if a good local supervision could be obtained. He did not know whether this could be secured; but the more we could extend the area of chargeability, the more we should make the poor rate approach to what it ought to be, a national rate—one levied on the community at large.
  DR. LUSHsaid, he desired to make a few remarks upon the question of medical relief. Though he could claim no special authority on the subject, he could clam special experience, because, for twenty years, he had served as a Poor Law medical officer. The point was most important, for about 72 per cent of of pauperism in this country was associated with sickness. Before touching upon that matter, however, he might be permitted to remark that he concurred very generally in the observations of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Floyer) but differed from the lion. Gentleman on ones point—he thought that union chargeability should be further extended. He could have wished that the question of vagrancy had not been introduced in this discussion. He regarded vagrancy as an excrescence on pauperism, and not
  510
  as pauperism itself. It did not follow that a vagrant was a pauper, while as a rule paupers had no inclination for vagrancy; they were strongly attached to their own localities. As regarded medical relief, his opinion was—and it was only the more confirmed the longer became his experience—that the whole system of its administration was unsatisfactory alike to the medical officers, the guardians, the rate-payers, and the poor themselves. The medical men employed by unions were very insufficiently remunerated—so insufficiently that the poor thought that services which were so badly paid for could not be worth much; the poor came to think they did not receive that care and attention from the medical officers which they required, and they showed a growing disposition to depend on their own sick clubs. So far as medical relief went Ireland was far in advance of England. In the year 1867 the population of Ireland was 4,500,000, while that of England was 21,000,000. The rates for the relief of the poor in Ireland amounted to £795,000, and in England to £6,990,000. The expense of medical relief in Ireland was £132,000, while in England, which was so much larger and richer, the amount expended was only £272,000. In other words, in Ireland £1 in every £5 10 s. of the total expenditure for the relief of the poor was expended in medical relief, whilst in England the proportion was only £1 in about £20. Every man in the medical profession expressed dissatisfaction with the present state of things as regarded the English system. He thought that in this respect the practice of this country should be as much as possible assimilated to that of Ireland, which worked so well.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he did not derive much comfort from the statements of the Secretary to the Poor Law Board (Mr. A. W. Peel). He (Mr. Mundella) believed there was no country in Western Europe in which poverty existed in more squalid, and more appalling forms than it did in this country. From the Poor Law statistics it appeared that there were about 1,000,000 paupers in England and Wales. That would be sufficiently sad; but we knew that it did not represent the total of the pauperism of this country. In a pamphlet addressed to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, his hon. Friend

  511
  the Member for Carlisle (Mr. E. Potter) pointed out how nearly allied to the state of pauperism was the condition of about 3,000,000 in addition to the 1,000,000 who were actual paupers. He believed that the remedy must go deeper than any change in the administration of the Poor Lair. He concurred with the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) that the education of the juvenile paupers was a very important point and would be an efficacious remedy. A Committee which had reported on this subject in his own neighbourhood stated that the worst paupers were those who had been in pauper schools. The boys turned out very badly in many cases, and a large percentage of the girls returned to the workhouse as prostitutes. From his own experience he could bear testimony to the shocking effects of mixing up children of both sexes with the adult paupers. Girls were hoard to express the hope that the time would soon come when they might be able to go out and earn fine clothes by the wages of infamy. The only-hope of improving the present state of things lay in a careful segregation of the pauper children. As long as they continued the present system so long he believed would their be only contributing to the manufacture of paupers. Self-respect was lost early in life, and it was found almost impossible to restore it. He did not agree that State aid should be afforded to friendly societies. The great object to be aimed at was to make the working man helpful and self-depending, and towards this something might be done by a better management of the ill-directed charities now existing. He knew a village of 4,000 inhabitants, where about;£30 was spent in education and £800 doled away in gifts, and the week after the distribution of the doles was always one of drunkenness and debauchery. He earnestly hoped that Government would do something to secure the better employment of these charitable funds, which were sufficient in amount to provide for the education of the whole country. "With regard to emigration, he expected little from it, because, according to his own experience, it took away the best and most careful artizans, men who were the backbone and sinew of the country, and did not touch that residuum of pauperism and misery of which we were anxious to get rid. The skilled workmen took our trade secrets with
  512
  them to America, and became, perhaps our most dangerous competitors. The best hope of effectual remedy lay in a sound and effective system of national education, in a reduction of national expenditure, and lightening the burdens of the industrious classes. A reduction of £10,000,000 in the expenditure, as set forth by the President of the Board of Trade, would be equivalent—taking the cost of collection saved into account—to a relief of £16,000,000 or £17,000,000, which would swell the wage fund and give increased employment to the labouring classes. In the metropolis it was a melancholy fact that the amount of outdoor relief had increased with the last few years 130 per cent. He could not help being of opinion that the Game Laws had a great deal to do with the increase of pauperism in the country generally. You could not convict 10,000 or 12,000 men every year without reducing their families to pauperism; for what were these wretched people to do when their bread-winner was taken from thorn and confined in a dungeon? He felt deeply the pernicious consequences of these laws, and those who had seen like himself 2,000 pheasants or more by the side of a covert would be able to estimate the amount of temptation to the poor involved in the extensive system of game preserving carried on in this country. He was impressed with the deep importance of the House turning their attention to these questions, which had the most intimate connection with both the moral and physical welfare of the people, and from inquiries conscientiously prosecuted into them they might expect the noblest results in the amelioration of the lot of the poor, and of many who were upon every account entitled to their commiseration.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he trusted that, as a metropolitan Member, he might be permitted to say a few words on this question, which had been described by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) as one of the most important of the present day. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) concurred in that description. The Secretary to the Poor Law Board (Mr. A. W. Peel) had read some statistics, which might seem to indicate, that the operation of the law was satisfactory: but his hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance), had been at pains to show that the law had failed,

  513
  Even if the operation of the law were' deemed satisfactory in the country at large, he was not prepared to admit that it could be deemed satisfactory so far as; the metropolis was concerned. If they were to regard the law as one, the object of which was to diminish pauperism, while it was to relieve persons overtaken by suffering and unforeseen calamity, and to meet emergencies which resulted from the contingencies to which those engaged in trade were liable, he was prepared to contend that the amount of pauperism existing in the metropolis was greater in amount than is to be attributed justly to unforeseen causes. He had heard a description given by a noble Duke who held a high position in the Government, and who described the Poor Law as the "expression of the legal right of every man who did not work, or who could not work, or who would not work, and who did not possess property, to food clothing, and shelter, at the expense of those who did work, could work, would work, and did possess property." That might seem a harsh mode of expression, but he thought it was well to look at questions of that sort in a plain, straightforward point of view. Within the last few years there had not only been an appalling increase in pauperism, but in the relative degree of pauperism in the metropolis. It was, doubtless, their duty to relieve the distressed and suffering, especially when they were reduced to that condition by no fault of their own; but it was also their duty to discourage pauperism in every way, because not only was the charge on the rates rendered heavy, but a large portion of those who had to pay them were very little raised above the condition of those they were called upon to relieve. This had become a very serious matter in London, as well as elsewhere, and it seemed to him that we did the pauper a grievous wrong, for we afforded him facilities for forsaking that self-dependence and that confidence in his own resources which were the birthright of every Englishman. He was prepared to contend that there was nothing in the present day so disgraceful to our civilization as the condition of a large portion of our population, and it was incumbent on the Government to deal most seriously and earnestly with this state of things. He would glance at the amount now spent on pauperism in London itself. Taking 1851 as the
  514
  period when the new Poor Law had been brought into full operation, and when the Poor Law Board was constituted, he found that the cost of poor relief in London had doubled since that time. In 1851 the whole amount spent for this purpose was £659,000; in 1858, it was £870,000; in 1867, £1,180,000: in 1868, £1,317.000. Between 1851 and 1868 the population had increased from 2,360,000 to an estimated population of 3.100,000; so that while the population had increased only by 30 or 34 per cent, the cost of relief had exactly doubled. That alone was a very grievous matter, but he found that the paupers who were relieved in London in the course of the year 1851 were 13 per cent of the whole population, while in 1868 they had increased to 16 per cent of the whole population. They were constantly receiving statements from the Poor Law Board purporting to be averages, and according to them 5 per cent of the population were chargeable upon the poor rates; but, from careful inquiries he had made, a large proportion of these were only chargeable on the rates for three or four months—in-paupsrs for four months and out-paupers for eleven or twelve weeks. They had never realized the whole number in England who were of the pauperized class—of those whom the Poor Law had educated and taught to fall back on it for relief when thrown down by ill-success or want of work, so that they were made careless, and took no care to provide something against the rainy day. To justify these statements he would give the House a few figures, which he had obtained by the kindness of the Guardians, in reference to the Strand Union, by no means the poorest in the metropolis. The population of the union in 1861 was 43,000, and it was decreasing. In 1868, 8,305 persons, or 20 per cent of the whole population, received relief, and this was a state of things which, in his opinion, was alarming, and demanded the serious consideration of the House. He maintained that the tendency in London was to an increase of pauperism and to a loss of self-reliance and independence. Advantages were offered in connection with, relief that the poor man was unable to resist. The cost of relief in the workhouse had increased very considerably in the last five years, and the cost of food

  515
  consumed in. the house per head had increased from 2s. 9d. in 1853 to 4s. 11 d. in 1868, and this while they had the authority of Professor Leone Levi for the statement that the farm labourer spent upon his own food only 3s. a week. The Returns of the Poor Law Board showed that the total cost of children who were educated in their schools was from £15 to £20 per head per annum, and although he was not prepared to say that was a charge which should be reduced, it was obvious that that expenditure was greater than could be afforded by most of the rate-payers for the education of their own children. This fact had, at all events, the appearance of great injustice to the rate-payers, and might tempt the poor among them to become careless of their children, and eventually to throw them on the parish. A circumstance had come to his knowledge which confirmed this view. He found that in a union district school there were five children of one parent, and the cost of each child was 7s. per head, the cost for the five being 35 s. It was ascertained that the mother was capable of supporting her children, and she was required to take them out; but she declined to do so unless a certain allowance was made, and it was made. Another important matter was the question of medical relief. It was an indisputable fact that in many instances the receipt of medical relief was the first step to pauperism; and in all cases it tended more or less to destroy the spirit of self-respect and independence which had done so much in past times for the country. The question of the administration of the law, too, demanded attention. In the debates in 1847, when the Poor Law Board was newly constituted, nothing was so much insisted on as the necessity for responsibility; but he ventured to say that they had not obtained it. There was vacillation and uncertainty in the administration of the law which arose from the frequent changes of Presidents and Secretaries of the Poor Law Board, from the want of power in reference to Boards of Guardians, and the opportunity that existed of shifting responsibility from one to the other. Moreover, it had become a by-word that the Poor Law Board was strong against a weak Board of Guardians, and weak against a strong one; and this caused uncertainty and want of confidence in the way in
  516
  which the law was administered. While he entirely recognized the spirit in which recent changes had been made, he could not think that the multiplication of Boards, resulting from the Act of 1867, had tended to improve the administration of the law. They had now the Poor Law Board and Board of Guardians, and in addition they had in the metropolis the Asylum District Board, the Sick Asylum District Board, and the School District Board, each of which possessed separate taxing power and dealt with a separate class of the poor in the same parish, and each of which Boards came into contact with the others. He did not think that this was a desirable system. He thought that there should be greater personal responsibility either with the Guardians or with the Poor Law Board, and that it should be known distinctly what policy was to be pursued. Where a power of increasing or diminishing taxation amounting to £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 a year resided there should surely be responsibility. There was another conclusion at which he had arrived, and it was that the principle upon which relief should be administered ought to be that, as far as possible, it should be given in exchange for work. He knew that in saying this he was touching upon delicate ground, but he was not himself afraid of interference with the labour market as many people were, and he very much preferred the risk of such interference to the certain demoralization which arose from giving relief as a matter of right to the person claiming it, without value given or a sense of gratitude in return.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, that while agreeing with the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance), that the tendency of our legislation of late years had not been altogether such as to decrease pauperism, he differed totally from the conclusions which the hon. Gentleman drew from his premises that in all cases the house was the only relief which should be offered to the able-bodied. It would be absolutely impossible under the present state of things that the house could be applied under the exceptional circumstances which from time to time arose, and to which Poor Law relief had been extended to a large extent. To prove that, he would refer to what had occurred in his own district. A sudden collapse of commercial credit and pro-

  517
  ductive industry occurred, and in the course of an incredibly short time no fewer than 9,000 artizans out of a total number of 14,000 in one branch, of industry only were thrown out of employment. These were the heads of families, and represented such a number of persons dependent on them that the workhouses in the district, multiplied by twenty, would not have been sufficient to contain them. If, then, from forethought they were to attempt the providing of workhouses for such, a state of things the weight and pressure on the ratepayers of the district would be so great that to bear it would be impossible. This distress came on so suddenly that it was totally out of the question to enforce the ordinary rules of the Guardians. It was found necessary, therefore, to give out-door relief in the shape of an allowance of 9s. in money and bread to persons with five in family in order to keep body und soul together. But it appeared that two-thirds of the labourers employed in the docks could not earn as much, and the result was that when they could no longer earn their 7s. or 8s. they applied to the workhouse for relief, and were afterwards very unwilling to go back to the docks. No doubt this was a matter upon which it was very difficult to legislate. He had read, and he believed it to be correct, that in an ordinary state of things one man was able to produce enough of corn from the land for thirty men to live upon. He could not help thinking that, though we looked upon ourselves as the most civilized people in the world, we were hardly in a healthy state when 5 per cent of our population were literally without anything to eat. He agreed, with the hon. Member (Mr. Corrance) who had introduced the subject that our legislation of late years had tended to increase pauperism, and he thought he could put his finger upon the exact thing that had produced it. Nothing had tended so much in that direction as the limited liability system. That system had stimulated production to a point at which it could not be permanently preserved; and nothing was a greater source of pauperism and of misery to the working population than those great and sudden transitions in the demand for labour. By means of the limited liability system an enormous quantity of capital was collected without a corresponding amount
  518
  of experience or knowledge to use it, and the consequence was that at the first turn of the tide, commercial prosperity ceasing, was followed by a collapse, capital was lost, and the labour which had been attracted to the district by means of it, and had been dependent on it, became shipwrecked and deprived of all means of support. Then there was another thing, the absence of which led to an increase of pauperism, and that was a good bankruptcy law, which would distinguish between the man whoso misfortunes wore the result of unforeseen circumstances and the man whose bankruptcy was due to his own misconduct. For the want of this, speculative and unsound trading was greatly on the increase; for the speculator perceived no difference in the treatment of a bankrupt of one description or the other. There was a third subject which had been alluded to in connection with the question before the House, and that was emigration. It had been said that emigration if encouraged would deprive us of the flower of our rising population. But he could not help thinking that it was the absolute duty of every statesman to open out a road to emigration for such as could not find proper employment in this country. He was entirely opposed to employing the public purse for emigration purposes; but he inclined to the belief that much, good might be done by setting aside a large portion of land in the colonies, which at present was wholly unused, and by making advances on suitable securities to industrious members of society to enable them to emigrate. The proposal offered to the House within the last few weeks to make advances under certain conditions to purchase the tithe rent-charge in Ireland did not involve less risk than the proposal that the Government, taking suitable securities, should enable persons to emigrate. Whether the larger estimate of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) or the more moderate figures of the Secretary to the Poor Law Board were adopted, we had evidently to deal with a vast amount of pauperism, and the true way in which to approach the subject was, not by apologizing for the action of the Board hitherto, but by setting to work to discover some ameliorating process.
  MR. PELLsaid, he hoped to hear from some of the hon. Members repre-

  519
  senting large towns explanations of the awful state of poor persons existing in them, and of the reasons for the collapse of the Poor Law system in the great cities, which was not equally observable in the country. In the union he attended himself—which he took as a typo of others—he found that the amount given to the poor in the shape of direct relief had varied very little during the last fifteen years, though almost every housekeeping necessary had risen in price. The explanation, however, lay in the fact that a great deal had been done in the shape of medical relief; that was to say, indirectly and by the agency of very badly paid officers, England had been saved from a condition of things she would have blushed to see. As the result of inquiries instituted in the county of Northampton, it was ascertained that the amount given for medical extras in one large union had increased over 400 per cent in fifteen years. A man with some disorder about him actually enjoyed an advantage in the country, for he did not go to the Guardians or the relieving officer, but to the medical officer, and got what he really wanted—a little refreshing food. His fear with regard to the Act of 1834 was that, in the present day, we were growing rather lax in practice and sliding back to the old state of things by consenting to give relief in aid. He was led to this conclusion by eases which had fallen under his own observation; and the mischievous state of things ought, in his opinion, to be remedied by a strict administration, He was disposed to agree in the remarks of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) as to the evils which had resulted in large; towns from over-speculation. He believed that the deplorable state of things at the East-end was attributable, in a degree, to the hope which persons entertained of bettering their condition by the high wages which obviously could not last for any lengthened period. These were tempted away from the green fields and those moderate wages which philanthropists made it a practice to deprecate; but, having enjoyed enhanced wages for a very short time, the period of prosperity was too often succeeded by a time of distress, approaching nearly to starvation. It was impossible to offer to vast numbers of men the shelter of the "workhouse, and it was
  520
  equally difficult to discriminate in granting out-door relief. What, therefore, followed too often, was the placing men at labour unprofitable and unsuitable—when they asked for bread, a stone was given to them. It was the duty, he thought, if not of the State, certainly of individuals, to assist emigration, whenever this would open to men abroad opportunities of maintaining their families honestly which were denied to them at home. He did not believe with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that in this way we should lose all our best workmen. the most highly educated would have reason sufficient to induce them to remain. But those who had not been strictly apprenticed, but had found their way into the profession through some by-lane, were legitimate candidates for the emigrant ship, and should be assisted to depart. As a tenant-farmer and landowner, he could never bring himself to believe that there was any necessary connection between poverty and the Game Laws. He was strongly opposed to excessive preserving of game; but it was really trifling with the question to say that the distress of men was in any way caused or aggravated by the presence of birds, preserved or not preserved, in the country. He believed that the personal payment of poor rates would have a very beneficial effect, as nothing had tended more than the payment of poor rates by the landlord to the destruction of independence and consequent increase of pauperism. The attention of the small tenants whose rates Were formerly paid by their landlords was never called to the increase of pauperism; but now that they had to pay their own rates they took a deep interest in the matter, and, therefore, apart from political reasons, that change in the law had proved very wholesome in its effects. He thought the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) for having brought forward the subject, and he hoped that, in any future consideration of the case, the House would not forget how a large portion of the cost of the maintenance of the poor was confined to one class. If any want of liberality was to be attributed to those who distributed the funds and to levy the rates, it must not be forgotten that the area on which they were levied was

  521
  very limited in extent, and that it was possible that more liberality might "be shown if the area was made wider than it was at present.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that those who had listened to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Poor Law Board (Mr. A. W. Peel) would make a great mistake if they thought that the figures he had quoted were intended to induce the House to believe that the Department of the Poor Law Board was not thoroughly alive to the alarming: extent of pauperism which existed at this moment, and to the increase in the expenditure upon pauperism, which during the last few years all had had so much occasion to deplore. It was, however, equally important that at a time like the present, when every one was devising remedies for this state of pauperism, the public should not take an exaggerated view of the matter, as that they should not under-rate the amount of the increase in pauperism. It was important that no confusion should be suffered to exist between the increase in the number of paupers and the increase in the cost of their maintenance. While the increase; in the expenditure had been most remarkable the increase in the actual number of paupers relatively to the population had been but slight during the last seven years. Where there had been a startling increase of pauperism—as, for instance, in the metropolis—that was owing to an aggregation of pauperism in some places and a displacement of it in others. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), who had addressed the House with so much ability and clearness, had reason to say that in the metropolis the increase in pauperism was really appalling, the number of paupers having risen from 100,000 to 145,000 within the last few years. But it was apparent, from the figures which had been laid before the House by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Poor Law Board, that this increase in the pauperism of the metropolis, and in that of other large towns, had arisen from the pauper class congregating in those towns more than they did formerly—partly, no doubt, in consequence of the course of recent legislation in removing every artificial barrier to the circulation of labour. Of course, I his influx of labour to the largo towns had imported with it a certain refuse, which entailed an increase in pauperism,
  522
  but surely the places that had benefited by the labour had not a right to complain of the burden which it entailed, and which had been partly met, and might be met to a greater extent, by distributing the expense over the whole, instead of over portions of them. Union chargeability was a natural sequel to making the poor irremovable. He would not, at that hour, and after the long debate that had arisen upon this subject, trouble the House with many statistics upon the question before them. While, he must admit that the state of pauperism was most unsatisfactory, he must yet contend that it has not alarming, that it has not such as to justify a panic, or to induce the House to deviate from those sound principles of political economy which were sometimes forgotten, when they were asked to legislate upon pauperism. He would take the amount of pauperism which existed in 1849, in six agricultural counties, taken at random, and would compare it with the amount of pauperism which existed in those counties at the present time. The number of paupers in the counties of Buckingham, Somerset. Suffolk, Dorset, Norfolk, and Lincoln, in the year 1849, has 137,000; whereas, in 1868, it was only 124,000, showing a diminution of 13,000. The pauperism of those counties in 1848 formed 15 per cent of the entire pauperism of the country; whereas, in 1868, it only formed 12 per cent. On the other hand, taking the three metropolitan counties of Kent, Middlesex, and Surrey, he found that the number of paupers they contained in 1849 was 96,000, whereas, in 1868, they contained 171,000, showing an increase of 75,000 in these three counties, and the pauperism of these three counties which formed 10 per cent of the total pauperism of the country in 1849, formed 17 per cent of it at the present time. In round numbers, therefore, it might be taken that the metropolis accounted for the whole increase in the pauperism of the country during the last twenty years. He particularly wished that he should not be misunderstood upon this point. He did not wish it to be supposed that, because he said that the number of paupers had not increased to any alarming extent, he was satisfied with the existing state of things. He has far from being satisfied with the existing state of things; and he thought the most ener-

  523
  getic steps should be adopted to diminish pauperism. But, although, the proportionate increase of pauperism was not so great, the increase in the amount of the expenditure had been enormous, He must, however, first be permitted to say that an increase in pauperism did, not necessarily depend upon Poor Law legislation. On the contrary, when there was any unnecessary Imperial expenditure, or when any mistake was made, in our social legislation, the result was to be found in the register of pauperism. As regarded the increased expenditure, why is it, that the expenditure had increased, while we had not a very much larger number of paupers? He believed that public opinion was quite as much responsible for it as that House, the Poor Law Guardians, or the Poor Law Board. In 1864 and 1865, the public conscience, if he might say so, was first roused to the state of the sick poor in workhouses, and public opinion was not satisfied with the treatment which the poor received. The consequence was that every kind of improvement in the sanitary and general condition of the workhouses had been demanded from that time to this, and the expenditure had increased accordingly. He did not say whether this was to be regretted or was not; but we could not expect the two things—we could not expect the rates to be kept down at the same time that we were establishing a higher standard of treatment for the; poor. He had heard a good deal of sound language with respect, to expenditure in the course of this debate—language very different from some which had been held in former debates on this subject. Having been only a short time at the poor Law Board, he could speak independently and impartially on the point, and he would express his opinion that, in former years, the expenditure had been curtailed and cut down by the Poor Law Board to a lower point than the public feeling would have sanctioned. The country must make up its mind to spend a good deal of money In improving the condition of the inmates of workhouses, or not to improve it up to so high a standard as that to which the public had been looking. But how did his hon. Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) propose to meet the increased expenditure? Why, by opening a new tap. His
  524
  hon. Friend suggested that the rates should be contributed locally, Imperially, and by the owners of property. The observations of his hon. Friend with respect to the latter mode of contribution were very pregnant, and he was rather surprised that they had not elicited an expression of opinion from the owners of land. He should like to hear what they thought of the proposal to place a portion of the burden directly on the owners of land. He was not prepared to say that his hon. Friend's suggestion on the point was not a good one. He did not think he desired, its adoption with the view of lessening the burden, but with the view of interesting the owners of land more in the administration of the Poor Law. This would be a good object to attain. Nor would the plan be a shifting of the incidence of taxation, because political economists hold that the owners of land paid the rates. It might be desirable, therefore, that the owners of land should do what his hon. Friend suggested; but the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) did not seem to think it would lead to a decrease of the exditure, because he proposed that the latter object should be brought about by making the occupiers pay the rates. For himself he must say that, though he dissented from other remedies proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for East Suffolk, he did not dissent from that one. With regard to the children, he agreed with his hon. Friend that where it could be done—but this was a large limitation—district schools should be established. He, however, endorsed all that had been said on this point by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Poor Law Board. These district schools could only be formed with the consent of the Guardians; and as in many cases they preferred to keep the children under their own eye the matter was sometimes one of difficulty. In some parts of the country the distances to which children would have to be sent to the district school would be very great. That might be overcome if the children had to be sent only once for all; but hero arose another difficulty. The pauper children in and out of workhouses were not a permanent class. To this circumstance might be attributed the comparative failure of what was known as Denison's Act. The children could not be left

  525
  long enough in school. The law allowed the school penny to be paid only as long as the child was in receipt of relief. That might he only a month. To insure the children being kept long enough at school, it would be necessary to keep them there even after the Guardians had ceased to give them relief. But evidently this was a part and parcel of the question of compulsory education; and, while he felt as strongly on the subject of the education of pauper children as his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), he thought it would be premature to lay down any new plan for that class, inasmuch as the Government hoped to introduce next Session a general Bill on primary education. He sympathized in what had been said by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) in respect to the children in workhouse schools costing three times as much as children in their own homes; but he believed that the assistance given to those children obtained more general approval than any other advantage conferred by the Poor Law system. He thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield had been rather hard on the large district schools. In the metropolis there were but comparatively few cases in which the school was in the same building as the workhouse. Then as regarded the sick. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. E. Denison)—who had spoken that evening so exhaustively upon the subject—had said that he recognized in the sick a class who were on all grounds entitled to relief. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) had stated that in his opinion every pauper had a right to the services of the medical officer, and he even went, so far as to deplore that some paupers actually preferred paying for their medical relief. Now, he admitted that the sick must be treated with humanity when they became paupers, but he could not help thinking that the hon. Member's (Mr. Corrance's) proposal with regard to the sick and the aged was one that would strike at the root of the independence of the English labourer. Where would the insurance and the friendly societies be if the State accepted such a responsibility, and if every man who had attained a certain age, or had fallen into a certain state of health, was to be entitled to be maintained at the national expense? It was, he confessed, with a feeling of shame,
  526
  that he saw so many persons thrown upon the rates with the first sign of a frost. Was the English labourer so differently framed from others that he could not provide even for two or three weeks in advance; but that any of these accidents, of which he ought to have foreseen the possibility, must at once throw him upon the rates? He was quite prepared to admit that it was their duty in such cases to provide the minimum relief; but he denied that they were bound to make the class of paupers thoroughly comfortable, or that they must accept the doctrine that they were guilty of barbarism and cruelty in refusing to do so. Why should England be the only country with this elaborate system of superannuations? Let them do what they could to reduce the numbers of the sick, and to improve the system of outdoor medical relief, but do not let them lay down doctrines which struck at the root of the independence of the English working population. With regard to the question of vagrants, there was no doubt that persons belonging to this class ought to be more effectually dealt with, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and himself had been very anxious to submit to Parliament during this Session a measure relating to this subject. Now, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Poor Law Board had not attempted to deny the increase which had occurred in the number of vagrants; but, at the same time, he had very properly attempted to correct the impression that there were 33,000 vagrants receiving relief, when, in reality, they only numbered 7,000—too many, he was quite willing to admit, and a number requiring to be dealt with, but not so numerous as was commonly believed. With regard to the vagrants he would, moreover, say, that the regrettable increase which had occurred in this direction might be traced partly, as the hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. W. W. Beach) had said, to the alms given along the road, and partly to the indisposition on the part of the magistrates to commit the vagrants when caught. Vagrants were put in the casual wards, and there were frequently twenty vagrants to two or three workhouse officials. The next morning when these vagrants were let out of the casual ward and told to do a certain amount of work,

  527
  if they refused to do it—as they frequently did—the workhouse authorities had no power to coerce them. All the Circulars of the Poor Law Board would never get over a difficulty of that kind. It might be asked, why two or three were not selected to be prosecuted? That had been tried over and over again, but there was a difficulty in procuring; convictions, because the magistrates did not regard the offence as one of a serious character, and argued, moreover, that to send the vagrants to gaol would only throw a great expense on the county. He was prepared to concur, however, in the opinion, that the vagrants ought to be placed under the control of the police. Now he felt himself compelled to say a few words with regard to the financial proposals of the hon. Member for East Suffolk. The hon. Member proposed that charities should be placed under the control of the Poor Law Board. Personally be had no objection to that proposal, which he regarded as infinitely preferable to the proposal made the other evening to exempt charities from contributing to the rates. But the hon. Member was a bold man to propose the disendowment and the disestablishment of all the charities in London and elsewhere. If, however, the hon. Member could propose any plan by which the inefficacious and mischievous system of doles could be put an end to, and by which the money now wasted could be utilized, he would be performing a great service. The whole question of charities was one deserving attention. In them they might possibly find a new resource, though a great deal of what the hon. Member referred 1o was the result of voluntary annual subscriptions; and. unless they wore exceedingly careful, they were far more likely to cheek the entire flow than to succeed in placing it at the management of the Poor Law Board. But the hon. Member had said that a certain contribution ought to be made for Poor Law purposes from the Imperial Exchequer. Now he ventured to think that the arguments against such a proposal were so overwhelming that, however ably supported, it would never find much favour in that House. No doubt the hon. Member would find those who would be ready to give him their assistance in his desire to reach the Consolidated Fund; but he was quite sure that the Conservative party to which the hon.
  528
  Member belonged would be afraid of opening up a system which, in its results, deserved no other name than that of Communism. When the hon. Member spoke of pensioning off the aged poor at the expense of the State—though the word might be a hard one—that was the beginning of Communism. It would be a dangerous course for the House to embark upon to open the unlimited supplies which were to be found in the taxation of the country for Poor Law purposes, and all the more dangerous when the hon. Member avowed what was to be done. It was not to secure a minimum of subsistence, but for purposes which he had clearly defined. He thought that the discussion which the hon. Member had raised had not been without its advantages. Sound doctrines had been advocated by many hon. Members; but when they heard and saw that under the pressure of local taxation, and that of increased rates, there were men who said that we were bound to provide public works and to employ all those who were without work, and when they heard and saw that there were others who maintained that it was their duty to educate the children of the paupers, to take care of the old men and cure the sick, it behaved them all to be careful as to what they were to do. He quite agreed that something might be done in the way of emigration, but not nearly so much as seemed to be expected. He did not think that the hon. Member intended to press his Motion to a division. If that Motion meant that the Government ought to be exceedingly careful and pay every attention they could to the question of pauperism, then all he could say was that a Resolution of that House was unnecessary, for they were perfectly aware of their responsibility in that respect. The hon. Member for Westminster seemed to think that the Poor Law Board was not a responsible body, but that was a mistake. The Poor Law Board was responsible for the administration of the law, if not for the law itself, and they would not shrink from their responsibility. As for the head of that Department, he (Mr. Goschen) did not know-that anything could increase the individual sense of responsibility which he felt as the President of the Board.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) had not

  529
  confined himself to one branch of this great subject, for, in consequence, the discussion of that evening had ranged over a variety of topics, each in itself sufficiently important for consideration. With regard to the hon. Member's proposal to throw more of the burden on the owners of property, he was sure he should be in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the President of the Poor Law Board) if he said that he, for one, was very much inclined to concur in it; but he did so on condition only that it was possible to find some means by which the owners who might thus be taxed should manage the expenditure of the taxation. The increase in the poor rates and in the numbers relieved was generally admitted; but some of the remedies proposed had been remarkable, and some impracticable. He would not say that the law had been in all respects well administered; there had been defects, and one source of the defects was that greater powers had been obtained from Parliament by the Poor Law Board than they were inclined to exercise. The proposal to provide public works for the employment of thy people, and to aid clubs for medical relief and for superannuation from the rates, was one which he hoped it would be long before the House sanctioned, for he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the President of the Poor Law Board) that it involved nothing less than a social revolution. The great panacea of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Floyer) appeared to be almshouses, and the hon. Member seemed to think that food and shelter should be forthcoming to any vagrant without inquiry. Those ideas ware by no means practicable, and lie hoped they would not receive the assent of the House. Anyone who had had experience of almshouses knew the evil of them. They were an endless source of quarrelling to occupants and would-be occupants; they were inimical to a spirit of self-reliance; and they made no provision for the labourer in his old age beyond the shelter of the bare walls. The views of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) as to the remedies which should be adopted were very remarkable. Education, particularly secular education, would not of itself stop crime, the feeder of pauperism; and equally futile was the proposal with re-
  530
  gard to decreasing the national expenditure, for, unfortunately, those who became paupers were not tax-payers. The game laws doubtless required amendment, but was it fair to charge a man who preserved pheasants with encouraging pauperism, any more than to charge a jeweller who displayed his stock in the window with encouraging theft? He concurred with everything that had been said in favour of district schools, and he would be only too glad to give the right hon. Gentleman any help in removing difficulties in the way of establishing them. Nothing better could be wished for the children than their removal from the danger of being contaminated by adult paupers in the workhouses. This mainly applied to girls, for in country workhouses few boys remained beyond a tender age, but girls were always to be found there, learning little but what was bad. There was a system called the boarding-house system which prevailed in Lincolnshire and Edinburgh, and from a Paper recently presented to the House, it appeared that the Poor Law Board had lately given a qualified sanction to that system. But he trusted it would not be generally sanctioned until it had been further tried, for it was very difficult to secure proper supervision, without which the results might be worse even than those of the present system; there was no real guarantee that children were not overworked, and that they wore properly fed and properly instructed, unless some charitable person would devote his time and attention unremittingly to their supervision. He had hoped to have heard from the Government something more definite as to their intentions with reference to vagrancy. He would have been glad to see a Bill introduced without delay for dealing with that serious evil. It was not a new question—indeed, it has centuries old, and we had gone so far as to brand, to enslave, and even to hang vagrants; but without such absurd harshness, which only defeated itself, he believed it would be possible, by a combination of measures, to secure a great diminution of vagrancy. The first suggestion he would offer was that every new vagrant ward should be built with separate cells, so that each vagrant should be kept apart from the others both for labour and for rest, and that vagrants should

  531
  be placed entirely under the inspection of the police. At Oswestry and Richmond separate wards had been established, and with the most satisfactory results, as testified in one case by the Report of the Inspector of Constabulary. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would press separation on the Guardians, and if they did not adopt it, that further measure's would be passed by Parliament to compel them. There must also be uniformity—uniform work, uniformly insisted upon, with uniform diet, and then vagrants would not be tempted to go from one workhouse to another. It would be well also to extend the ticket system, which had already been adopted in Gloucestershire and several other counties; so that any one on the production of a ticket showing that he was travelling straight to his destination in search of work, might receive food and shelter without the exaction of the task of work; and the public would thus be deterred from indiscriminate charity, knowing that deserving persons were everywhere properly provided for. Another point of great importance was the proper performance of their duties by the magistrates; for it appeared from the Reports of the Inspectors of Constabulary that in some districts the police were not generally supported in apprehending vagrants, and in others, as in Cumberland and "Westmoreland, they were; and the result was that professional tramps were scared from the places where the law was enforced, in such a way as to suggest that if it were equally carried out in all counties, the tramps would have to give up their trade and resort to honest labour. He might add, that, there were two valuable clauses in the Habitual Criminals Bill which would facilitate the supervision of criminal vagrants. These remedies might check the spread of vagrancy: but, in his opinion, the admitted increase of pauperism, properly so called, arose from the fact that the Poor Law was now expected to work under conditions never anticipated. The corner-stone of the old Poor Law was that the workhouse should be a test for the able-bodied, but it had ceased to be so; it had become a hospital for all the sick poor in the union; and as in our large towns this class alone had become so numerous that all the wards in the workhouses were overcrowded with them, the Guardians had no room
  532
  to take in the able-bodied, and therefore could not apply that test. Out-door relief, practically unchecked, was therefore their only resource; and this was in some places almost indiscriminately given; hence the enormous increase in the expenditure and in pauperism in London and other large towns. He did not complain of giving the sick poor proper accommodation, but he deprecated making the workhouse too comfortable even for them. Having visited the new infirmary wards of Marylebone Workhouse when Secretary to the Poor Law Board, he could say without hesitation that they surpassed in comfort and elegance the squalid homes the paupers had left nearly as much as a "West-end residence. It was a fact that the independent spirit which formerly kept people from the workhouse had to a great extent failed, and little else kept them from it now but the strictness of the discipline there enforced. In the absence of the workhouse test, the labour test should be applied: but in some cases—in Lancashire and Yorkshire, for instance—neither the workhouse nor labour test could fairly be said to be in force; it could not, therefore, be a matter of surprise that the able-bodied paupers in the large towns in those counties had much increased of late. The administration of out-door relief had been far too lax; the officials who administered the relief were underpaid, and the Guardians failed to exercise the personal supervision their duty required of them. But all this supported the demand for proper classification, for some time past insisted upon by the Poor Law Board, which, if carried to its full extent, would include separate houses for the sick, which might be comfortable hospitals, for the able-bodied, which should really be a workhouse, and separate schools for the children. This could well be done in the metropolis and the larger towns, but it could not be the rule in thinly populated districts, where the paupers had to travel ten or twelve miles to their union. The principle had been adopted, with regard to the metropolis, in the Bill passed at the instance of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), by which lunatic asylums, fever hospitals, houses for the sick, and workhouses for the able-bodied might be separated from one another; and he would

  533
  have been glad to bear the Government had resolved to extend the principle to large towns in other parts of England. The only way of dealing with the able bodied pauper—for whom he had little, sympathy—was to set apart a house for him, and meet him at every turn with a good strict test. He did not refer in saying this to cases such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), in which a number of men were suddenly thrown out of work: that was a case which would very properly have been met by an emigration test, under which emigration might be offered as the sole kind of relief. Altogether, the facts adduced by the hon. Member for East Suffolk, and those admitted by the President of the Poor Law Board showed exactly where the Poor Law had failed. He agreed with a suggestion that had been made that, while in some cases the strict legal relief only should be given, in others it might be possible to supplement it from funds subscribed by the charitable, and thus to combine the administration of our voluntary charities with that of the local rates. He hoped that, in considering the question, the Government would attempt in some measure to carry out this suggestion.
  MR ANDERSONsaid, that the system of boarding pauper children with decent families had been carried out in Edinburgh with marked success. By this means the taint of pauperism was removed, and the children were absorbed into the general mass of the population. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that the reduction of taxation would diminish pauperism by increasing commerce and manufactures and giving employment. As to vagrancy, if they should determine to deal with it as a crime, great care must be taken to distinguish between ordinary vagrants and honest, working men travelling from place to place in search of employment.
  MR. JOSHUA FIELDENsaid, that this was a subject in which his constituents took a great interest, and he wished therefore to say a few words upon it. It had been almost taken for granted that the principles of the Poor Law of 1834 were the correct principles upon which such a law should be based. Some years ago he was Chairman of the Board of
  534
  Guardians of the Todmorden Union. In that union there was no union workhouse system, and he could, therefore, speak from some amount of experience, not only of the working of the Poor Law, but of the effects of that law, where out-door relief only prevailed. It must be remembered that the principles now avowed as proper to guide us in the administration of relief were not the principles which were acknowledged when the; new Poor Law was introduced. The Secretary to the Poor Law Board had, it was true, stated to-night that we had done well whenever we had followed the principles of the measure of 1834; but he would be a bold man indeed who attempted now to carry them into effect. The principles of the now Poor Law were clearly shown in a remarkable document which was never intended to meet the eye of the public—a document which the late Mr. Walter, then Member for Nottingham, accidentally discovered among the papers of a writer for The Times. That paper Mr. Walter brought before the House of Commons, and he would read a passage from it which clearly showed what the intention and object of the framers of the new Poor Law were. The paper was entitled—Measures submitted by the Poor Law Commissioners to His Majesty's Ministers," and was submitted to them in 1833. The following appeared in that paper:—
  "That at any time after the passing of this Act the Board of Control [which held the same place as the Poor Law Board held now] shall have power, by an order, with such exceptions as shall be thought necessary, to disallow the continuance of relief to the indigent, the aged, and the impotent, in any other mode than in a workhouse, regulated in such a manner as by the aforesaid Board of Control shall he determined. The power of the Commissioners would he to reduce allowances, but not to enlarge them. After this has been accomplished, orders may be sent forth directing that after such a day all out-door relief should be given partly in kind; that alter such another period it should be gradually diminished in quantity until that mode of relief was extinguished. From the first the relief should be altered in quality, coarse brown bread being substituted for fine white, and, concurrently with these measures as to the out-door poor, a gradual reduction should be made in the diet of the in-door poor and strict regulations enforced."
  For a long time the principles embodied in that paper were carried out. Orders were issued of the most fearful and inhuman kind. Could it be believed that

  535
  in the Andover Union Inquiry it was admitted by Sir Frankland Lewis, one of the Commissioners, that Mr. Edwin Chadwick had written and induced the Commissioners to issue an order that the bells should not he tolled at the funeral of a pauper, Mr. Chadwick knew that Sir Frankland Lewis was opposed to the issue of any such order, and therefore brought it before the Commissioners during the absence of Sir Frankland Lewis. Eventually the order was. at the urgent intreaty of Sir Frankland Lewis, altered by forbidding the "excessive" tolling of the bells. The administration of the law had been most harsh and cruel. Would it now be believed that it had been shown, in the revelations which came out before the Andover Union Committee that the people in that union workhouse were so famished that they were in the habit of fating raw potatoes, grains, and refuse food which had been thrown to the hogs and fowls: and still worse revelations came out before the Committee. It was proved before the Committee that all this was done with the knowledge of the Commissioners. What was the result? What must always be the result in such a case. They might drive the poor from the workhouse doors, they might make relief so odious that the poor would not accept it, but they would not thereby get rid of the poor. It was said that the Poor Law Board never did break up a cottage; but he knew of instances in which the Poor Law Board had decided that a man should sell his furniture before he could get relief. At all events, they had evidence of what the intentions of the Commissioners were. He found in the Third Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, pages 86 and 87, the following "Instructional Letter," issued by the Commissioners to Boards of Guardians on their formation:—
  "Where the pauper is the head of a family, and he declares that he has no work, and proves satisfactorily that he can obtain none, either in his own or in any of the parishes within a reasonable distance, he may be offered temporary relief within the workhouse until he can get some kind of work—relief wholly or chiefly in kind being given in the interval to the family, to prevent the immediate necessity of selling off their goods and breaking up the cottage establishment. The pauper should distinctly be told that such an arrangement can only be temporary, in order that his wife and family may seek work for him; and that this strict workhouse principle requires that ail the members of a family claiming relief should
  536
  enter the house, and give up their property for the benefit of the parish."
  The avowed intention of the framers of the New Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was to make the condition of receiving relief so harsh and cruel that the poor would resort to anything rather than submit to the degradation of the union workhouse test—for degradation it was to the honest labourer, ready and willing to work—and it must be remembered there was no distinction made between such an one and the idle and the dissolute. 'The effect of the Poor Law had been to drive men away from the country to the large towns, and from one large town to another, till eventually they found their way up to London; and we were now face to face with the large army of vagabonds and vagrants thus created. A man once compelled to break up his house, once driven from the locality to which he was attached, and where his family had lived, perhaps, for centuries, became of necessity a vagrant, and but one short step was needed to make him a thief. In proof of what he had stated he would refer to the 42nd Report of the London Fever Hospital for 1844, issued just ten years after the passing of this inhuman law. At page 14 it was stated by the physician, Dr. South-wood Smith—
  "A large proportion of the subjects of fever, received into the Hospital during the past year, were agricultural labourers and provincial mechanics, who had been induced to leave their native counties in search of work, and who, either on their road to the metropolis, or soon after their arrival in it, wore seized with the disease. The causes assigned for their illness, by these poor creatures themselves, were various, some staling that it was owing to sleeping by the side of hedges, others to want of clothing—many being without stockings, shirts, shoes, or any apparel capable of defending them from the inclemency of the weather; while others—and these constituted a very large proportion of the number—attributed it to want of food, being driven by their intense hunger to eat raw vegetables, turnips, and rotten apples; and certainly their appearance, in many instances, fully corroborated the truth of their representations."
  The effect had been such as he had described, and we had now, in London, an army of vagrants, vagabonds, and criminals, that we were at our wits' ends to know how to deal with. ["Divide."] He hoped that hon. Members would permit him to give a few figures on this subject more especially as they differed materially from the figures given by the President of the Poor Law Board. Those he was about

  537
  to quote had been taken from a little book called Statistical Abstract, and published by authority, in 1868, and presented to both Houses of Parliament. The Returns extended from 1853 to 1867, the very period during which the operation of the Corn Laws was said to have given to the country such unprecedented prosperity. In 1853 the population of England and Wales was, in round numbers, 18,404,368, and in 1867, 21,429,508, being an increase of 3,025,140. The number of paupers exclusive of vagrants, in receipt of relief in England and Wales was, in 1854, 818,337; and in 1868, 1,034,823, showing an increase of 216,486. The total amount expended in relief to the poor and for other purposes, county and police rates, &c, was, in 1853, £6,854,788; and in 1867, £10,905,173, showing an increase of £4,050,385. This total expenditure was distributable under two heads. The amount expended in actual relief to the poor was in 1853, £4,939,064 as against £6,959,840 in 1867, being an increase of £2,020,776. The amount expended for other purposes, county and police rates, &c, was, in 1853, £1,915,724, against £3,945,333 in 1867, showing an increase of £2,029,609. The same figures might be given in another and more convenient form. The population of England and Wales between 1853 and 1867 increased 16 per cent; the number of paupers, exclusive of vagrants, receiving relief increased 26 per cent; the amount expended in actual relief to the poor—not including the county and police rates—increased no less than 41 per cent, while the amount expended upon the county and police rates, indicating the number of extra police put on to combat this army of vagrants, due to the new Poor Law and union workhouse system of recent years, increased by the enormous amount of 105 per cent. These figures, taken from official sources, certainly did not harmonize with the figures put forward on behalf of the Poor Law Board. If they continued to treat the hard-working poor of England upon the same plan in all respects as they treated vagrants the evils felt at present would go on increasing. The true remedy was to subdivide the unions, and circumscribe the arrears of relief; and to bring to bear more individual responsibility in the persons engaged in the distribution of relief.
  MR. CARTERsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fielden) did not truly represent the feelings of the West Riding, and that his speech, instead of being delivered to the House of Commons, ought to have been delivered to Chartists twenty-five years ago. For his own part he asserted that satisfaction was generally felt at the mode in which the Poor Law was administered. The best mode of preventing pauperism were first by educating the people, and next by limiting the liquor traffic.
  MR. CORRANCE, in reply, said, he had no difficulty in acceding to the request made opposite that he should withdraw his Motion. He had nothing to complain of in the speech of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Poor Law Board (Mr. A. W. Peel), who had shown much official capacity in defending a bad case. The figures which he (Mr. Corrance) had put forward at the beginning of the debate had been much distorted and misrepresented, but their substantial accuracy, as far as related to the increase of pauperism, had not been disputed. He had been misunderstood upon several points by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, and hon. Members opposite, especially with regard to the manner in which he had proposed to deal with the charities of the metropolis and the friendly societies. He was told that it would be a long time before the scheme he proposed was adopted, and he thought that, perhaps, no stronger reason could have been given for its ventilation that night. It might be so; but, at all events, he felt that in bringing forward this matter he had only discharged a duty that was binding upon his conscience, and as he trusted no less so upon other hon. Members of that House.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COURTS OF JUSTICE (NEW SITE) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal portions of the Act of the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth years of Victoria, chapter forty-nine, and to enable the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings to acquire a New Site

  539
  for the erection and concentration of Courts of Justice and of various Offices belonging to the same. He regretted that he was unable to accede to the appeal of the hon. Member opposite that he should not bring on this subject at that late hour of the evening; but as he should have no other opportunity of doing so before the Recess it was a matter of urgent necessity that he should proceed with his Motion. He had hoped that the discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) would have terminated earlier; but as he was simply moving for leave to introduce the Bill, he would merely make a statement of facts respecting which both the House and the public were in a great degree ignorant, and he hoped that any discussion upon the subject would be reserved for the second reading of the Bill. It was unnecessary for him to enter into any history of the proposal for the concentration of the Law Courts, and he should merely refer to what had occurred in order to put aside at the outset the argument that the Thames Embankment site had already been discussed and had been rejected. There was no doubt that the idea of erecting an embankment on the, Thames had prevailed, he might say for some centuries. As far back as after the Great Five of London, Wren and Evelyn put forward the idea of constructing a Thames Embankment, and from that time to this it had been the constant project of persons desirous of embellishing the metropolis to form an embankment on the Thames. But it was only within the last two or three years that that idea had become a substantial reality, and that the advantages it offered for the erection of public buildings had been fully appreciated. When the question of the site of the new Law Courts was discussed in this House on a former occasion, and when it was referred to the Royal Commission, there were in fact, only three sites taken into consideration—that of Westminster, that of Carey Street, and that of Lincoln's Inn. Consequently the Embankment site for the new Law Courts has never been fairly considered. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entered so fully into the financial position of the Carey Street site that it would be unnecessary for him to go into that branch of the subject
  540
  at any length. He would merely remind the House that Parliament had been induced to accede to the Carey Street site on the condition that the expenses of the building and the site together should not exceed £1,500,000, and that a certificate should be given by the Commissioners, that that sum should not be exceeded before the compulsory powers for the purchase of land should be exercised. The required certificate was given by the Commissioners, that the Carey Street site would not cost more than £750,000, and that the building could be erected for an equal sum. Up to the present time, however, no less than £880,991 1s. 5d. had been expended upon the site alone, and the Commissioners now put the total expense of purchasing the land required and for erecting the building at £3.200,000, the land already purchased had, as he had just stated, cost nearly £900,000; the additional land to be purchased was put down at £700,000 more: the building was estimated to cost £1,574,000; architect's commission, £74,000; furniture, £150,000, making the total of£3,200;000. This estimate, however, made no provision whatever for the approaches. It was absolutely necessary that these approaches should be made in the event of the Carey Street site being selected, because access to three of its sides for carriage traffic was almost prevented either by lofty buildings, or by squalid and wretched houses, which must, of course, be swept away in the event of the new Courts of Justice being erected on that spot. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer)—who made so able a speech in favour of the Carey Street site—admitted that approaches to it were necessary, but he threw the expense of making those approaches on the Metropolitan Board of Works, a duty and expense which he (Mr. Layard) was quite sure no metropolitan Member would for a moment accept. When he: took the Office which he now had the honour to fill, he found this state of things existing—that he was expected to bring in a Bill to acquire additional land which would cost about £700,000—that the House had acted upon representations which had turned out to be inaccurate—that vast expense was being incurred—that the proposed approaches to the Carey Street site could not be con-

  541
  structed for less than £1,000,000 at least. He would venture to say that a building on the scale proposed on the Carey Street site would, in the end, involve an expenditure of above £4,000,000. Well, he communicated with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he found that he had come to exactly the same result on the financial part of the question that he (Mr. Layard) had on the architectural. They both felt that it was impossible to sanction this enormous expenditure; and they therefore determined to prevent any further step being taken in the matter until the House should have been consulted with regard to it. Having arrived at that conclusion, it had become his duty to look at the several schemes which had been proposed for the erection of the Law Courts. First of all there was the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), according to which the new Law Courts were to be erected upon the Carey Street site without any additional land being purchased, and the offices in connection with them were to be built upon the Thames Embankment. The cost of that scheme, however, had been estimated to amount to £2,710,000. He objected to that scheme because of the expense, because he was satisfied that more offices were proposed to be erected than were necessary, and because he thought that the separation of the strictly law offices from the Law Courts would be attended with great inconvenience. A converse proposition to build the Law Courts on the Thames Embankment and the law offices on the Carey Street site he had rejected for similar reasons; the cost would have been about £3,000,000. Then there was the plan of Sir Charles Trevelyan, which was, no doubt, an attractive and comprehensive plan. So attractive was it that it had a very large amount of public support in its favour. Sir Charles Trevelyan had shown that his plan was not only a very magnificent and convenient one in itself, but one that, would necessarily bring about a great many changes even to the north of the Strand, which would be so many public improvements. He thought Sir Charles' views were correct, although some considered them as visionary; but he regretted that they had been put forward in connection with his scheme, as it indisposed many persons to it. He
  542
  alluded to the suggestion that Somerset House might have another story, and might become another Lincoln's Inn, and the plans for the utilization of the Carey Street site. These, however, really formed no part of Sir Charles Trevelyan's scheme; but he thought the great objection to that scheme was that in order to obtain the site between the Strand, the Embankment, King's College and the Temple, and to erect suitable buildings on it, a sum of £3,250,000 would be required; but he believed that even that site would be cheaper than the Carey Street site, because you had all the necessary approaches to it already in existence. He said this, under the assumption that there would be a considerable loss on the re-sale of the Carey Street site. On the question of building the Courts on the Thames Embankment the Lord Chief Baron had written him a letter, in which that learned Judge said that he had not had time to bring the matter formally under the consideration of the Judges, but all of them with whom he had. spoken—except one who thought the proximity of Lincoln's Inn important—agreed with him in thinking that for the Bar, the solicitors, suitors, and the public, the Thames Embankment was the best site. The Inner Temple and the Middle Temple had sent in memorials in favour of that site; and the fact that Lincoln's Inn had not memorialized against it showed that there was a difference of opinion on the subject among the members of that Inn. No doubt, a number of solicitors had placed themselves in Mr. Field's ranks as opponents of the Embankment site; but he knew of his own knowledge that a large number of solicitors were in favour of it. Solicitors of the highest position and largest practice, in the east, the west, and the south of London were in favour of it, as well as solicitors in the country. But he must say that he thought the area bounded by the Strand and the Embankment on the north and south, and by the Temple and King's College on the east and west, was too large a one on which to erect the Law Courts, and the offices in connection therewith. He must now mention another plan, which from a paper issued by the Law Institution this morning would seem to be acceptable to them. This was one for erecting on the Carey Street site Law Courts and offices on

  543
  a reduced scale, such as those which the Government was about to propose to erect on the Thames Embankment. That was said to be the cheapest scheme. They had the land ready, and might commence the buildings at once: but he thought he could show the House that, even this plan would be much more expensive than that which the Government was about to propose. The land at Carey Street had already cost about £900,000. The buildings would cost £1,000,000, which would make the expenditure for laud and buildings £1,900,000. But there were no approaches except the one from the Strand, and a great public building could not be left there in a hole. On the north was a pile of lofty buildings belonging to Lincoln's Inn, which would prevent a free circulation of the air to the Courts. At one side there was a road scarcely more than thirty feet wide, and on the other an alley about fifteen feet wide. To provide the necessary approaches would cost at least £500,000, but in his opinion the cost would be nearer to £1,000,000. It was now his duty to propose an alternative plan, which had already been suggested to the House by his light hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which had met with much adverse criticism. He was quite prepared to bear the blame of having suggested this plan to his right hon. Friend. Anyone who looked to a map would see a street which ran from Arundel Street to Surrey Street, parallel to the Strand and the Thames Embankment. It was called Howard Street. Some alleys formed a continuation of it to Essex Street. The block of land which was proposed as the site had Howard Street and these lanes or alleys on the north. It was bounded on the west by King's College, and had Essex Street and the Temple to the east. To the south was the Thames Embankment. The whole site which it was proposed to use—including the land re-claimed from the river—was six acres in extent. Now, the House would observe the advantage of this site. In the first place, by taking it an expensive frontage to the Strand would be avoided. Then almost the whole of the property belonged to one proprietor, the Duke of Norfolk. The site was not, as alleged, a hole; the position was one of the most commanding on the Thames, and Howard
  544
  Street was very little below the level of the Strand, there being but a slight fall from the Strand to the end of Howard Street, and its level could, without much difficulty, be made equal throughout its whole length. On this site the eighteen Courts and all the necessary offices could be erected. He had gone fully into the whole plan with Mr. Street, who had met him most honourably, and though at first in favour of the Carey Street site, and anxious to carry out that plan, now approved of the new proposal. The House would remember that in Mr. Street's plan for the buildings on the Carey Street site the Courts were to stand in the centre of a quadrangle. The buildings forming the quadrangle were to contain the offices, and persons would have to pass through the quadrangle to get to the Courts. In adapting his plan to the new site Mr. Street had acted upon a much better principle than the one which he had described, though there was no necessity for altering the general arrangements of the Courts and offices. He proposed to erect near King's College, on the west, the Courts, and on the east would be placed all the offices. Now, according to the plan issued by the Incorporated Law Society in the hands of hon. Members, the buildings were to project eighty feet beyond Somerset House. But that was contrary to the fact, for they would be continued in a line with the terrace of Somerset House. The only part where there would be a considerable projection was at the extreme cast corner, where there was a piece of reclaimed land belonging to the Board of Work, on which it was proposed to build a railway station, and which the Board might have used for building purposes to which he would presently allude. This site afforded at once every necessary approach except one, and that, too, without any expense to the public. The only approach it would be necessary to construct was one to the north of the Strand, and joining it with Holborn and that approach they would have to provide whichever site they might select. The Embankment, would be accessible by road, river, and rail, and when the circular line was completed country solicitors would be able to get to the Courts without having to cross even a single street. The terrace in front of Somerset House already existed as a carriage road, and could be used

  545
  by the Judges, who would be able to drive along it and alight on a level with the Courts. By Norfolk Street they could reach the Courts with equal ease; whereas on the north side of a building on the Carey Street site they would have to ascend forty step?, and from the Strand seventy or eighty, while the public would have to ascend 100. There was another advantage in having the Courts and offices separated—that cither would admit of extension, if necessary, towards the north without interfering with the building. Now, as regarded the expenses of the scheme, he had gone most carefully into the estimates. Those estimates had been prepared by Mr. Hunt, the consulting surveyor of the Board of Works, Mr. Hunt, whose estimates were rarely if ever exceeded, and who was a gentleman of great sagacity, had set down the value of the land at £600,000. He believed that the cost of the building would, at the outside, be £1,000,000, therefore the whole sum would be £1,000,000. But estimates were so often exceeded that the House might naturally ask what guarantee they had that such would not be the case in the present instance. He believed ' he could give the House ample guarantee. £600,000 he believed to be about the value of the land, and with regard to the estimate of £1,000,000 for the buildings, the House, might, perhaps, remember that when the Carey Street site was limited to six acres the buildings were proposed to be erected for£750,000, and it was with an enlarged area that the estimate was increased. Now, the Embankment site was only six acres. He believed that the Courts of Law might be built upon it for £750,000; but he he could undertake that the estimate of £1,000,000 should not be exceeded. He believed that the office of the Board of Works was now better organized than it was formerly, and he would undertake that not a stone should be laid or a bit of earth turned until contracts for the performance of the work within the estimated amount had been entered into; he would point out to the House one or two sources of economy on the Embankment site. The building materials required might be brought by water, and might be carried over the Embankment without interfering with the traffic. Let them contrast with this the state of things which would result from the continual
  546
  blocking of the traffic in the Strand for so many years in ease they adopted the Carey Street site. Another and not unimportant feature was due to a consideration which hon. Gentlemen experienced in architecture would easily comprehend. When a building, owing to its position, could only be seen in part and in detail, it was necessary to resort to ornamentation to make it effective, and it was in this way that large sums of money were spent. When, however, there was an extensive frontage, it was unnecessary to spend so much upon ornamentation. The general effect of the building would then depend upon its proportions, and upon the judicious arrangement of the masses, which produced light and shade. It was not the smallest recommendation of the now site in his eyes that here the space would be contracted on two sides—so that there would be no temptation to throw away million after million in the purchase of unnecessary land, though it would be easy to extend the building at any time towards the north if further accommodation should hereafter be required. One of the objections urged against the Embankment site was that £500,000 would be lost by re-selling the Carey Street site. In answer to that objection he might say that he had received offers from parties of the highest respectability who were willing to purchase the site on the basis of the price paid for it by the Government—he did not, of course, include the law, and other contingent expenses. He was advised by Mr. Hunt not to be hasty in closing with any offer that might be made. Of course, they must take care not to put the whole of the land into the market at once; but if it were re-sold prudently the Government might not only be able to recoup themselves, but, perhaps, do something more. Another difficulty was the question of the railway station on the Embankment; and, no doubt, if this had to be placed in the very centre of the Law Courts it would be exceedingly objectionable; but he had communicated with the Metropolitan District Railway Company and with the authorities of the Temple, and he had every reason to believe that arrangements might and would be made to remove the railway station to a spot near the entrance to Essex Street. Another objection raised to the change of site was the

  547
  loss of time which would thereby be occasioned. Now, under no circumstances could you commence building on the Carey Street site within a year; because if you had to acquire additional land you must give the necessary notices next autumn, and even if this fresh acquisition of land were given up, no working drawings or elevations had been made. The plan at present in existence was a mere sketch plan, and he was informed on authority that a year must elapse before working drawings and specifications could be made so that contracts might be entered into and the building commenced. Now, on the Embankment site he proposed to proceed at once as if notices had been given. The course was an irregular one, and in order to carry the Bill it would be necessary to ask the House to suspend its Standing Orders. The Government proposed to proceed as if notices of intention to take this site had been given in November last, to serve notices to treat immediately after the passing of the Act; to bind themselves to take within three months, if called upon by the owners to do so; and to limit themselves to the 30th of Juno, 1870, for putting the compulsory powers into execution. The Bill would be referred to the Examiners, who would, of course, report that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. It would then be for the Standing Orders Committee to decide whether this was an exceptional ease in which the House might-be advised to suspend its Standing Orders. If, as he hoped, the Committee gave and the House acted on this advice, and if the Bill were read a second time, it would be referred to a Committee, who would see that no injustice was done to occupiers or owners. He was advised that the course he proposed to take would be of great advantage both to occupiers and owners by doing away with, the uncertainty which now often hung over their heads, owing to the delay which took place before the Government came to a decision as to the exercise of compulsory powers. In this case the Government would be bound forthwith to give the notices to treat, and avail themselves by June 30 in next year of the compulsory powers given to them by the Bill. As he had said, there were' fortunately, few persons to deal with. The chief owner was the Duke of Norfolk, and he had reason to believe that on the
  548
  part of his Grace no obstacles would be thrown in the way of the Government.. If, therefore, the House assented to the Bill there would not be a single hour's delay. The sketch plans for the Carey Street site had, by some changes, been adapted for the new site; they were now being lithographed; and the Government would be in exactly the same position as if they were going to build on the Carey Street site. As to the argument against delay, he thought that in a great work of this kind a year more or less was of very little importance, and that to sacrifice a magnificent site and make a bad building for the sake of possibly saving a year would be a most serious misfortune. However, if the Bill passed they could begin at once to clear the site and commence the building between Howard Street and the Embankment. He did not bind himself to all the details of Mr. Street's sketch plans. The accommodation asked for by the different departments and offices might be too large; whatever anybody had asked for seemed to have been given in these plans. The thing had been done on far too vast a scale, and he thought it would be possible to cut down these plans and make the cost of the buildings less. He would undertake to say that on the six acres proposed to be required on the Embankment, every necessary Court and all the dependent offices could be easily accommodated, and for a moderate, sum. He had been asked for a model, and was strongly of opinion that no great public building ought to be erected without a model upon a large scale, having first been submitted to the public. But a model could not be made until the elevation had been decided upon. It would be his duty to see that such an elevation as he thought would satisfy the public was designed by Mr. Street, and then a model should be prepared and placed in some public place in order that it might be seen and criticized. A great deal of criticism had been bestowed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for suggesting the adoption of the design by Inigo Jones, for a Royal Palace at Whitehall. Now, his right hon. Friend had not pledged himself to that idea, and, as he believed, had no wish to insist upon it. Evidently, the plan of Inigo Jones had been prepared for an entirely different purpose. It was a design for a palace, and would not,

  549
  therefore, be suitable for Courts of Law. Nor would it be desirable to have a long Palladian building running continuously with Somerset House, for the effect of that would be monotonous. His own impression was that we ought to adopt a style that was thoroughly English in its character, and he believed that none was more suitable than the Gothic, but not ecclesiastical Gothic. A great mistake had been made in adopting ecclesiastical Gothic for secular purposes. The Italians had successfully adopted the Gothic style for public buildings, as in Venice, where the great ducal palace and the long line of Palladian buildings presented a very fine effect; and in the town halls of Piacenza and other cities in. the North of Italy. It was altogether a mistake to suppose that Gothic architecture necessarily required superfluous ornamentation. Such ornamentation was not seen in the Italian secular Gothic, and there was no reason why we should not adopt a similar mode of treatment in our Gothic building intended for secular purposes. Besides, it would be unfair to Mr. Street, who was essentially a Gothic architect, to impose upon him a style of architecture which he had not made the subject of special study. If the House adopted the scheme which he had just sketched out we should have, he felt satisfied, on the Thames Embankment a magnificent building, which, besides being calculated to serve all the purposes for which it was intended in point of utility and convenience, would be an ornament to the metropolis and the country. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: Sir, it is much too late an hour to enter into the question of ecclesiastical and Palladian Gothic, but it is impossible for me, after the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman, to remain altogether silent on the present occasion. I do not, of course, propose to ask the House to refuse the Government leave to introduce this Bill, but I, at the same time, beg to give notice that I intend to take the sense of the House upon it when it comes on for the second reading. It appears to me that no worse scheme was ever proposed, or one more calculated to interfere with and mar a most useful project of reform. I must now complain, as I complained on a for-
  550
  mer occasion, that much which has been, said on this subject is calculated to raise a false issue. Nothing more unjust or un can did could possibly be said than has been said to-night and was said then as to the proceedings and recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is said that the House had only to choose between those recommendations and the present plan of the Government. This is the plain history of the Commission—It was forced on the Government which, in 1865, introduced a measure which is at this moment the law of the land, and which it is now sought to undo. The Commission consisted of persons representing all the different branches of the law. The most eminent Judges were among its members. It embraced a numerous selection from the Bar, from among solicitors, and from all the officers of the Courts. It represented the real views of all those parties, and was not—whoever has been so informed—simply a body giving formal expression to the views of some other persons. The Commissioners met from time to time, generally in large numbers. They appointed sub-Committees, and went thoroughly to work in the production of their scheme. To the Commission also from time to time belonged representatives of the Board of Treasury under the Governments of Lord Palmerston, Lord Russell, Lord Derby, and Mr. Disraeli. My right hon. Friend now the First Lord of the Admiralty was not merely a nominal, but a working member of it. The things which have been said by the right hon. Gentleman below me, that right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Admiralty) therefore knows best of all men how to answer. He can give the best account of the wicked and prodigal expenditure, and the idle extension of site which the Commission have recommended. Over the proceedings of the Commission the members of the Board of Treasury exercised a jealous supervision. Is it true, then, that the Commissioners went beyond their province and spent a single farthing of public money which they were not authorized to spend? It is not the fact. They never committed the Government nor this House to the expenditure of a single farthing, or to the purchase of a single acre of land without the concurrence of the Treasury, or beyond that which by law they were empowered to do. The

  551
  subject was discussed in this House on the 22nd of February. 1867. I then said that the Commissioners were of opinion that it would be of advantage to have additional land, because the work would by that means be likely to be made more perfect. The Commissioners did not change their minds as to the practicability of erecting the Courts for the sum named, but they believed that, if the opportunity of purchasing additional land before the erection of the building were lost, the land would acquire increased value, and if it were found afterwards to be desirable to secure it, the public would have to pay higher for it. The execution of the work, however, did not at all necessarily depend upon that land being taken, and no part of it could be taken, or was proposed to be taken, without a new Act of Parliament. It was for the Treasury and for Parliament to decide upon that point. If the Treasury came to the decision that they would not take more land, at an increased cost, it was always possible for them to have the Courts well erected on the site which had been purchased for the purpose; in fact, to do more than can be done on what is called the Howard Street site. Nothing-, therefore, can be more unreasonable than to assign the reasons which have been assigned for throwing over the original scheme of the Commissioners, as if the increased expenditure complained of were necessary in order to carry out that scheme. You have seven and a-half acres, which would give six acres for the building, and with the extra acre and a-half, a sufficiently broad street, east and west, leaving no inconsiderable portion of surplus land available for extra purposes. All this could be done on your present site. And recollect that it took lour years to clear that site, that a large labouring population has been unhoused by that clearing, and that it involved an expense of £880,000, the annual interest of which, at 5 per cent, is nearly £45.000. The work would be proceeding, but all this, it seems, is to be turned overboard to please my right hon. Friend below me. It is, I may add totally incorrect to say that the Carey Street site need cost £3,000,000. That was an estimate made entirely on the supposition that the Government would choose to buy the six additional acres of land, and it is quite clear that what they need not spend
  552
  in erecting a building on one site they need not spend on another. It has been thrown in our teeth that the site cost more than the original estimate; the estimate being £750,000, and the actual cost, according to the Government, being £880,000. But who was it, let me ask, who made the estimate? Why the very same person who has made the estimate of the value of the land on the Howard Street site—a gentleman on whose integrity and ability I agree the utmost reliance is to be placed; but it is, of course, quite obvious that there may be a margin in the one case as well as in the other. I am now about to refer to what I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel much indebted to me for mentioning. It is a matter with which he could not possibly have been acquainted when he on a former occasion addressed the House on this subject. He then stated, in a manner which produced an evident effect on the House, that an account had been sent in from the firm of Field and Roscoe—Mr. Field being a gentleman who I believe, entirely on public grounds, takes a great interest in this subject, and whose firm have been employed as solicitors in connection with it—for £27,832 in the shape of a bill of costs. Those who put these figures into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman forgot to in-form him that the amount comprised an actual payment out of pocket of £23,881, and that the costs of these gentlemen as distinguished from the payments made by them out of pocket were, for conducting the whole of this very large business for over a period of three years and-a-half, only £3,951. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, did not state that of the sum which the firm were out of pocket, £8,925 was for expenses of Government surveyors other than those employed by Mr. Pownall, and that large sums were paid for abitrators, juries, counsels' fees, and disbursements of other descriptions. I do not think my right hon. Friend will find that he can avoid having a similar bill to pay over again. And now let me say a few words on the new scheme. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was most absurd first to clear the north side of the Strand and then the south side; but that is exactly what they are going to do. With regard to space, you are going to take six acres only, without

  553
  malting the smallest allowance for any approaches east or west; because in order to get six acres for the building, as we do on the Carey Street site, with good approaches on each side, it will be necessary on the Embankment site to carry it on to the Temple on one side and to King's College on the other. [Mr. LAYARD: No! no! no!] I say, yes! yes! yes! [Mr. LAYARD: I say that Essex Street will be transformed into a street GO feet wide.] You will have to take more land than you mention, or else to take some from the site. Then you advance your building in an irregular line to the very edge of the railway cutting, bringing it forward in front of the Temple Gardens considerably, although not, according to my right hon. Friend (the Chief Commissioner of Works), in front of Somerset House. The levels will be much worse than those on the Carey Street site. I have said something about the approaches on the east and west of the Embankment. It is suggested that the public at large may come to the Embankment by the railway; but certainly the lawyers will not come that way, because they, most of them, will have to come from the north. My right hon. Friend accordingly admits that he must make approaches from the north: but in the Carey Street site the northern approaches are alone necessary. It is very well to talk about approaches east and west which will be great metropolitan improvements, but if they are to be made simply as great metropolitan improvements they are not necessary for this scheme. If you take the Carey Street site it would be desirable to make a good approach from the Turnstile in Holborn; but that, and much more than that, will be equally necessary under the now scheme, because you must also have a. good approach to the new Courts, if they are placed on the river side, through the Carey Street site. Then the portion of the Strand in front of the new site is the very narrowest portion of that thoroughfare—namely, the narrow place where Holy well Street comes in be the churches of St. Clement Danes and St. Mary's in the Strand. We now understand that it is on the western part of this site, forsooth, the part furthest from Lincoln's Inn, that the Courts of Justice are to be placed, and it is this very part which must be approached from the narrowest part of the Strand. Now, can
  554
  any one believe that you will not have to widen that street? And even after that has been done everybody who looks at the plan will see how much, more convenient the central would be for those engaged in the business of the law than this site, so much further to the south. We were told on a former night that somebody had run down there in three minutes. On Saturday last, in company with three other Gentlemen, one of whom is now present, I took an opportunity of malting the experiment myself. Two of us had our watches out, and in order to make the observation in the fairest way we went straight across the cleared Carey Street site in a way much shorter than it would be possible to go hereafter, and it took us six minutes, walking fairly, to get from Lincoln's Inn gate to the nearest point on the Embankment site. Well, then, six minutes there and six minutes back is the least time which would be occupied in fetching to the Courts from his chambers any gentleman carrying on business in Lincoln's Inn, and this is just time enough to make him run such serious risk that he would often rather dance attendance all day in the new Courts. This would be a real inconvenience to the profession, or, in other words, to the persons whose business the lawyers transact. Then how in the world are the barristers on the north of the Strand, and Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn, to conic backwards and forwards? Are they, with or without their wigs and gowns, in all sorts of weather, to be constantly going to the Courts which are to be at the "west side of this site, close to King's College? Can anyone conceive anything more utterly inconvenient than that? We were told something about the blocking of the Strand which would be necessary while the Carey Street buildings were going on; but there will be double blocking if you sell the Carey Street site to jobbers. And now let us consider what will be the architectural effect of the new site. You are going to erect this beautiful building, in this fine Palladium or ecclesiastical style of architecture, in what I may be allowed to term a "hole." People sailing up the river and crossing the bridges will have much delight in seeing it, and I suppose my right hon. Friend who represents Southwark (the Chief Commissioner of Public Works) will be fre-

  555
  quently there to admire it; but the general public will not have the pleasure of seeing the building they have paid for. It will be no decoration to the metropolis at all, and it will not be seen from the Strand, whereas the Carey Street site is a truly magnificent one. I have never myself argued this question on architectural grounds, but simply on the ground of public convenience. Still, if architectural reasons are to be taken into consideration, I say that, in Carey Street you may have, on an elevated site visible from the Strand, a splendid building which will be a real decoration for the metropolis. But this thing you are going to put down into a hole. It may be a fine specimen of architecture, but it will not be visible from any other place. In 1865 I was put forward by the Government to speak of the estimate which had been then carefully framed, and most of the Government of that day. I may remark, now sit on the Treasury Bench. Some passages from the speech I then made were quoted against me the other night by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was also, I think, a Member of that Government. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] I beg his pardon: accidentally and unfortunately, he was not. Well, when I was put forward, T said in the innocence of my mind that I was quite satisfied that the estimates were carefully prepared, and that T was sure the House might rely on them. I did not say, however that they might rely on mo as being a perfectly competent person, who was quite capable of checking the estimates. At the same time, I sincerely believed that these who gave me the instructions were perfectly competent 10 do that, and that they had the same mind and will to do it as my right hon. Friend himself. My experience, therefore, does not convince me that the present estimate of the cost of the Howard Street site, and the buildings on it, and the approaches to it, will not be exceeded, although my right hon. Friend seems to think we ought all to be satisfied with his assurance that he would take care of that. I should like to see an account of the money that has been laid out upon the Foreign Office, the India Office, and Burlington Gardens. The taste for expenditure grows as the work goes on; and we have had some indication of it to-night. My right hon. Friend seemed to be like
  556
  Trinculo, and to have two voices, for in one part of his speech there was a word for the Mends of Sir Charles Trevelyan, and in another there was a word for the friends of economy; and the friends of Sir Charles Trevelyan were comforted with the idea that sooner or later the whole of their plan might be adopted, not in their day, not in my Friend's day, and not under his jealous supervision, not till the public taste came to see it would not do to keep this fine building at the bottom of a hole, but that it would be highly desirable to have it where it could be seen. The House may depend upon it—though it is a sin for the Commission to have enlarged its ideas, and to have recommended greater expenditure—although not one farthing of public money has been spent nor one acre of ground purchased which was not authorized—it will be just as possible, without any breach of faith on the part of those who can influence Government if they do not constitute it, when you have once abandoned the old plan and started a new one, to find out how preposterous it will be to do this and that how great an opportunity of decorating London will be lost, how inadequate will be the Courts and the offices, how much more desirable it will be to bring some things together which have not been brought together, and so there will be at least as great a probability of increased expenditure under the new scheme as there ever was under the old one. Nothing is more simple than for the Government to say under the new scheme there shall be none; and so it may be with the old scheme. I never liked these very enlarged views, and, as far as my influence as a Commissioner went, I was always rather for telling them I had a little fear that their enemies might take advantage of them, and make that use of thorn which has now been made. You may depend upon it, what occurred in good faith and with a view to the public interests in that case is just as likely to occur in any other, and is most certain in this in which you are launching a scheme that has not one advantageous feature, that has less convenience, less architectural beauty, that blocks tip the Strand more than it was blocked up before, that wastes time, that wastes money, that gives you no guarantee whatever for getting what

  557
  you want in the way you want it and at the time you want it. I think we may judge of the other arguments of my right hon. Friend by what he said of the opinions of the solicitors and barristers. With regard to the Judges, I know for certain they are not unanimous in favour of the Embankment site. I have not presumed to canvass them; and all that we can infer from what my right hon. Friend has said is that some of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer, over which Chief Baron Kelly presides, are in favour of the Embankment site. It is said the two Societies of the Temple are in favour of it; that is to say, some bodies in the Temple are: but I know a great many in the Temple who are against it, because I presented a Petition, numerously signed by Templars and others, against it; and if the societies are in favour of it, it is not very difficult to understand why, seeing that the adoption of that, site might increase the value of their property. I believe there is in substance no difference of opinion in Lincoln's Inn on the subject, although of course you may find an eccentric man here and there; the universal opinion is that the Embankment site will greatly prejudice all who have business to transact. The members do not petition, because they do not make a corporate business of that which is not for the pecuniary interests of the Inn, which would have been better promoted by keeping things as they are. With regard to the solicitors I should like to know on what ground my right hon. Friend speaks of them as he does. The two organized bodies representing the metropolitan and provincial solicitors are against it, and they tell me that the whole profession is as nearly unanimous against it as it is possible for any such body to be. Most assuredly nothing which I can possibly do shall be wanting to prevent this measure from being carried.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, as my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) is kind enough to allow us to bring in the Bill, I will not enter upon the various topics which, in the whirlwind of his eloquence he has commented upon, but will reserve myself until the second reading. For myself, I am cool and calm; and I hope whatever the House does it will do that which is best for the public interest, and, at any rate, will not go to the
  558
  enormous expenditure which I found contemplated when I came into Office. My hon. and learned Friend has dealt rather hardly with us. He has accused me of raising false issues, and of being uncandid, unjust, and unfair. I must, therefore, re-state to the House what I stated before—that the fault has not been so much in the original estimate that was made, as it has been that after it had been made, and after the certificate was granted in accordance with it, and an Act was passed on the faith of it, matters were not allowed to remain so, but, in accordance with a wish of the Commission, of which my hon. and learned Friend was a Member, another Act was introduced in the succeeding year, 1866, which, as far as I can trace in Hansard, never was discussed at all. That Act undid all that was done before, and gave the Commissioners unlimited powers for spending money for a purpose for which the House, after much, deliberation the year before, had granted only limited powers. By the original Resolution the expenditure was not to exceed £1,500,000. That is the real state of the case. It is true, that when I called attention to Messrs. Field and Roscoe's bill, I did it without stating the details; and I said—and I repeat it—that it was a grave error in the Commissioners, having appointed Mr. Field their secretary, to appoint a firm, of which he was a member, their solicitors. I am not aware of any recommendation of the Commissioners to complete anything except the building planned by Mr. Street, involving an outlay of £3,250,000; and when I came into Office I found that extraordinary powers had been obtained, and the Commissioners proceeded, as they lawfully might, to act upon them. If there was any other recommendation, my hon. and learned Friend will, on the second reading, have an opportunity of pointing it out. If there was not, then he must retract a little of the indignation he has expressed. The matter does not end there; my hon. and learned Friend says he never approved the extravagant expenditure. But, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) he moved an Amendment that the House should proceed at once with the Carey Street site, and spend all that might be necessary for the purpose. He may shelter him self behind the expression—"as much as was necessary"; but we

  559
  must take this with reference to the then state of things. It is too much to turn round upon mo and say I was unfair, and that I raised false issues, because I took the things as they were given me. Dealing with it as I found it. I say it is a large and extravagant expenditure, and I should not be doing my duty if I assented to it. I do not pretend to any judgment or taste in these matters, and, therefore. I can argue them with good temper. All I want is to save the public from an unjustifiable expenditure, and if the House will only accomplish that I shall be satisfied. If the House thinks the Carey Street she better than the Embankment, by all means let the Courts be erected on the Carey Street site, though I prefer the other site. If the House will allow me to save the £2,500,000 I shall be satisfied; and T hope the House will do me the justice to say that I am actuated simply by a desire to do my duty.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was unjust to the Commissioners in saying that they passed the Bill in 1866. It was the Government, and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were the Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he begged the noble Lord's pardon; the noble Lord himself formed part of the Government in August, 1866.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that was when the Bill passed the House of Lords. They all knew that Earl Russell was First Minister of the Crown, with the present First Minister for his Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the- Bill was framed and introduced, and when the solicitors to the Commissioners were appointed with the consent of the Government. With regard to the main issue, he had two remarks to make. If the new scheme was carried out, the Government would become land jobbers on the most gigantic scale; the Carey Street site was to be sold in dribblets, and, until it was got rid of, it would remain a disgrace, to Parliament and every one connected with it. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself—as no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever pledged himself before, or ever would again—that the building on the Embankment should not cost more than £1,000,000. If so, the right hon. Gentleman could with much more certainty pledge himself that the
  560
  building on the Carey Street site should not cost more than £750,000, for the simple reason that the foundations on the Embankment would cost more than those on the Carey Street site. It was, therefore, clear, that the Carey Street site, since it was now in the possession of the country, would be the cheapest. On the second reading he would cordially support his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer).
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that in introducing this Bill, the Government were departing, not only from principle, but from fact. The original object in view in erecting new Courts of Justice was the bringing together of all the Courts in the neighbourhood of those who practised in them. He hoped before the second reading that the proceedings of the Commissioners would be printed, because it would then be seen that every one of their acts was submitted to the Treasury before it was carried out. On what ground was the Carey Street site taken, except that it was deemed absolutely necessary for the public advantage to obtain it? If the Government sanctioned a departure from a plan so sanctioned, what confidence could be placed in any arrangement made by them? He hoped the plan before the House would be rejected by a large majority.
  MR. TITEsaid, he intended to reserve his opinion on the new proposal until he had seen the plans, but he would remark that the Commissioners had brought all these counter proposals upon themselves. But now that it had been resolved to reduce the buildings to moderate dimensions, and the expenditure, consequently, to a moderate sum, it did not appear to him to be necessary to spend more on the Carey Street site than on the Embankment. To this extent, at least, the public had gained by the discussion which had been raised.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he wished to know when correct plans would be furnished to Members?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that they were being pressed forward, and would be in the hands of Members before the second reading. The plan the hon. Baronet held in his hand had been issued by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, with a view to discredit his scheme, and was in no single instance to be relied on.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to enable the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings to acquire a New Site for the erection and concentration of the Courts of Justice, and of various Offices belonging to the same, and to amend the Acts; relating to the concentration of the Courts of Justice, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LAYARD, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. AYRTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 113.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to brine in a Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders; made by the Hoard of Trade, under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1SG1," relating to Cliftonville, Gillingham, Ilfracombe, Rosslare, and Saint Just.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. LEFEVRE and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT.]
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 114.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Parochial Schools (Scotland) (96.97).
Report—Sea Birds Preservation * (59).

WILTES PEERAGE.

  REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES.
  Report from the Committee for Privileges that the Petitioner had not made out his claim considered (according to Order): Then it was moved, That the said Report be agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND moved an Amendment that the Petition of the claimant to the dignity of Earl of Wiltes be referred back to the Committee of Privileges, in order that the same may be re-heard. The grounds upon which he made this Motion were that the Report was inconsistent with the decision of the House in the Devon Peerage case, that some of the Lords who originally

  427
  heard the case were since dead, and that others had not taken a part in the judgment; so that this Report could not he considered the decision of the full Committee.
  Amendment moved to leave out from ("That") to The end of the Motion for the purpose of inserting the following words ("the Petition of the claimant to the dignity of Earl of Wiltes he referred back to the Committee for Privileges in order that the same he re-heard.")—(The Duke of Cleveland.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the circumstances of this case were very peculiar. The Earldom of Wiltes was created by Richard II. in 1397, in favour of Sir William Le Scrope, who held the office of Lord Treasurer, with remainder "to his heirs male." On the landing of Henry of Bolingbroke, afterwards Henry IV., Le Scrope with two others of Richard II.'s adherents. Sir John Bussy and Sir Henry Green, were seized, and, without any or much form of a trial, wove beheaded at. Bristol. In the first Parliament of Henry IV. the Commons prayed the King that the pursuit, arrests, and judgments against Lescrope and others should be declared valid and good, and for the profit of the realm, and the opinion of the Lords Temporal having been given in favour of this Prayer, it was affirmed by the King. Now the Report stated that in the proceedings at Bristol he was styled Sir William Lescrope and that after his death his widow, describing herself as widow of Sir William Le Scrope, petitioned the King for a pension, which was granted to her. Moreover, no one had since sat in Parliament as Earl of Wiltes; so that the claim stood in a different position from that of the Earldom of Devon. Not having heard the argument, he did not intend to pronounce any opinion on the judgment of the Committee; but would simply remark on the grounds on which the reception of the Report was opposed. The noble Duke called upon their Lordships to re-hear the ease, not simply on the ground that the decision differed from that given in the Earl of Devon's case, for that case stood in a different position, but on the ground that certain Peers who heard the case were prevented by death or otherwise from concurring in the judgment. Now, he had made inquiry into the matter and he understood
  428
  that the late Lord Wensleydale did not hear any part of the argument, and that Lord Westbury heard only just the commencement of it. Lord Cranworth, who heard the whole argument, was deceased. Three Peers were still living out of the four who heard the argument, and they were unanimous in their decision; while there was no certainty that Lord Cranworth, had he survived, would have taken a different view. Under these circumstances, it would be taking a very unusual and very inconvenient course to refer the case back to the Committee for re-hearing.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he did not think a re-hearing would be required if the claim of the petitioner was the only matter which was affected; the fact was that the judgment seriously affected a noble Earl, whose claim was founded upon the same grounds, and whose collateral descendants, in case of the failure of the direct line, would thereby be prevented from attaining that dignity which they would otherwise be able to claim.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the case had been decided before the full Committee, and that all Peers were at liberty to be present at the inquiry, though no doubt when it came to a judicial decision it was left to the Law Lords. If this judgment were to be set aside because the case had not been decided in a way gratifying to the claimant, the same course would be pursued in every case of the kind. For his own part, he had given no opinion on legal points, but solely on questions of fact, and on evidence which had been in no way contradicted or explained by the counsel for the claimant, though his attention was repeatedly called to it.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn: Then the original Motion agreed to; and resolved and adjudged, That the Petitioner hath not made out his claim; and Resolution and Judgment to be laid before Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  PROTEST.
  DISSENTIENT:
  "1. Because the resolution of the House is opposed to the decision of the House upon the Devon case in 1831, a decision accepted and acted upon by the Crown:
  "2. Because King Richard was in full possession of the Royal Authority at the time the dignity of The Earl of Wiltes was created:
  "3. Because the proceedings relied upon as affecting the rights of the heirs male of the Earl of Wiltes were all taken at a time when no lawful or legal Government existed in England, and that the subsequent proceedings had in the Parliament of Henry the Fourth in no manner purported to affect, or could in law affect, the dignity of Earl of Wiltes."
  "HOUGHTON; WENTWOKTH; WENLOCK, for 1st and 2d reasons; DENBIGH; BROOKE AND WARWICK, for 1st and 2d reasons; ZETLAND, for 1st and 2d reasons; GAINS-BOROUGH, for 1st and 2d reasons; GRANARD; FEVERSHAM, for 1st and 2d reasons; ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR; NORFOLK, E. M., for 1st and 2d reasons; COLVILLE OF CULROSS, for 1st and 2d reasons; ABER-GAVENNY, for 1st and 2d reasons."

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Duke of Argyll.)
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 11.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that this was the first opportunity he had had of offering any opinion on the measure, and he was desirous of taking advantage of the present occasion to do so. When the Bill was introduced by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), and on the Motion for the second reading, he (the Duke of Richmond) was unavoidably absent; but so much did he disapprove of the Bill, that he was anxious on this occasion to ask their Lordships to arrest its further progress, by declining to go into Committee upon it; but after consulting his Friends as to whether this would be the right course to pursue, he found them so greatly disinclined to that course, on the ground that they considered that the House was, as it were, pledged to go into Committee, that any proposition in a contrary sense would have the appearance of a breach of faith, that he reluctantly came to the conclusion not to oppose the Motion for going into Committee. But before their Lordships did so, he was anxious to state the views he entertained of the measure. There was no one, either in or out of the House, who would disagree with the Preamble of the Bill, which states its object to be "to extend and improve the parochial schools of Scotland, and to make further provision for the education of the people of Scotland." No one could disapprove
  430
  of such an object as that. Everyone would concur that it was a most important one; but what he objected to was the mode in which the noble Duke sought to arrive at that result. He objected to the Bill both in its principle and in detail. Amongst other details, he objected to the constitution of the Central Board. He considered that a Board composed as was proposed by this Bill, of a number of gentlemen would be, to a great extent, entirely uncontrollable, and that practically the work would be left to the Chairman and Secretary. He objected, moreover, to the constitution and mode of appointing the school committees, because he believed if they were to be appointed as proposed by the Bill, the result would be endless squabbles and dissensions on a subject, which of all others was one on which there ought to be no quarrels and no squabbles—the religious education of the people. He objected also to the Bill, because in his mind it struck directly at the old parochial system of education in Scotland, which, in combination with the voluntary system, had hitherto worked so advantageously. He believed that the state of education in Scotland was by no moans unsatisfactory. He had always believed and had always been taught to connect the name of a Scotchman with education, and that to meet a Scotchman who was uneducated was most unusual. That the system in Scotland had not overtaken the whole population of the country he was ready to admit; but in all cases, and in all countries, there must be a residue of population which was not brought within the influence of education, and which could never be reached by anything short of compulsory education—the merits or demerits of which, however, he was not about to discuss. Now their Lordships were asked by this Bill to substitute for a system of education which had existed for 200 years an untried and doubtful system. They were asked to exchange a parochial system combined with a voluntary system for one universal compulsory rating system, thereby greatly increasing the burdens upon the people. If it could be shown that there was any necessity for such a change, then he should be prepared to admit that the exigencies of the case might warrant such a Bill as this of the noble Duke; but, in order to be perfectly sure that

  431
  he was stating nothing that was not a fact, he would refer to the Report of the Commission over which the noble Duke himself presided, and would refer to what was said with respect to the attendance in the schools of Scotland. Now, if it he necessary to extend the system of education, it must be because the proportion of scholars who attend the schools was small; otherwise, he maintained that they had no ground for departing from the present system. Now he found it stated in this Report by the Assistant Commissioners, that the general result of the state of education in Scotland is that the proportion of 1 in 6 of the whole population was upon the books; and that the scholars in attendance are 1 in 7—a ratio which, taken by itself, was not unsatisfactory, although they admit that in certain parishes the attendance is not so satisfactory. They then compare the attendance in Scotland with the attendance in other countries. In Scotland, as he had said, it was 1 in 6·5 on the books, and the attendance 1 in 7·9; whereas in Prussia it is 1 in 6·27; so that the attendance in Scotland is very nearly the same, if not quite as large, as the attendance in Prussia, where the attendance is compulsory. In. England and Wales the attendance is 1 in 7·7; in Holland 1 in 8·11; and in France, 1 in 9; so that, so far, the attendance in Scotland can compare with any other country named by the Commissioners; but they add that the ratio in individual parishes was much less satisfactory. Referring to Returns obtained by the registrars, they made this re-mark—
  "As far as these Returns indicated, it would appear that, whatever might be the case in individual districts, the want of schools was not so great as had been generally supposed. There will be fount in the Appendix a list of places appearing from these Returns to require additional school accommodation, but, for the most part, they are in the northern districts of the country; and the conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is that, whatever may be the quality of the education, Scotland is well, if not adequately, supplied with teachers and places of instruction."
  The conclusion at which they arrived was this—
  "On the whole, the impression produced by the description given to us by the Assistant Commissioners of the parish schools is that they are in a state of general efficiency, and that their condition, although susceptible of great improvement,
  432
  is not unsatisfactory. But it is also quite clear that a parochial school system is utterly inadequate in extent to overtake the work for which it was intended, and which it ought to discharge, and that, were it not at this moment largely supplemented, the education of the people in Scotland would be greatly defective."
  That was the point. The present system was supplemented by voluntary efforts, and had, to this time, acted well in Scotland, providing a sufficient education for the people. He wanted to show that the present system was sufficient if properly carried out. But he wished to call the attention of the noble Duke to the opinion expressed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the voluntary system in Scotland. In a speech at Liverpool on the subject of education, at a meeting presided over by the Mayor, at the Town Hall, Mr. Lowe referred to the voluntary system. He said—
  "All we should seek is to add to the present system, and as little as possible to disturb it. I don't wish to deceive you, gentlemen; it is true that whenever you do give a compulsory system side by side with a voluntary system, you do in some degree injure the voluntary system, A man who is promoting education and giving money for the purpose naturally says—'If I go on doing this I am quite welcome; but if I don't choose the Government will do it for me, and so I won't do it any more.' That is a very natural way of reasoning, and is, no doubt, the reasoning that the fact of placing a compulsory system side by side with the benevolent or voluntary system would create in any man's mind. The difficulty is how not to make that reasoning too cogent, so as to bring about a violent change; and my wish would be, if possible, to leave the existing schools standing entirely, and only to add to these schools where they are wanting. Rut, of course, there is this to be done, and I would say ought to be done. I am quite willing that all present denominational schools, founded on the voluntary principle, should remain where they are, I am quite willing; that new schools should be founded on the voluntary system, always subject to a Conscience Clause."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: That refers to England.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: Quite so. But he (the Duke of Richmond) maintained that the argument was equally applicable to Scotland, and that the whole tenour of the speech was in favour of maintaining the voluntary system. It seemed to him that the Episcopalians and Roman Catholics of Scotland would be most injuriously affected by this Bill; for, by an ingenious contrivance, under the 20th and 68th clauses, they would be starved into compliance with its provisions, and would thus be placed in a much worse position than

  433
  that which they were entitled to occupy. There was another point—the financial basis of the scheme—winch he considered the very essence of the Bill, and on which they ought to require from the noble Duke some explanation. He alluded more particularly to that portion of the Bill which fixes the maximum rate at 3d. in the pound. He would ask how was the noble Duke going to measure the amount of education which he would have to give to any parish? Would he measure it by the amount of education that was required by the parish, or by the amount of education that the 3d. in the pound would afford. Supposing, for instance, a parish required three schoolmasters, whose salaries shall have reached £60, he would have to say to it—"It is true your education ought to cost £60, but as the 3d. rate will only bring £50, you must content yourselves with an inferior education, because you cannot afford to pay for a better." On the other hand, in some parishes the rate might produce more than the sum required It was provided that a 3d. rate should be the maximum sum in any one year; but if this rate be so, he did not see how they were to get out of debt. There might be some contrivance by which the noble Duke could got them out of debt; but at this moment he did not understand how it could be done. This 3d. rate clause had created a great deal of interest and surprise in Scotland; but he would refer for a moment to a paper which had probably been sent to the noble Duke for the purpose of showing the inadequacy of the 3d. rate in the Highland parishes. There were some details which he would not go into; but the conclusion they showed was that out of 154 parishes in the Highland and island parishes, the rate would be inadequate in seventy-one. He had also observed a remarkable statement with reference to the parishes of Tongue and Farr, and that part of Reay situate in the county of Sutherland. The annual expenditure on parish and General Assembly schools, irrespective of school fees and Government grants, was £366 13 s. 2d., and on Free Church schools £227, giving a total of £593 13 s. 2d., whereas a rate of 3d. in the pound would only raise £136 1s. 9d., or allowing for inevitable deductions, only about £100. In Aberdeenshire a 3d. rate would produce only £20 for each school, whereas the amount
  434
  at present contributed was £50, the attendance being one in six. At Fraser-burgh the interest on the capital sums expended through private benevolence within the last twenty years in the erection of denominational schools was £200 per annum, and the annual voluntary subscriptions £200 more, making a total of 6d. in the pound on the present rental, and the attendance was one in five of the population. If Fraserburgh were deprived of the voluntary system, he did not see how the requisite amount was to be made up; and the same remark applied to Aberdeenshire. There was another point to which he wished to refer. The noble Puke (the Duke of Argyll) stated on a former occasion that public feeling in Scotland was favourable to the Bill, or, at all events, that he did not anticipate any difficulty as to its principle. This opinion, however, seemed to him (the Duke of Richmond) a mistaken one. The ironmasters, for instance, who clearly were a body of gentlemen not inconsiderable in numbers or importance, had presented a Petition, urging that to get their schools adopted would involve conditions that could not be undertaken, since, having regard to the minerals underneath the sites, and to those sites being generally connected with the works, it would be inconvenient to place them under the control of a public Board. They were convinced, moreover—
  "That the Bill, if passed, would, at no distant date, lead to purely secular teaching; and they strongly objected to such a subversion of the intended uses of the buildings. These matters had been forced upon their attention by the introduction of the Bill; and the consequent consideration of the subject had led to these views. Like consideration is gradually leading others also to prefer the encouragement and better development of the existing system to an untried system fraught with the above and other evils."
  Then, again, the Acting Committee of the Church of Scotland, who ought to know something of the educational wants of the country, had pointed out in a Petition that the Bill made no provision for religious instruction, that it tended to extinguish the denominational system and all local effort, and that while the parochial schools afforded a good education to more than a fourth of the inhabitants of the landward districts, their deficiencies were to a great extent supplied by various religious denominations and

  435
  individual heritors or owners of public works. The Committee added—
  "The deficiencies are reported to be, not a want of schools to any marked extent, but only inferior school buildings (in many oases), a want of certificated teachers, and need of inspection. In these circumstances it appears most inexpedient to introduce a Bill involving large rating powers, and other consequences much to be deprecated, for the purpose of remedying evils that could be easily met under the present system."
  Through the courtesy of the noble Duke in consenting, on the appeal of his noble Friend (the Duke of Marlborough). to post pone the Committee on the Bill until after the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply the opinions of those important bodies had been expressed and, as a sample of a great number of them, he would refer to the Petition of the Commissioners of Supply of the county of Lanark. After remarking that 72 per cent of the children attending school were being educated at voluntarily-supported schools, they came to this conclusion—
  "That on the whole your Petitioners consider the extensive alterations proposed by the Bill to be unnecessary and uncalled-for, and to be such as can do little good, and may do much injury, to the educational interests of Scotland, while they will increase the burden of local taxation to a very large extent."
  The Commissioners of the counties of Inverness, Aberdeen, Renfrew, Dumfries, Ayr, Linlithgow, Edinburgh, and Haddington had also petitioned against the Bill; while those who had petitioned partially in its favour suggested such important modifications that were they carried out the noble Duke would hardly be able to recognize the measure. As far as he had been able to ascertain nineteen county meetings were opposed to the Bill, while at six no action was taken or the subject was referred to sub-committees, and as to eight nothing could be stated. The Free Church was by no means unanimous in favour of the Bill, for the Free Church presbyteries of Aberdeen and Ayr had petitioned against it; while those of Glasgow, Dundee, Chanonry, Garioch, and Lockerbie, as well as the Synod of Ross, wished for amendments, the absence of provision for religious teaching being one of the objections. He hoped he had now stated sufficient to explain why he entertained his views as to this Bill. He had shown that the school attendance was not unsatisfactory, that the condition of the parochial schools was efficient,
  436
  and that the Bill would dry up the large amount provided by voluntary efforts. He had shown that the Commissioners of Supply in many of the counties were entirely opposed to the measure, while the great majority were opposed to material parts of it, and the Education Committee of the Church of Scotland, as well as several Free Church congregations, were also opposed to it. He contended that the present system should be upheld and extended, and that the voluntary system which had so long flourished should be encouraged, and that, above all, a system which provided religious instruction should be maintained. To quote the concluding paragraph of a work by a minister of the Established Church, which ably summed up the case—
  "I believe that the question comes to this as regards religion—Shall we have a denominational system as at present, and Christian instruction, or an undenominational, as the Act provides, and, in the course of not very many years, secularism—such secularism as consists not in the utter banishment of Christianity from oar schools, but in its banishment from the sphere which it has hitherto occupied in our national education as a basis of school training, and the supreme rule of conduct? The loss of Christian instruction in our schools would be a disastrous event to the country, but still more the loss of that religious spirit which our present system tends to infuse into the up-bringing of the young. 'Godly up-bringing,' our fathers called it; and to the element of religion which they introduced in Scotland, and which they faithfully preserved, is mainly due to the greatness of our country."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he must admit that the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), holding such opinions on this Bill, was fully entitled to express them at the present stage; but he must not think it was from any want of respect if he declined to follow him in discussing the general principles of the measure. The greater part of the noble Duke's speech had, however, referred to points on which he thought he should be able to offer full explanations in Committee; and he hoped also to be able to show that the noble Duke's argument with regard to finance and to the ironmasters was not well founded. He (the Duke of Argyll) however wished to refer to one matter only. The noble Duke had told them that his first intention was to persuade the House to refuse to go into Committee on the Bill, but that Friends whom he had consulted had advised him that such an almost contemptuous rejection of the Bill would amount to a breach

  437
  of faith. For his own part he (the Duke of Argyll) thought it would be much more than that. For, considering the circumstances under which the Bill was introduced in this rather than in the other House, and the feeling which he believed existed among the Scotch Members, who, after all represented the national feeling more than Presbyteries or even Commissioners of Supply did, it would have been most detrimental to the character and reputation of the House if it had not shown a willingness, and even a desire, to go into a full discussion of the details of the measure. He hoped the House would not expect him to say more until they got into Committee.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, there were many details of the Bill which might be better considered in Committee; at the same time there were some matters which were left open for explanation on a previous occasion, and as to which he thought their Lordships should have some explanation now. The noble Duke, in introducing the Bill, expressed an opinion that it would be largely acceptable in Scotland, and that, although it might not meet with universal approval, it would be accepted, throughout the country, as a compromise of a very difficult question. Their Lordships probably shared that anticipation, and had it been verified they would have been spared much labour and anxiety. But as far as he (Lord Cairns) could judge these expectations had been by no means realized; for, as it seemed to him, in Scotland, the Bill had encountered by no means so favourable a reception as the House were led to expect. Large bodies of persons were altogether opposed to it; and even those who to some extent approved it asked for important amendments, hardly any two of them agreeing as to the amendments they required. The consequence is that, taking only the Petitions that are in favour of the Bill, there was hardly any part of the measure which one or other of the Petitions did not ask for an alteration in, and this rendered it difficult for the House to decide how this important question could best be settled. There was one point which went to the root of the Bill—the turning point on which the rest must hinge—he meant of course the financial question; and at an earlier stage he expressed a hope that, at a subsequent stage, the Government would
  438
  state the grounds on which they believed a maximum rate of 3d. in the pound would suffice to work the machinery of the Bill. Before going into Committee the House ought to know how far that estimate could be relied upon. Now, his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had quoted a very remarkable statement, showing that in seventy-one out of 154 Highland and island parishes a 3d. rate would be wholly inadequate—the rate, moreover, being most inadequate in the very parishes where it was most wanted. [The Duke of ARGYLL said he was prepared to show in Committee the fallacy of these statistics.] No doubt the noble Duke would be prepared to give some explanation—but, as an. example, he might take the case of Jura and Colonsay. A 3d. rate would, according to this statement, produce £69 15 s. 7d., while the necessary expenses of the various schools, allowing for Privy Council grants, would show a deficiency of £364, so that not only a rate of 3d. would not be sufficient, but even a 1s. rate would be insufficient. There were many other cases of the same kind. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Government; for, on the second reading, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) referred to it as a point on which the Government might be induced to change their opinion. The principle of the Bill was to reduce, so far as possible, all the schools of Scotland to the one uniform level, which might be described as the level of the new national schools. There were three different classes of schools. First, there was the well-known old parochial schools; in the second place, there were the schools supported mainly by voluntary contributions and receiving also the Council grant; and, thirdly, there was the class of new national schools to be supported by rate. Now, the mode adopted by this Bill to reduce the two first classes to the same position as the third, was a process of what might be termed rewards and punishments. If the heritors would agree to place the parochial schools under the new system, instead of the upper heritors only being rated, the rate would be spread over the whole body of heritors; but if they did not entirely submit to the new regulations they would still be liable to an order to re-build the school or master's house, for

  439
  which they would be rated on the old principle. Then, again, if the denominational schools did not, within twelve months, come in as "adopted" schools they would forfeit the Government grants—a severe penalty, which would extinguish many if not all of them. They might be brought in and remain subject to the old management; but, in that case, they wore not to share in the rate and would only receive Government assistance, while the liability to an order to re-build the school or master's house would remain. The result of this would be to establish a system different from that which existed, or had even been suggested in any other part of the United Kingdom. The systems which had been tried were these—In England large public grants were made to schools connected with various denominations; in Ireland to schools complying with certain conditions, the managers being allowed to add religious education at separate hours from the secular instruction, so that no child might be forced to receive the kind of religious instruction of which his parents disapprove; a purely secular system had likewise been advocated, the rate being applied for the general education of a parish or district, and no religious instruction being given. The present proposal differed from all these; for though there was no provision with regard to religious education, its principle was this, that the majority of any parish, represented by the school committee, were to decide whether any religious instruction should be given in all the schools supported by the rate, and of what kind that instruction was to be. It was therefore, a denominational system, with this peculiarity—that the denominational character which the education was to assume was to be fixed by the majority of the parish, represented by the local committee. What was to become of the minority? That was a most important element in the Bill, and it ought to be fully considered Toy Parliament. In this country the minority were under the denominational system perfectly protected, and they had their religious training as completely provided for as the majority had theirs. So also in Ireland, except in cases where the minority were so exceptionally small in numbers as not to warrant a separate school. By this Bill, however, all the inhabitants of the parish
  440
  were to be taxed alike, but with this difference—that the majority were to have their religious education, but that the minority were not to have theirs. Let their Lordships observe the consequence. There were parishes in Scotland where the minority were Roman Catholics; there were others in which the minority were Episcopalians; but there were others in which the minority were Presbyterians. He knew some parishes in Invernessshire, and he believed there were some in Aberdeen-shire, where the Roman Catholics were in the majority, and others in which the Presbyterians were also certainly in the minority. Suppose the two cases occurred side by side, the Roman Catholics being in a majority in one parish and the Presbyterians in the adjoining parish. How would they justify a state of things in which both were to be taxed alike, but in which the children of one sect would go to the school of the majority and receive a religious training according to the wishes of their parents, but the children of the minority must go to a school where they would either receive no religious instruction at all, or such instruction as their parents must disapprove of. He understood the noble Duke to say that he would provide by the Bill that, along with these national schools, there should be continued, not only for a certain time but always, public grants for other denominational schools. That might in some measure obviate the difficulty; but he owned that the system appeared to require very serious consideration. The Preamble of the Bill declared that it was desirable that the present system of parochial schools in Scotland should be extended, enlarged, and improved. He confessed, however, that he had not been able to find anything in the Bill that would extend, enlarge, and improve the present system of parochial schools in Scotland. On the contrary, he saw that the Bill from the beginning to the end tended to put an end to the parochial schools of Scotland. That country was famous for the education given in these schools, and one of the greatest calamities that could befall Scotland would be that this education should be impaired. There could be no greater mistake than to suppose that the parochial schools of Scotland were merely primary or elementary schools. In many districts they supplied

  441
  the place of middle-class schools and seminaries. There could be no doubt that the Universities of Scotland were largely recruited from her parochial schools; and young men who had highly distinguished themselves had often proceeded direct from these schools to the Universities. It was proposed by the Bill to bring these schools under the direction and management of local school committees, chosen half by the occupiers and half by the heritors. The present-system of management had been extremely advantageous, and had led to the celebrity and distinction of these parochial schools. Was it certain they would improve under the management of local school committees? What was the experience of such committees? In the Report of the Schools Commission there appeared an interesting statement from the Sub Commissioner, who reported upon the state of the schools of Canada and the United States, which were under the management of local committees. He said that in Upper Canada, whore the trustees were men who took an interest in the schools, and were really competent to discharge their duties, there was no room for complaint. In many places, however, and especially in some rural districts, the trustees did not enter the school more than once a year. He had heard that some of these managers could hardly write their own names, and were quite illiterate. One of the Canadian superintendents told the Assistant Commissioner that the great body of the school managers were remiss in the performance of their duties through an entire ignorance of the nature of those duties. For anything to the contrary in this Bill, the whole of the school committees who were to manage the parochial schools might be men who could neither read nor write. Was it desirable to hand over schools so efficient and so celebrated to a management of that kind? But that was not all. He observed that it was proposed by the Schedule that due care should be taken that the existing standard of education should not be lowered, and that, as far as possible, as high a standard should be maintained as in all the national schools of Scotland. Did that mean that the same average standard should be maintained as to the whole of the elementary education, or that the standard which now existed in
  442
  the elementary and secondary schools should be kept up. These were questions not arising from any particular clauses, but which were well worthy the consideration of their Lordships. They were asked to take a step which, tinder certain checks and provisions, might be advantageous, but which was a step of the gravest importance to Scotland, and a mistake might produce evils which every person connected with Scotland would regret.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would not follow the speech of the noble and learned Lord—indeed he feared they were getting into an irregular discussion. The question before their Lordships was whether they should go into Committee on this Bill or not. As far as the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) was concerned he was perfectly justified in the speech he had addressed to their Lordships, because being unavoidably absent he had had no opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill on the second reading, and therefore he had fairly availed himself of the present occasion. The noble Duke stated that it was originally his intention to move that the Bill be committed that day three months, but that, on consulting with his Friends on his side of the House, he had determined not to oppose the Motion to go into Committee. The noble Duke, however, could not have consulted with the noble and learned Lord who had just delivered so strong and emphatic an address against the principle of the Bill. He put it to the noble and learned Lord whether, in the position which he occupied, he was not incurring the risk of establishing a most inconvenient precedent by debating over again the principle of a Bill on the Motion for going into Committee upon it. He trusted that their Lordships would proceed in the ordinary course; because he was certain that the noble Duke who had charge of the Bill would be quite ready to discuss every question and every detail when the particular clause came before their Lordships in Committee.
  LORD COLONSAYsaid, he thought that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had chosen the most convenient moment for offering to their Lordships the general observations which suggested themselves to his mind. He thought the noble Duke ought now to give some sort of explanation as to the grounds

  443
  upon which the rate that had been fixed had appeared to be a sufficient one.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the paper to which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had referred had been circulated among their Lordships within the last few days only. It was drawn up nominally by the General Assembly's committee, but really by Mr. Laurie, their secretary. When the paper came into his hands he saw in an instant that the whole statement proceeded on a fallacy, and he referred it to the Financial Secretary of the Privy Council, who had prepared a statement in reply to it, which he would lay on the table that evening. He should be prepared to show that the calculations of the noble and learned Lord were vitally fallacious. Mr. Laurie assumed that new school buildings would be required for every existing school, however small. With regard to the parishes with which he (the Duke of Argyll) was acquainted, every item of Mr. Laurie's finance was absolutely erroneous. The finance of the scheme had been gone into most carefully by the Commissioners, who had a full knowledge of all the facts of the case, and they certainly were not likely to make the gross blunders alleged by Mr. Laurie. The calculation on which the Bill was based was that the 3d. rate, supplemented by double Privy Council grants, and the fees varying from 4s. to 5s. and 6s., would give £I a head for every scholar, which would be amply sufficient for the poorest parish in Scotland.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHhad some reason to know that the statement made by the Privy Council Office had reference to the salaries given to female teachers under the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The average salary of uncertificated female teachers was £41. Their number was not throe, as stated, but seventeen, and therefore £15 or £16 was required to be added to each; in other words, about £300 was required to be added for the entire number of female teachers, and to raise the number of uncertificated male teachers to the average of £55 would take a sum of £1,150.
  After a few words from the Duke of MONTROSE,
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Interpretation Clause).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished to make a very few observations with respect to the Central Board. He had not placed on the Paper any notice of Amendment with regard to the constitution of that Board; but other noble Lords had done so. One of the Amendments of which notice had been given by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Colonsay), adopted the principle of an elective Board; but with the addition of certain members; the object being that the proportion of members who represented the ratepaying interest, as compared with the purely professional members should be increased. Now, if the House preferred the elective principle, he (the Duke of Argyll) should be ready to accept his noble and learned Friend's Amendment. But, besides that Amendment, two suggestions had been made on his own side of the House, pointing to the conclusion that the Board should not be elective but nominated. Now without at all desiring to give any pledge as to the course which the Government might take in "another place," where possibly another view might be taken of this particular part of the Bill, he wished to say that, if in the opinion of a majority of the Scotch Members of their Lordships' House, it should be considered that a nominated Board would be preferable he should be prepared to bring up a clause on the Report, substituting a nominated for an elective Board. He said this with the view of saving a considerable amount of discussion. Of course, in regard to the payment of the members, he could not enter into that question. He did not wish to go to the. Chancellor of the Exchequer and tell him to put his hand into his pocket too often; or to act on the advice given to the late Sir George Sinclair by one of his constituents immediately after he had been elected for Caithness—"Now, my advice to you, Sir George is—be aye take-taking what ye can get, and be aye seek-seeking till ye get mair."
  LORD CAIRNSwished to know if he rightly understood that the arrangement proposed by the noble Duke was without prejudice to the course which the Government might take in "another place" [The Duke of ARGYLL: Yes.] He never heard of such a proposal—that the Government should make a proposal to their Lordships' House and hold

  445
  themselves at liberty to make a different proposal to the other House of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was possible that another view might be taken of this matter by the House of Commons. He did not attach great importance to the principle, and was prepared to make the Board nominated instead of elective; it was a mere point of detail. He hoped the discussion would be conducted in a temperate spirit, and that advantage would not be taken of a single expression with a view to give this the appearance of a party discussion.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDassured the noble Duke that no one could approach this question with a greater desire for fairness and moderation than himself; but he must point out the very great inconsistency of the tone adopted by the noble Duke. Had, or had not, the Government made up their minds on the Bill now under discussion? It was a Bill brought in by the noble Duke on the authority of the Government, at an early period of the Session. The noble Duke described it as a very good Bill, which ought to pass; but, possibly some of his Colleagues might ultimately not agree with him, and the fate of the Bill would depend, not on what he thought, but on what his Colleagues in "another place" thought. This, however, ought to have been decided long ago. It was not respectful to the House that the Government should introduce a Bill on which they had not made up their minds, and then say—"We are ready to assent to a modification of the Bill in the House of Lords, but we will not promise to adhere to it in the House of Commons." If the noble Duke in this House adopted an alteration of the Bill, substituting one arrangement for another, he was bound, and his Colleagues in the other House also were bound, to adhere to that alteration.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONthought the noble Duke who had just spoken took a somewhat unusual view of the duty of the Government, because he said that, after having come to a determination on the details of the Bill, they ought, if the House changed any of those details, to adhere to their own decision. Now, if his noble Friend had said that he would adhere to every detail whatever might be the decision of their Lordships, he would justly have
  446
  been obnoxious to the charge of assuming a dictatorial tone. What he understood his noble Friend to say was that, if it should be the opinion of the House that a nominated Board would be preferable to an elected Board, he would be prepared, in deference to the opinion of the House on a point which he did not deem important, to accept an Amendment to that effect. His noble Friend added that the question was one in respect to which the other House might have an opinion of its own, and might approve a scheme different from that approved by their Lordships' House.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHwished to point out to their Lordships that a grave constitutional principle was involved in the principle laid down by the noble Duke the Secretary for India, for it appeared that if there should be a general concurrence of opinion among their Lordships as to the principle of the appointment of the Central Board, he was prepared to adopt it; but if the other House did not think the change advisable he would be prepared to abandon it. The noble Duke was bound to have brought the matter under the consideration of his Colleagues, and to have obtained their sanction to a precise course; for it would be extremely inconvenient, after the Bill had passed their Lordships' House, to have it brought back again, at a time when the attendance of their Lordships would be comparatively thin, with their Lordships' decision reversed on this particular point.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he thought that his noble Friend the Secretary for India had made a very fair proposal. He said that if, with regard to the constitution of the Board, their Lordships should prefer nomination to election, he should accept it; but he said it was very probable that the other House might take a different view. He had heard it stated that the Bill was unpopular in Scotland, but having taken the pains to ascertain the opinion of the different great bodies in that country, he found that the great majority of them, though they might differ as to the details of the measure, agreed in approving its principle.
  LORD KINNAIRDobserved that the noble Duke the Secretary for India had only said that, as there were to be paid members on the Board, the constitution

  447
  of the Board must in a great measure depend on the sanction of the House of Commons and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would suggest that the Amendments respecting the constitution of the Board might be considered on the Report.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the Amendment to convert the Board into a nominated Board might now be passed, if the noble Duke the Secretary for India were satisfied that the Government approved it. Of course, the Government could not promise that the House of Commons would support the Amendment; but it was to be expected that the Members representing the Government in that House would support it. It would be proper that their Lordships should know whether the Board was to be paid or not, because upon this question might depend the efficiency of the Board, and what was to be proposed in the other House of Parliament, by way of payment. He did not see that there would be any difficulty in letting their Lordships know the view of the Government upon this subject.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he would agree to bring up a clause on the Report, substituting a nominated Board for an elected Board.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 14, relating to constitution of "the Board of Education" struck out: and two clauses, moved by Lord KINNAIRD, inserted in lieu thereof. The new clauses provide that "The Board of Education for Scotland" shall consist of three persons to be appointed by Her Majesty by writing under the hand of a Secretary of State; and of a Secretary, to be appointed in like manner.
  Clauses 15, 16, 17 (Parochial Schools).
  Clause 15 (Parochial and Parliamentary Schools shall be "old national schools" and shall continue to be managed as at present) agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Union of Parochial Schools).
  LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved an Amendment that "it shall be lawful for the school committee or heritors to employ any teacher in any school within the bounds of their parish so long as they pay the salary as above."
  Amendment agreed, to.
  Clause 17 (Side schools) agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 26 (Power to adopt or erect Schools).
  Clause 18 (Board to fix as to each parish or burgh the number of schools required) agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Board with the sanction of the Lords of the Treasury, may appoint special commissioners) agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved that the clause be struck out. He objected to the appointment of special commissioners to do the work of the Board. There should be an efficient Board appointed, and let them do their own work.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that one of the most important duties which the commissioners would have to decide would be the geographical position of the schools. It would never do for the Board to be travelling all over the country to settle that to the neglect of other duties. It was essential the Board should have power to appoint special commissioners to do that work and report to them.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, there would be a great deal of special work to be got through the first two or three years after the Act came into operation, and therefore it would be desirable to give powers to appoint persons to attend to it. When that work ceased their Lordships might rely upon it some one would in the other House object to the continuance of the salaries as a charge on the Estimates.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Board with the sanction of the majority of the trustees, managers, or proprietors, of any school, may adopt any school).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that as this was a most important clause, he desired to say a few words upon it. But he would first reply to the observations which had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) and the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns). Their Lordships would remember what he had said in introducing this Bill, and also upon other occasions, when the subject of education had been under discussion. He had never entertained a strong opinion against the denominational system of education,—on the contrary, he had always thought that many advantages accrued from the young being educated in connection with definite sys-

  449
  terns of religious belief. But the Commission which sat in Scotland came to the conclusion that it was desirable to put an end to denominational schools for the future, mainly on two grounds—first, because, as conducted under Privy Council grants, denominational schools were incapable of occupying the whole field of education; and, secondly, because, as far as Scotland was concerned, such schools were wholly unnecessary for the security of religious teaching. Those were the two grounds—one of them arising out of a general principle, and the other out of the peculiar circumstances of Scotland—upon which that body came to the conclusion that denominational schools ought to be stopped. As regards the first point, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had read some extracts from the Report of the Commissioners which were in favour of the denominational system; but the House would probably come to the conclusion that the noble Duke had culled his extracts in such a manner as not fully to represent the matured opinion of the Commissioners, who, in point of fact, arrived at the conclusion that the continuance of the denominational system was unnecessary in Scotland. He would read to the House certain other paragraphs, showing clearly the opinion of the Commissioners as to the inadequacy of the denominational system to undertake the education of the country. That inadequacy had, indeed, been proved both in the rural districts and in the great cities. He could speak from experience as to the rural districts, and could assert that, as regards those parts of the county with which he was acquainted, it had been a complete failure. The very principle of it was, in fact, to give to the rich, and to withhold from the poor. When the system was brought forward by his Friend the late Lord Lansdowne and Sir John Kay Shuttle-worth, he expressed his opinion that, if positive rules were not laid down as to geographical distribution, the grants would be hurtful rather than beneficial to the country. Unfortunately, the Privy Council did not then think themselves strong enough to act upon that advice. They were obliged to give grants where-ever they Mere asked for by religious bodies. The Commissioners, however, pointed out that in the poorest counties, where the population was sparse, there
  450
  was a very small amount of Privy Council grants, the percentage being highest in the richest counties and smallest in the poorest counties. The evidence was conclusive, therefore, that the system was not calculated to provide for the educational wants of the country. In their Report the Commissioners said—
  "From these facts it is abundantly clear, not only that the system of Privy Council grants is partial in its operation, but that while those districts which are most competent to provide themselves with schools receive considerable aid for this purpose from the Treasury, those districts which are less competent to contribute for schools receive little or no aid."
  There was also in the Report a paragraph referring to Glasgow, drawn up by no less distinguished a personage than the late Mr. Cook, the Procurator of the Church of Scotland. It was as follows:—
  "In the meantime are observe that these facts prove that the voluntary system has hitherto proved utterly inadequate to effect the education of the masses of the population in our large towns. As far as the principle of supply and demand can operate in such a matter it might be expected to operate in Glasgow as fully as anywhere, and it has done so. There is no want in that city of schools, where an education of a high class can be got at an adequate price by those who wish for it; but more than this, there is no reason to doubt that Christian zeal and benevolence have operated as freely in Glasgow as they can be expected to do anywhere in providing a sound education, well adapted to the real wants of the lower orders. Sessional schools, under the management of the kirk-session of the Established and Free Churches, are to be found in every district, and, with few exceptions, are admirable schools. There are, besides, many endowed and free or charity schools in the city; and all of these, as well as the sessional and mission schools, are doing much good. But all of these schools are far short of providing the necessary accommodation for the numbers who ought to be at school."
  He believed that in Glasgow—one of the largest cities in the kingdom, where the merchants were distinguished by their liberality, and the religious bodies by their Christian zeal—it was a notorious fact that the denominational system had completely failed to provide for the educational wants of the locality. He wished to draw attention to another important point. Where the denominational system of education really existed, it was perfectly useless as regarded the religious instruction of the people. The evidence given before the Commissioners was to this effect—that the children of all Churches, without exception, repaired to the parish schools, or to the

  451
  Episcopalian schools, or to the United Presbyterian schools, or to any other schools where they could get the best education. The parents did not care one whit as to the religious denomination of the school, provided their children obtained good secular education there. Of course, while the Shorter Catechism teas taught in all the parish schools to all children of the different Presbyterian denominations, the Roman Catholic children were specially exempted from instruction in that catechism. His noble Friend on the Bench below (the Earl of Denbigh) had made a special appeal in respect to the case of the Roman Catholics. Now many of their Lordships might not, perhaps, be aware of it, but it was nevertheless the fact that not only was there a very large number of Irish and other Roman Catholics congregated in our great cities, but there were certain districts in Scotland where the population were still mainly Roman Catholics. That was the case especially in the Hebrides, in some of which group of islands as many as five-sixths of the inhabitants were Roman Catholics. Yet there was not a single Roman Catholic school there: and why? Because the Roman Catholic priesthood had perfect confidence in the education given in the parish schools. Many years ago, when much excitement existed in Scotland in relation to the measure of 1829 for the removal of the disabilities of the Roman Catholics, a ''direction" was issued by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that, in all cases, the children of Roman Catholic parents were to be allowed the free use of the parish schools without any injunction being laid on them to go through the religious instruction. And so fully had the Roman Catholic population benefited by that direction, that without difficulty, and without the loss of a single family, as he had heard, to the communion of the Church, they had uniformly resorted to the nearest parish school for the education of their children. With regard to the Episcopalians, he had a remarkable Return, showing that in their case also it was utterly unnecessary that there should be any special denominational schools for the instruction of their children. The figures given before the Commissioners were very remarkable. Out of 6,000 scholars attending the Episcopalian schools, only 1,920 belonged to
  452
  their own communion, while the rest, or about 4,000, belonged to other religious communions; and the vast majority of the Episcopalian children—a mere fraction of the total number of children in Scotland—were educated in the parish and other Presbyterian schools. Therefore, in respect to the giving of instruction in connection with the various religious bodies in Scotland, the evidence was overwhelming that it was not required, either by the wants of the country or the prevailing feeling of the people, and that no disposition existed on the part of the people to send their children only to schools exclusively confined to their own religious denomination. Of course he admitted that when they went higher than elementary education, and what were called the "three R.'s," there might, in some cases, be danger of proselytism; but he believed that the conduct of the parish schools of Scotland had been highly honourable in that respect. With regard to the security for religious education, it was supposed that at this moment by law the Shorter Catechism had to be taught in the parish schools. There was, in fact, no such law whatever. In any parish the heritors might exclude the Shorter Catechism from the course of instruction. Up to 1861 there was a nominal connection between the parish schools and the ecclesiastical judicature of the Church, but since that date even that connection has been severed; the jurisdiction was absolutely removed from the presbyteries of the Church to the sheriffs of the county, and there was no statutory provision for religious education. The only condition of that kind was as to the master of the parish school. In 1861, when the test of membership in the Established Church was repealed, it was provided that the schoolmaster should make a declaration that he would not teach anything contrary to the Shorter Catechism. Nothing in the present Bill did away with that proviso, which would remain in force precisely as it now stood. Again, the maintenance of a denominational system was not easily reconciled with the principle of schools supported by rates. Supposing in any parish it was determined by the inhabitants, in conjunction with the Board, to establish a school supported by them, the school might be very flourishing; but in a few years a rival school might be set down alongside of

  453
  it, rendering nugatory all the burdens they had laid on them; and that rival school might be assisted by large grants, It was obvious that the two systems could not be carried on together, except during a period of transition. Practically that Bill provided that during a period of transition both the parish schools should continue as they were, and the denominational schools also where they were required by geographical circumstances, and were working well. That was a most rational compromise to be recommended by the Commissioners as between rival parties. With respect to the state of feeling in Scotland, he had had full confidence in the reception of the measure in that country, because the Commission was composed of eminent men representing all parties, and he had some reason to believe that if the late Government had continued in Office, a measure like this would have been introduced by their Lord Advocate. The House would do him the justice to remember that he concluded his speech on bringing forward the Bill by an appeal to the various religious bodies in Scotland, to waive the extreme and exaggerated stress which might be laid on some individual points for the sake of arriving at the great general result which would be desirable in the true interests of the country. There had been some Petitions presented against the Bill from the Presbyterian Synods, and some from the Commissioners of Supply—very respectable bodies, certainly; but there had been none from any great meeting of the people of Scotland. His belief was that the great mass of the laity were deeply interested in the success of the Bill, and viewed with extreme jealousy any measures taken to procure its defeat. Several deputations from Scotland waited upon him, one deputation asking for a change in one direction, and another deputation for a change in another. He asked them all whether they desired that the Bill should be given up if their particular views were not carried out? The answer invariably was that they were not prepared for that, and that they were anxious that the Bill, in any case, might pass looking upon the present clause as an important corollary of the Bill, he hoped that it would be agreed to in its present shape.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that the noble Duke (the Duke of
  454
  Argyll) had quoted some passages of the Report to show that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the denominational system was inadequate to supply the educational wants of the people of Scotland, and that it was unnecessary under the actual circumstances. There were, however, contradictory statements on this subject in the Report of the Commissioners, and in the speech of the noble Duke which was founded on it, which greatly puzzled him. The great preponderance of opinion in the Report recognized the value and importance of voluntary efforts in promoting the education of the people of Scotland at the present time, and the great injury to Scotland if anything should quench or destroy the operation of that system. The Commissioners recognized the great importance of all existing schools, and said that they were all wanted. But, because the denominational system did not altogether supply the wants of Scotland, the noble Duke would put an end to it and drive it away altogether, as a system which ought not to exist side by side with a national system of education. There was, however, no authority in the Report for proceeding on an assumption of that kind. Did it follow that because a system was deficient they were to sweep it away altogether? The noble Duke in his previous speech admitted that the existing schools were necessary, and that the Commissioners said they were. In the poorer districts the power of the Government was to be called in to provide schools; but it was unreasonable to contend that schools should not be allowed to remain in existence in the richer districts where they were supported by voluntary contributions. It appeared from the Report that out of 4,451 schools in the rural districts, 1,133 were parochial schools, and 910 adventure schools—leaving 2,408 which were supported by voluntary efforts. The Commissioners reported that for the most part these schools were all wanted, and that they represented a large amount of individual, local, and religious energy; and they say that to desert this system, with all its advantages, would be extravagance; while to leave things as they were would be to perpetuate defects. The noble Duke asserted that the denominational system was inadequate to supply the wants of Scotland; but he (the Duke of Marlborough) thought it

  455
  was proved from the Report, that with the exception of certain barren and desolate tracts of country, it had raised the standard of rural education as high as in Prussia. The fallacy of the noble Duke's argument lay in this—that because the denominational system was admitted to contain certain defects, therefore it must be altogether exterminated. He did not know what authority the noble Duke had for this proceeding—he certainly did not obtain it from his Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had expressed his opinion in favour of retaining the voluntary system where it existed. The noble Duke said that religious rivalry had created schools in superfluous situations. But in introducing the Bill he said that though religious rivalry had produced numerous schools they were not too numerous for the wants of the country, except, perhaps, in one or two instances. Then the noble Duke commented on the evils of the denominational system in procuring educational grants for the richer parts of the country and not for the poorer. But he (the Duke of Marlborough) thought the object of the Bill was to correct that evil, because under it Commissioners would go about the country to mark educational deficiencies, and the power of the Government would be put in force, wherever there was a deficiency, to call upon the locality to provide schools. The noble Duke, in bringing in the Bill, laid great stress upon the labours of the early Reformers: but what was the essential characteristic of the system of education they supported? It was the denominational and national system—because they knew that in promoting the denominational system they secured the religious character of education. He would ask their Lordships to consider what was the amount of money raised under these denominational efforts. The Commissioners stated that of the 4,451 schools in Scotland 1,133 were parochial schools, 910 were adventure schools, and 1,500 were in receipt of Privy Council grants and voluntary subscriptions to the amount of £42,077. There were, in addition, 2,408 schools which were not supported by Privy Council grants, and which depended entirely on voluntary subscriptions. The Bill would, therefore, inflict considerable discouragement upon voluntary effort, which would be pro tanto a great misfortune to the coun-
  456
  try. The Commissioners recognized the great importance of dealing with denominational schools, and thought it necessary to place them in a medium position, which they did by calling them "adopted schools." Would it not be sound policy to allow these voluntary bodies to have this small modicum of encouragement? The Bill, however, as it stood, impolitically and churlishly prevented these schools from taking advantage of the Privy Council grant or the rate if they were established two years after the passing of the Act.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the last person that ought to be quoted in favour of denominational schools, as he had persistently been opposed to voluntary effort supplemented by Privy Council grants, and was always in favour of the rating principle. The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) argued as if voluntary effort was a good thing in itself; but for his part he (the Earl of Airlie) could not help regarding the national system of education, based on rates to which every one contributed his proper share, as greatly preferable to any system which depended on the efforts of a few benevolent individuals contributing more than their fair quota, and supplemented by grants from the Treasury. The result of that system was that the poor were taxed to educate those in a richer district who could very well afford to pay for their own education. To argue in favour of the denominational system was. in his view, to oppose the true principle of the Bill. The deputations who had come to London on this subject, so far as he had been able to learn, had expressed themselves strongly in favour of the national, as opposed to the denominational system. The adoption of the proposed Amendment would entirely change the character of the Bill, and render it so unpopular in Scotland as to endanger its passing.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that whenever from local circumstances, such as the discovery of ironstone, or, as in Sutherlandshire, from the discovery of gold, there was a great influx of population into a district, the owners of property were always ready and anxious to provide education for those in their employment: but this proviso would stop their hands and prevent them from adopting any of the denominational

  457
  schools. He hoped his noble Friend would adopt this Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had argued against the Amendment on the ground that in Scotland the denominational system practically did not exist—that was to say that there were denominational schools, but that children of all denominations attended them. But if that were so, where in the world was the harm of continuing them? If it were proved that the denominational schools were such as prevented the attendance of children whose parents did not belong to the denomination, he could understand why the noble Duke should be anxious to put an end to them: but if it were the happy peculiarity of that country that the denominational schools did not prevent the attendance of those who were not of the denomination, why in the world should they put an end to them? He hoped the noble Duke would accept, the advice given by the noble Lord near him. It was a great mistake to propose a measure which brought them into collision with questions which affected England as well as Scotland. The noble Duke had laid down the principle that it was impossible to make denominational schools, even with the best constructed Conscience Clause, into national schools. But in England they were not prepared for such an assertion, where many people held the opinion that if the clergy would accept a Conscience Clause the denominational system might be converted into a national system. The; noble Duke also maintained that it was inconsistent to have denominational schools and also rate-supported schools. It was impossible for those of them who supported denominational and rate-supported schools to assent to that proposition. But where was the harm? The noble Duke allowed denominational schools up to a certain date to be incorporated—why should he go out of his way to make it impossible for the founders of a school to come to terms with the Board, after that period? It appeared to him that this clause was inconsistent with the general views entertained on education both in England and Scotland, and really stood in the way of the Bill: and he hoped the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord would be adopted.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, it was his
  458
  belief that, to a great extent, the people of Scotland, always excluding the clergy and Commissioners of Supply, were strongly in favour of the principle of this Bill; and. in spite of what had been said by the most rev. Primate, he drew a wide distinction between the denominational and national systems. If there was one point more than another on which the people of Scotland had made up their mind, it was that they would not tolerate P. system of denominational education under the control of the clergy and were in favor of a system of national education supported by local assessment,, and in great measure governed by themselves.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHwished to say in reference to one statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that though it was true the Roman Catholics in some instances sent their children to the national schools, that was in districts where they were too poor to have schools of their own: but wherever they could the Roman Catholics sent their children to their own schools and to no other. He should certainly support the Amendment.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he did not share the opinion of the most rev. Primate that whatever principle they adopted with regard to Scotland would affect the principle of education to be applied to England, because education in Scotland was based on a very different principle from that in England. In Scotland they had long had schools supported by local compulsory assessment; in England schools were raised by voluntary subscriptions aided by State grants. The difference between primary schools in the two countries also held good in regard to secondary education. The grammar schools of England scarcely found a counterpart in Scotland; and as to University education, there could be no doubt as to the difference that existed between the Scotch and English systems. He had no fear, therefore, that if they adopted that system which appeared to be in accordance with the general desire of the people of Scotland they would necessarily be committing themselves in any degree to the application of the same principle in England. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) spoke as if the intention of the Bill was to put an end to all denominational schools. That,

  459
  however, was not the intention of the Bill. The Commissioners in their Report distinctly said they desired that a majority of those schools should be adopted as national schools under the Bill; and the question was, therefore, not whether those schools should be put an end to but whether new denominational schools hereafter should be brought into the national system. He felt bound to resist the proposed Amendment.
  Amendment Moved to omit from the end of Clause the Proviso—
  "That no school which shall be founded after two years from the date of the passing of this Act shall be adopted as a national school."—(The Lord Colonsay.)
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 23; Not-Contents 68: Majority 45.

  CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Clandeboye, L.(L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Lawrence, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Monson, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  De Grey, E.

  De La Warr, E.

  Suffield, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Sundridge L. (D. Argyll.)

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Home, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  Nelson, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Portarlington, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Rosse, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Bath, M.

  Tankerville, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hawarden, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Bandon, E.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  Bathurst, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Cawdor, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  St. David's, Bp.

  Abinger, L,

  Gainsborough, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Blantyre, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Harrowby, E.

  460

  Cairns, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Churston, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Petre, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Colonsay, L. [Teller.]

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Colville of Culross, L. [ Teller.]

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Denman, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Elphinstone, L.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Sondes, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Proviso itruck out.
  Then, on the Motion of the Earl of MINTO, the following Proviso was inserted in lieu thereof:—
  "Provided also, that the trustees or owners of any adopted national school may at any time, on giving one year's notice to the Board, terminate the agreement and withdraw such school."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Board may resolve to erect new schools).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved an Amendment in line 4, before ("it") insert—
  ("It shall be the duty of the board, when it finds that one or more schools are needed, to make such want well known in the locality; and if within one year thereafter the board shall not be satisfied that sufficient accommodation for the whole or part of such want is to be provided by voluntary effort, then ")
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he should have thought the noble Duke would have known his countrymen better than to suppose that they would provide by voluntary effort what was sure to be provided for by rates.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLhoped that the noble Duke would be satisfied with the triumph he had already gained; that had opened the door to future denominational schools, but his present Amendment went still further.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, it was quite clear that it would be perfectly well known in the locality in which it was contemplated to make an order for the erection of new schools, and he did not, therefore, think his noble Friend's Amendment was necessary.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause with Amendments, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (School committee to take proceedings to erect school) agreed to.
  Clause 23 (New schools to be "new national schools" and to be managed by school committee) agreed to.
  Clause 24 (School committee may elect teacher, &c.).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved an Amendment providing that the salary "shall not be less than £35 for the master of any school, inclusive of any sum derived from the Parliamentary grant."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Combined national school) agreed to.
  Clause 26 (School committees may combine to employ teachers of special subjects) agreed to.
  Clauses 27 to (Power to concert old or adopted national schools into new national schools) agreed to.
  Clauses 32 to 36 (Maintenance and repair of national schools) agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 41 (Election and constitution of school committees.)
  Clause 37 (Election of school committees in landward parishes).
  LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved to strike out the clause and insert—
  "In every landward parish the school committee shall consist of the parochial board for the time being, with the exception of the minister and the members of the kirk session who shall not be ex officio members of the board, but they may become members if elected as representatives of the ratepayers in accordance with the provisions of 8th &. 9th of Vict., cap. S3, sec. 22."
  He further proposed, should the parochial board consist of more than twenty members they shall elect not less than six or more than eight of their number to form a school committee.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsuggested as a compromise that the school committee should be elected, one-half by the proprietors and the other half by the occupiers.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEapproved the suggestion of his noble Friend. It was much better that the parochial board should not be mixed up with this matter.
  LORD COLNSAYdid not think the alteration suggested was quite satisfactory.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLundertook to bring up a clause on the Report that would satisfy his noble and learned Friend.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 38 to 51 agreed to.
  Clauses 52 to 58 (Jurisdiction of the Board in respect to teachers).
  Clause 52 (If the Board on inquiry consider the teacher of an old national school incompetent, or morally unfit, they may permit him to resign, or may issue an order suspending or removing him from office).
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to add before the word "suspend," the words "admonish or censure," with the view of empowering the same authority as was empowered to suspend a schoolmaster to adopt the alternative of admonishing or censuring him.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLassented to the Amendment.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 53 to 67 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 68 (Grant for maintenance).
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH, in moving to omit the word "national," with the view of enabling the Privy Council to continue to give grants in aid to the existing voluntary schools, said that it was of the utmost importance that the schools now supported by voluntary efforts should be maintained; but, then, among them there were many denominational schools, especially those belonging to the Roman Catholics, in whose case there would be great jealousy on the part of the managers with respect to placing them under the control of the Board, and subjecting them to the general conditions which the Bill would impose. He thought the Bill as it now stood would occasion just and general dissatisfaction to many denominations in Scotland. In Scotland nearly all the voluntary schools were strictly denominational, belonging to religious bodies, which naturally exercised considerable control over them, which control they would be extremely unwilling to part with. One objection relating to the repair of buildings had been obviated during the progress of the Bill in Committee; but there still remained another—namely, that under the 20th and 53rd clauses the masters might be dismissed by order of the Board. This was one of the main reasons why the religious bodies were reluctant that their schools should be brought into connection with the Board and so converted into national schools, to which the Bill

  463
  had a strong tendency. If the Bill were passed as it stood, it was highly probable that the voluntary subscriptions by which so many schools were maintained would fall off, and that the managers would consequently feel inclined to place the schools on the rates—a result which the religious bodies Mere far from desiring. Again,, it was probable that if the Privy Council grant were withdrawn many schools in the poorer districts would cease to exist. Having vested the whole character of the education of a district in the hands of the majority, we ought not to deprive the minority of the liberty of availing themselves of those means which the voluntary denominational system had hitherto provided. As his noble Friend was so confident that the proposed system would be accepted in Scotland, he ought to prove his confidence in the system by removing the pains and disabilities of the Bill. He now moved the omission of the word "national" from the clause: and if that were agreed to. he would subsequently move consequential alterations.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid he would not revive the discussion which had arisen earlier in the evening" on the question of denominationalism; but he could not agree to the omission of this word. He wished, however, to remark that every consideration and tenderness would be shown to the denominational schools under this Bill. The case of the iron-musters who opposed this measure appeared at first to be a most formidable one, but when investigated it would not hold water at all. The great ironmasters in Lanarkshire supported their schools by levying; a rate of 2d. per week on each of their workmen, and. in addition to this, charged fees for the attendance of the children. Indeed, in the case of some of the great works, the fees levied from the workmen amounted to more than the whole sum expended on the schools, and yet the ironmasters came forward and asked that their property should be exempt ed from the rate on the ground that they supported the schools. The part taken by a small section of the Established clergy led him to entertain great doubt whether they ought to be ex officio members of the local Board, and whether a change in that direction would not be of great service to the spread of education in Scotland. He could not. on the part of the Government, accept the Amendment.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, he could confirm what had fallen from the noble Duke as to these workhouse schools, to which the men were bound to contribute, without having any voice in their management. Unless this Amendment were carried the clause would annihiliate the Catholic schools and Episcopal schools, which had been built and supported on the faith of receiving the Privy Council grant. They could not become adopted schools, nor could they receive any grants from the Privy Council. He hoped the noble Duke would persevere with his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsuggested that as this was a money clause, which threw an increased charge upon the Estimates voted by the other House, it would be better to omit it. The clause could be re-inserted "elsewhere," and would then again come before their Lordships for discussion.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, it was a fallacy to speak of the national system of education as provided by the Bill, as if it were something distinct from the denominational system. The system of education provided by this Bill for Scot- land would be, in a vast majority of parishes, denominational, because the local committees would insist upon a religious education, and that would be denominational.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that the effect of the Amendment would be so injurious that he should greatly prefer to omit the clause altogether rather than adopt the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH, in reply, repeated his opinion that the Privy Council ought to be able to make grants to the schools to which his Amendment referred.
  On Question, Amendment agreed, to.
  On Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON EARL DE GREY AND RIPON moved to leave out the clause. It was highly desirable, after the Amendment which had been introduced, that the Privy Council should be left entirety free in making the same regidations with respect to grants for Scotland as for England.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 68, as amended."—(The Lord President.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHobserved that the only modification of the existing system was proposed by the

  465
  noble Duke himself. The effect of this clause, as amended, would not be to fetter the Privy Council. He would rather bring the whole system in Scotland into conformity with the English system.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was sorry to give their Lordships the trouble of dividing, but he must take the sense of the Committee on the clause.
  On Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 59; Not-Contents 28: Majority 31.

  CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D. [Teller.]

  Tuam, &c, Bp.

  Norfolk, D.

  Abinger, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Blantyre, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Cairns, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Colchester, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Bath, M.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Bristol, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Denman, L.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Gainsborough, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Heytesbury, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Haddington, E.

  Home, E.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Petre, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Sommers, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Sinclair, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Stafford, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  De Grey, E.

  De La Warr, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Kimberley, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Camden, M.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Belper, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Airlie, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Clarendon, E.

  466

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Suffield, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Penzance, L.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 70.
  LORD COLONSAY LORD COLONSAY moved an Amendment; in line 40, before ("every") insert—
  ("In every national school, except in special cases to be approved of by the board, a certain portion of time shall be devoted to religious instruction, and such instruction shall not be contrary to but shall be consistent with the doctrines contained in the shorter catechism agreed upon by the assembly of divines at Westminster and approved by the general assembly of the Church of Scotland in the year one thousand six hundred and forty-eight, and")
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, this security for the religious teaching of the children would not be worth the paper on which it was written. The only security lay in the character of the school committee. Besides, he objected to incorporate the Shorter Catechism in an Act of Parliament.
  LORD CAIRNS, and other noble Lords, advised the noble and learned Lord not to press the clause.
  Amendment (by leave of the House), withdrawn.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday, the 3rd of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 96.)
  Memorandum showing the financial effect of the proposals in, as to parishes in which a 3d. rate has been levied: Ordered to be laid before the House. (No. 97.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwished to know whether the noble Duke, on the occasion of the Report, would give their Lordships some data to show that the 3d. rate would be sufficient for the purposes of the Act.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLdoubted the accuracy of the noble Duke's figures quoted at a former period of the evening, and felt no doubt whatever that the 3d. rate would be sufficient for all the purposes of the Act.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock A.M., till half past Ten o'clock.