Sitting of 14 July 1870

MINUTES.
— NEW MEMBER SWORN — Jacob Henry Tillett, esquire, for Norwich.
WAYS AND MEANS — considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 13] reported — Exchequer Bonds (£1,300,000).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Stamp Duties Management* [220]; Exchequer Bonds (£1,300,000)*.
Second Reading—Sanitary Act (1866) Amendment* [189].
Committee—Report—Elementary Education (recomm.) [167–218]; Post Office (re-comm.)* [183–219].
Third Reading — Juries* [182]; Absconding Debtors* [172], and passed.

ROYAL RESIDENCE IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the desire generally expressed in Ireland that there should be a Royal residence in that Country, Her Majesty's Government will propose to Parliament this Session a grant to purchase a suitable residence there for His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have upon a former occasion—I think more than once—conveyed to the House that they are very sensible of the importance of the question of the personal relations between the Royal Family and Ireland. They still remain sensible of the importance of that question, and it will not escape their attention at what they may think the proper time. We do not intend, therefore, to make any proposal to Parliament during the present Session of the nature stated by my hon. Friend.

THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of all Correspondence or Papers relating to the Cession by this Country to Spain of Crab and Passage or Culebra Islands, in the Virgin Group of the West Indies, which took place about the year 1863; and, if he will state whether any, and if so what, consideration was received by this Country from Spain in exchange for those two Islands?
MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that for many years the Sovereignty of those two small islands was in dispute between this country and Spain. In 1863, after an elaborate inquiry into the respective titles of the two Governments, the title of Spain was recognized. The correspondence on the subject extended over many years, and he did not propose to print it; but as his hon. Friend represented private interests in the matter, he was at liberty to read over the Correspondence, and his course then would be to consult the Foreign Office, whether these private interests could be recognized by the Spanish Government. In answer to the second Question, he had to state that no consideration was received

241
by this country for the transfer of these two islands.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he wished to know whether any communication has passed between the Colonial and the Foreign Office in reference to this matter?
MR. MONSELLsaid, he presumed that at the time the negotiation was in progress such a correspondence was carried on; and the result, as he had said, was the recognition of the title of Spain.

PARLIAMENT—CONDUCT OF BUSINESS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If in lieu of adopting the proposals of the honourable Members for East Surrey and Leicester, now before the House, he does not think the business of the Session would be more effectively performed, as well as the health and the patience of Members less tried, by the introduction of the ten minutes time principle, by which a no longer period for speaking would be permitted to any Gentleman other than a Member of the Government, an ex-Cabinet Minister, or the proposer of a Bill or Motion; and, whether it would not be advisable to curtail the right of initiative in Legislation now belonging to private Members, by necessitating the previous submission of their Bills to a Committee to be elected by the House, and which should decide as to the expediency of their introduction, or the contrary?
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he must interpose on the point of Order, believing that the practice of putting Questions to the Ministry was degenerating into a mere means for the expression of opinion. He apprehended that the object of putting Questions to Ministers was to elicit information on facts of which they were officially cognizant, or as to transactions for which they were officially responsible. Nothing of an argumentative or controversial character should be introduced; and, indeed, he believed it was a rule of the House that in putting a Question hon. Members should not be allowed to use an argument or express an opinion, and, therefore, they were equally disqualified from requiring from the Government such an expression. His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Hoare), however, was
  242
  transgressing the Rules of the House in putting a Question in which he invited opinions from the Prime Minister. If the Question were put an answer must be allowed, if even it were an hour long, and by moving the adjournment of the House it was then open to any hon. Gentleman to answer the arguments of the Prime Minister. He wished, therefore, to submit to Mr. Speaker whether his hon. Friend was not out of Order in putting this Question?
  MR. SPEAKER: It will be convenient that I should remind the House of the Rules which exist with regard to Questions. Questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; but in putting such Questions no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except such as may be necessary to explain such Question. Now, in looking at the Question of the hon. Baronet, it appears to comprise not less than six Questions. First, he asks the First Lord of the Treasury whether, "in lieu of adopting the proposals of the hon Members for East Surrey and Leicester," he will not adopt another course. That is one Question. Then he asks the right hon. Gentleman whether the business of the Session would not be more effectively performed in another way. That is a second Question. The third Question relates to an ex-Cabinet Minister, the fourth to the proposer of a Bill, the fifth to the proposer of a Motion, and the sixth is whether it would not be advisable to curtail the right of initiative in legislation belonging to private Members: all matters of opinion, all open to argument. It is perfectly true, as has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman), that these Rules have been made for the purpose of excluding from Questions matters of opinion and argument which are fit for debate. In my opinion the Question of the hon. Baronet is not of such a kind as to come within the Rules of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, I shall act in the spirit of the decision you have just delivered if I say that such matters as those involved in the Question of the hon. Baronet, relating as they do to the despatch of business in this House, had better be raised in the form of a proposal for a Committee of the House to consider its arrangements for the despatch of business.

BRAZILS—THE ROCAS SHOALS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the numerous shipwrecks which have from time to time occurred on the Röcas Shoals, and whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to cause any representations to be made to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of the Brazils as to the desirability of lighting or otherwise guarding this dangerous reef?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, in consequence of the recent loss of the ship Mercurius on the Röcas Shoals, and the report of her survivors as to the traces of very numerous wrecks there, and looking also to the fact that vessels going round the Cape of Good Hope make a more westerly course than formerly, and approach more nearly to these shoals, the Board of Trade have, through the Foreign Office, made a representation to the Brazilian Government in the hope that a light may be placed on these shoals.

IRELAND—STATE OF THE COUNTY OF MAYO.—QUESTION.
MR. G. BROWNEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, having regard to the present peaceable state of the County Mayo, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to relieve the people of that County from the expense of maintaining an extra police force?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, that in the month of March, a large number of the magistrates of the county Mayo met together, and unanimously agreed to apply to the Government for an increase of the constabulary force under the powers which they possessed by statute. Many of them wished for a larger force; but they were unanimous in asking for 150, one-half only of which could by law be charged to the county. The Inspector General of Constabulary had not been able to supply more than 116. The state of the county Mayo had very much improved since March; but it would be quite premature at present to decide on any withdrawal of that force.

IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD FOR FISHING.—QUESTION.
MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he would bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has caused inquiry to be made as to the truth of a statement which has appeared in the public papers to the effect that a child of twelve years old has been sent to prison for taking fish out of the River Avon of the estimated value of two pence by the magistrates sitting at petty sessions in the county of Warwick?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he had made inquiries on the subject and found that the facts were not exactly as they had been stated. It appeared by the certificate which had been forwarded to him, that according to the statement of the father the boy was not a child of 12 years of age, but would be 17 next September. He was fined by the magistrate in what could not be called an exorbitant sum—namely, 1s., but the costs amounted to 13 s. for fishing in private water. The magistrate, in the exercise of the discretion he possessed, might no doubt have reduced the latter, more especially as the clerk was paid by salary and not by fees, and so no injustice could have been done to that officer. Although it was a discretion on the part of the magistrates, he (Mr. Bruce) regretted that so severe a sentence as 10 days' imprisonment should have been imposed for so slight an offence.

INDIA—EDUCATIONAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State has received any reply to the Despatch addressed to the Government of India on the 2nd July 1868, on the subject of the Educational Service in India; and, if not, whether His Grace proposes to take any further steps in the matter?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply, Sir, to my right hon. Friend I have to say that we have not had an answer to the despatch about which he asks; but a despatch will probably go to India tomorrow, forwarding for final consideration a revised table of precedence, in which the position of educational officers is materially improved.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: But with regard to the other matters mentioned in the despatch?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: We have heard nothing; but the attention of the Government of India might be again called to them.

THE STEAMSHIP "CHIEFTAIN."

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the steamship "Chieftain" (lately the "Mutine" corvette of the Royal Navy) belonging to Messrs. Robertson and Co., Cornhill, City, was entered out at the Custom House on the 7th of April, took on board a general cargo in the West India Docks for Yokohama, Japan, and on the 11th of May last sailed from London; that when going down Channel she was on the 16th, from bad weather, obliged to put into the port of Plymouth; that while there she was searched by an officer of Her Majesty's Customs and an officer of the Royal Navy, her papers twice examined, and her Captain requested by the Collector of Her Majesty's Customs not to leave without his permission; that during the night of the 16th an iron-clad war vessel was moved down and anchored outside the "Chieftain," apparently with the intention of preventing her from going to sea, and that the "Chieftain" was detained nearly all next day; if so, will he state why this vessel was searched and her crew and captain disturbed at Plymouth in the prosecution of a lawful voyage, as the Admiral and the Customs authorities there and the Commissioners of Customs here refuse to give any satisfactory answer to those concerned; and, is the Government prepared to make any compensation to the owners of the "Chieftain" for the expenses and detention and loss of time thereby incurred? He wished further to ask whether the Customs authorities were not on board the vessel, in discharge of their duty, almost every day for four weeks?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that he would endeavour to answer the Question with a due regard to what had recently fallen from the Chair. It appeared that the Chieftain was sold to Messrs. Robertson, who at the time of the purchase
  246
  asked that they might also be allowed to buy her armament, and, the fact becoming known at the Foreign Office, representations were made, and the armament was not sold with the vessel. Shortly afterwards information was received at the Foreign Office that the vessel was proceeding down the river, armed, and it was thought proper to make inquiry respecting the character and destination of an armed vessel leaving this country when she again touched at an English port. Therefore, upon the arrival of the vessel at Plymouth, inquiry was made as to her destination and character, and when it was found that one of the partners of the firm owning the vessel was on board her, inquiry immediately ceased. No doubt these proceedings might have occasioned some inconvenience, but there was no unnecessary detention; and the inconvenience, such as it was, might have been obviated if the parties who purchased and despatched this armed vessel had communicated with the Foreign Office and had made known the country for which she was destined. It would be obviously impossible to carry out the Neutrality Laws of this country if armed vessels belonging to private persons were to be permitted to leave the country without inquiry as to their character and destination.
  MR. MELLYsaid, he wished to ask if the Foreign Office was aware for whom the vessel had been purchased, and where she was going to?
  MR. OTWAY: So far as he was aware, the vessel had been purchased for the Government of Japan, and had already passed the Suez Canal, en route for Yokohama.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was not aware that the vessel had lain four weeks at the docks taking in her cargo?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he had been informed that her cargo consisted principally of Armstrong guns—an additional reason for an inquiry.

CANADA—RED RIVER SETTLEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'ARTHURsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether or not it is true that the Government of the Dominion of Canada have set apart one million four

  247
  hundred thousand acres of the richest land in the Red River Settlement for the half-breeds of that territory, and under what conditions and for what reasons such appropriation has been made; whether his Excellency the Governor General has assented to such a proceeding; and, whether the Colonial Office is in possession of any information relating to this matter; or if any Correspondence has taken place between the Governor General of Canada and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he will object to communicate such information, or to lay such Correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that by the 31st section of the Acts of the Canadian Parliament power had been given to appropriate a portion of the territory, to the extent of 1,400,000 acres, for the benefit of the families of the half-breeds, under regulations to be made from time to time by the Governor General in Council. The selection of the lots were left to the Lieutenant Governor. The Governor General had assented to what had been done. No Correspondence had taken place between the Governor General of Canada and the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs.

CANADA—THE VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government has taken, or is about to take, any steps to mark its sense of the zeal and gallantry displayed by the Colonial Forces during the recent disturbances on the Canadian frontier?
  MR. MONSELL: Sir, Her Majesty's Government, immediately upon receiving information with respect to the conduct of the Canadian Volunteers, addressed a despatch to the Governor General of Canada expressing—what I am sure was the feeling of the House and of the country—their sense of the spirit, bravery, promptitude, and energy exhibited by the Volunteers during the recent disturbances on the frontier. They had further addressed a letter to the Governor General of Canada asking him whether there are any officers to whom he would recommend that the Order of St. Michael and St. George should be
  248
  awarded. No answer has yet been received; but I can assure the hon. Member Her Majesty's Government are anxious to mark in every way they can their sense of the gallant conduct of the Canadian Volunteers.

METRIC WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Government has received an invitation from the Government of France to send Representatives to a Congress of Nations to be assembled at Paris for the purpose of procuring for each nation metric standards of weights and measures, and of comparing and verifying the same with the original metric standards deposited at Paris; and, whether he can inform the House what nations have accepted this invitation, and whether Representatives of Great Britain have been appointed by Her Majesty's Government to attend the Congress?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply, Sir, to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Government received a short time ago an invitation from the French Government of the nature to which he adverts. As the use of the metric system is in some sense legalized in this country, it has been thought proper to accept the invitation of the French Government, and three gentlemen have been appointed to represent this country on the Commission—namely, Professor Airy (the Astronomer Royal), Professor Millar, and Mr. Chisholm (the Warden of the Standards). I understand that 22 countries, in all, have accepted the invitation of the French Government, including all the European States, the United States, and others.

ARMY—COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. VANCEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the General who is to succeed Lord Straithnairn as Commanding in Chief in Ireland is to be sent there with reduced pay and allowances to those usually given to officers; commanding in chief in that country; and, whether, if so, he is supposed or expected to continue to keep up that state and position which has hitherto

249
been maintained by his predecessors as becoming the head of Her Majesty's Forces in Ireland, and who from time to time is usually nominated one of the Lords Justices of that Kingdom?
MR. CARDWELLreplied that the pay and allowances of Sir William Mansfield would, he apprehended, be precisely the same as those of Lord Strathnairn.

IRELAND—POOR LAW INSPECTORS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the facts set forth in the Annual Reports of the Poor Law Commission for Ireland laid before Parliament in the years 1869 and 1870, to the effect that the operation of the Act passed in 1868 (31 and 32 Vic. c. 74) extending the powers and duties of the Poor Law Inspectors in Ireland, has imposed additional labour on those officers, and has considerably increased their personal expenses, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accede to the application made by the Poor Law Commissioners, and both by the late and present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in favour of an improved scale of salary for the Poor Law Inspectors?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that the question of increasing the salary of the Poor Law Inspectors in Ireland had been under the consideration of the Treasury, and that the Treasury had hitherto made a negative reply. The question had, however, been re-examined recently in connection with matters to which the noble Lord had adverted, and the answer of the Treasury would be very shortly made known.

IRELAND—DIOCESAN REGISTRIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government have taken, or are about to take, any steps for the purpose of preserving such of the records, deeds, and documents now in the Irish Diocesan Registries as may not, in conformity with Clause 47 of the Irish Church Act of last Session, be transferred to the Church Temporalities Commissioners?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that the Question of the hon. Member was one of considerable interest, and it had received, and would continue to receive, every attention from the Irish Government. His hon. Friend knew there was one large and important class of documents—those connected with the Church properly—which would be transferred along with the Church property to the Church Temporalities Commissioners. Another large and important class would be transferred to the new Court of Matrimonial Jurisdiction. There was a residue of documents of various kinds on which he was not able to speak authoritatively; but the question of their disposal deserved, and would receive the careful consideration of the Government.

ARMY—PROMOTION.—QUESTION.
SIR EDMUND LACONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why the promotion as successor to Brevet Major M'Pherson, Captain 17th Foot was granted to a Lieutenant of the 39th Foot, who, promoted to the rank of Captain, is transferred in the same Gazette to the 17th, over the heads of seven Lieutenants of the 17th, all of whom were his seniors?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Treasury authorized certain unattached promotions on condition that in each case the promotion was attended by the absorption of a supernumerary of the same rank. Captain M'Pherson was promoted to an unattached majority; but there was no supernumerary captain in his regiment. Lieutenant White was about to become by purchase the junior supernumerary captain in the Army, and he was therefore transferred from the regiment in which he would have been a supernumerary to fill the vacancy occasioned by the promotion of Captain M'Pherson.

METROPOLIS—SOUTHWARK PARK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Deputation from Inhabitants of the Borough of Southwark, which was recently received by him, Whether he has taken any steps with a view to prevent the erection of buildings in Southwark Park?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in reply, said, that the Question related to a matter of considerable importance. Under the Act of 1864, the Metropolitan Board of Works purchased, at the expense of the ratepayers of the metropolis, 60 acres of land, and they proposed to sell 16 acres as building land in order to recoup themselves for a portion of the expense, which would amount in all to £100,000. The inhabitants of Southwark protested against that proceeding, alleging that the part of the land proposed to be taken was much frequented by the people, and that, owing to the peculiar shape of the Park, the proposed erection of houses would not only curtail it, but materially diminish the value to the public of the remaining portion. His own individual opinion was in favour of open spaces, as I large as possible, being maintained, as lungs for the crowded population of the metropolis, and if any action of his could possibly secure such a result, that action would be taken; but the only step he could take was to bring the matter under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If the hon. Member thought it desirable that further steps should be taken in the matter, it would be open to him to call the attention of the House to the subject.

ARMY—EXPENDITURE.—QUESTION.
LORD GARLIESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to his reply on the 7th instant, as to the apparent discrepancy between the estimated amount and the actual expenditure incurred on the Army Votes for the past year, Whether he can explain the nature of the items of expenditure upon repayment included in the gross estimate, as given in the Estimates for this year, which he explained to have been omitted in the net estimate, excluding such expenditure last year; and, whether he can see any reason for the gross estimate to be given in the one case and the net in the other, considering that they are both designated under the same title of "net amount," after deducting estimated extra receipts and repayments to the Exchequer, on page 4, headed "Statement showing the aggregate amount of the services contained in the Estimates for the three years ending, &c.?"
MR. CARDWELL: I am sure, Sir, the noble Lord has no other object but to obtain the information which I shall be most happy to give. I have the details in my hand, at his service. The largest item in the list is that of clothing. The alteration in the mode of statement has been made to correspond with an alteration in the form of the Army Account recently made under the direction of the Treasury.

INDIA—CIVIL SERVICE.—QUESTION.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, If any explanation can be offered of the reasons which have induced the Civil Service Commissioners to select as a successful candidate in the last competitive examination for the Civil Service in India, Sir. Borooah, who appears according to the evidence afforded by the regulation of the Calcutta University, and the date of his entrance examination to that University, as specified in the Calcutta Gazette, to have been disqualified by his age from becoming a candidate on that occasion?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the Secretary of State for India in Council has neither the power nor the wish in any way to interfere with the absolute discretion of the Civil Service Commissioners, who are the sole judges of all such questions as that which has, it appears, arisen in the case of Mr. Borooah. They have just proposed to us that a certificate from the chief local authority in India should be held conclusive as to the ages of natives of India, and should be required by them in all cases; but we can only give advice and facilitate the carrying into effect of their arrangements. They make and interpret their own rules, and we have every reason to be satisfied with the results of their action.

PARLIAMENT—NEW REFRESHMENT ROOMS.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt the plan for now refreshment rooms which has been altered from the plan of Mr. Barry of 1869, and with any and what modifications; and, whether it is not to the advantage of the

253
Public Service that this altered plan, which interferes materially with important architectural features of the Palace, should be prepared and executed by a competent architect, in accordance with the Second Report of the Committee of the House of Lords? He would also beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury the other Question which stood in his name. Whether he will fix a day for proceeding with the Civil Service Estimates, Class I.?
MR. AYRTON: Sir, as the Question of the hon. Gentleman, although addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, relates to the business of the Office of Works, I have to state that it is the intention, I believe, of the Secretary of the Treasury to lay on the Table of the House in a day or two the Estimates for the special service of the Houses of Parliament. That Estimate will embrace the plans which have been submitted by the Office of Works for consideration to a Select Committee of the House, and unanimously approved of by them, and which I trust will lead to the convenience and comfort of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman is pleased to say that the plan is altered from Mr. Barry's plan. Well, the plan is not Mr. Barry's, but one prepared by the officers of the Department of Works. The plan relates both to the House of Commons, and in a small degree to the House of Lords. The House of Lords, undoubtedly, in their first Report, took great exception, in an architectural point of view, to some statements I had made. They combated my views at considerable length; but on reflection they presented another Report, in which they acquiesced in my views, and the critical affair that arose between myself and the House of Lords is, therefore, at an end. With regard to details, as I shall have to explain the Estimate when proposed it would not be right that I should now do so; but I can assure the House that the plans have been prepared entirely to meet the convenience of the House, on which Members will be enabled to form an opinion, and, perhaps, a better opinion than any architect however distinguished.
MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, I may state that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has been prepared for some time to go
254
on with the Army Estimates; but, in order to meet the convenience of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), the Army Estimates will not be taken to-morrow. The Civil Service Estimates will be taken; but not Class I.

CIVIL SERVICE—COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION—CLERKSHIPS IN THE HOME DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state the reasons why he has adopted a course different to the majority of his Colleagues, and has recommended that first appointments to clerkships in the office over which he presides should not be obtained by open competition?
MR. BRUCE: Sir, the number of clerks to which the Question of the hon. Gentleman refers is about 20, so that on an average, less than one vacancy occurs every year. My reasons were practically the same as those which influenced Lord Clarendon in arriving at a similar conclusion. No inconsiderable portion of the duties required from the clerks being of a confidential nature, requiring some guarantee of personal honour and trustworthiness, as well as of the intellectual attainments secured by the competitive examination, I did not think myself justified in relieving myself from the responsibility of making a personal selection of the candidates for examination.

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am at all times unwilling to press Government unnecessarily for information with respect to our foreign relations; but, in the present critical state of affairs, I feel bound to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, Whether it is in his power to make any communication to the House respecting the misunderstanding which appears unhappily to exist between two of Her Majesty's principal allies?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I regret I have to say that I must ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House to be satisfied with a very brief statement on the present occasion. We have, Sir, no specific intelligence to convey to Parliament

  255
  of a nature to satisfy the natural and universal desire of the country to hear that all differences in connection with the candidateship of Prince Leopold for the Throne of Spain are completely at an end. However, I can state that the communications between France and Prussia on that subject have not been brought actually to a close, and I need scarcely add we shall continue to do all that depends upon us for the removal of difficulties and the continuance of peace.
  MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I am sure my right hon. Friend will be glad of the opportunity to state—and the House will listen with interest and anxiety to his statement with reference to what is reported to have fallen from the Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, and was repeated yesterday in the Constitutionnel—that the Government of France in the course they were pursuing had the sympathy and moral support of every Government in Europe. I am sure my right hon. Friend will be glad of the opportunity of stating whether, as regards the Cabinet of Great Britain, that statement is correct?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I can only say, in reply to the very natural Question of my right hon. Friend, that I do not think it would be for the public interest that I should enter into details on the particular subject to which he has referred; but this I may say, that Lord Granville has addressed a communication to Paris on the subject of that declaration to which my right hon. Friend refers.

ARMY—THE MITRAILLEUR.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, with the view to its introduction into the English service, any steps have been taken by the Government to ascertain the effect of the engine of war called the Mitrailleur, which has been lately adopted and highly approved by the French military authorities; and whether it is true that a Select Committee is now or has been sitting to inquire into other descriptions of the same firearm, and, if so, how soon their Report may be expected?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, two mitrailleurs have been purchased; one from America, called the Gatling, and the
  256
  other from Belgium, called the Montigny. They have been partially tried, and returned to the inventors, at their own request, for some improvements. One has been returned to us, the other not. A Committee has been appointed, and experiments will shortly be resumed. The French instrument is of the same kind.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 167.]
(Mr. W. E. Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 167.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved, after Clause 31, to insert the following clause:—
  (Payment of chairman).
  "The school Board for London, and the school Board for any other district, the size of which in the opinion of the Education Department justifies the payment of a chairman, may pay to the chairman of such Board such salary as they may from time to time, with the sanction of the Education Department fix."
  The right hon. Gentleman stated that he did not propose that it should be necessary that the chairmen should be paid, but it would be well to give the school Boards the power to so pay them. He had no doubt that in London it would be impossible to work the Bill without having a man of first-rate ability as chairman, and one who would be in a position to give up his whole time to this question. If so, he must be paid.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought this clause was one of a very doubtful character. If they paid one chairman of a Board they must pay the whole. It ought to be limited to certain defined conditions, for there was no doubt it would add considerably to the expense of the school Board, and would be an additional obstacle to the working of the Bill.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought it was just as necessary to pay the chairman of a Board of Guardians as the chairman of a school Board. He would suggest that, at any rate, this principle should be limited to London.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, if there was to be only one school Board for the metropolis the time of the chairman would be so much taken up with his duties that it would be impossible to get

  257
  anyone to take the office unless he was paid. But he agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) that the principle should be limited to the metropolis, for if chairmen were paid in the rural districts shopkeepers or retired tradesmen would be candidates for the office. But if the office was not paid the district would be likely to obtain a man of some private means, who would accept the office from the interest he took in the cause of education.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not press the clause against the will of the House. He was still of opinion that there was some large towns where it might be desirable to pay the chairman of the school Board as well as in London; but if the opinion of the Committee was that it should be limited to the metropolis he would not object.
  Words from "London" to "Chairman" struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it desirable, in order to ensure the safe working of the Bill, to give the Education Department the power of dissolving the school Boards, and proposed after Clause 57, to insert the following clause:—
  (Dissolution of school Boards).
  "Where the Education Department are of opinion that in the case of any school district the school Board for such district are in default, or are not properly performing their duties under this Act, or that for any reason it would be expedient for the interests of education in such district to have a new Board elected, they may by order direct that the then Members of the school Board of such district shall vacate their seats, and that the vacancies shall be filled by a new election; and after the date fixed by any such order the then members of such Board shall be deemed to have vacated their seats, and a new election shall be held in the same manner, and the Education Department shall take the same proceedings for the purpose of such election as if it were the first election; and all the provisions of this Act relating to such first election shall apply accordingly."
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUobjected to the vagueness of the expression—
  "Or that for any reason it would be expedient for the interests of education in such district to have a new Board elected."
  It would be sufficient to give the Education Department the power to dissolve a Board in case the Board refused to perform their duties or offered any obstruction to the conduct of education.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought some means should be taken to provide against the arbitrary exercise of this power by repeated dissolutions of the same Board.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would consent to the omission of the words referred to by the noble Lord (Lord R. Montagu).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to the clause because it gave the Educational Department the nomination of the school Boards. There was nothing to prevent it toties quoties from dissolving the Boards. This was a strong power to take, and which would not be tolerated in the guardians of the poor. If the Government had it in their power to dismiss without appeal any school Board, he thought there ought to be good reasons why they should exorcise it.
  MR. HIBBERTobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite need not fear intrusting the Education Department with those powers as they had already conferred upon them by the 12th clause powers far more extensive.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must press upon the Committee the necessity of conferring this power upon the Department; but to prevent the power being abused would propose the addition of words requiring a report of the cases in which this power had been exercised to be made to Parliament annually.
  Words omitted.
  On Motion of Mr. W. E. FORSTER, the following words were added:—
  "The Education Department shall cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament in every year a special report stating the cases in which they have made any order under this section during the preceding year and their reasons for making such order."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. HINDE PALMERmoved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:—
  (Inquiry into complaint of religious teaching.)
  "If any teacher in a school provided by a school Board shall, during the ordinary school hours not specially appropriated under Clause 7 for instruction in religious subjects, teach systematically and persistently any particular religious doctrine, or shall otherwise act in violation or disregard of the provisions of this Act, the school Board shall, on complaint made in writing to them by the parent of any scholar hear the complaint, and inquire into the circumstances; and, if the complaint is judged to be reasonable, shall take all necessary steps for preventing the recurrence of the matter complained of; and any parent who shall feel aggrieved by the decision of the school

  259
  Board on such complaint, shall be at liberty to appeal to the Educational Department by a memorial signed by such parent together with three ratepayers."
  The clause was taken almost verbatim, from the Endowed Schools Act of last year, and he thought it was a necessary consequence of previous legislation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the object he wished to attain; but he did not think by this clause he would attain it. Instead of, strengthening the hands of the Education Department for the purposes aimed at, the clause would weaken them.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought the clause would facilitate the action of the Education Department, since it would bring the facts to the knowledge of the Department.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he had withdrawn a similar Amendment, finding in the Bill as reprinted provisions which effected this object.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CORRANCEmoved to leave out Clause 23, and insert the following clause:—
  (Payment for children in receipt of parochial allowance.)
  "The school Board shall pay the whole or any part of the school fees upon behalf of any child whose parents shall be in receipt of any parochial allowance, or for any child left chargeable to any person other than its parents; and such payment shall not be deemed to be parochial relief within the meaning of any Act for the maintenance of the indigent poor, either to the child or its parents in such case."
  He did not mean to say that the education of pauper children was wholly unprovided for; but the provision for their education was extremely small. The Commissioners in 1866 reported that a very large proportion of them were utterly destitute of education; for though the existing laws gave power to educate them, the law was not complied with, and the Commissioners went on to say that the best remedy would be to make the law compulsory. He believed that that was the state of things at the present time. His objection to the 23rd clause of the Bill was, that it left the matter optional, and not compulsory, with the guardians; but the guardians had never yet acted upon the law, and he feared that they never would do so unless compulsion was brought to bear upon them.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he had put upon the Paper a clause bearing upon this large and important question; but, after the discussion which had already been held, he should withdraw it, and he commended his example to the hon. Member (Mr. Corrance), because he was satisfied that in principle this was a matter which belonged to the administration of the Poor Law and not to education, and it would be better to postpone it until a distinct Bill could be brought forward to deal with it.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYmoved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 26:—
  (Enforcement by school Boards of the Industrial Schools Act.)
  "It shall be the duty of every school Board within whose district there is a certified industrial school to put in force, as far as possible, and, if necessary, by an officer of its own, the fourteenth section of the Industrial Schools Act; and the magistrate before whom neglected children are so brought may, if he think fit, send such as have a living parent or guardian to the industrial school for instruction only during the day; and the school Board may pay fees or grant pecuniary aid for the education of any neglected children whom they may cause to be sent to an industrial school.
  "Industrial schools to which a school Board shall contribute, and to which other contributions will, under the foregoing Clause, thereupon cease to be made, and industrial schools established by a school Board, shall be subject to the Education Department; and with respect to them, whenever the Secretary of State is named in the Industrial Schools Act the Education Department shall be understood; and the Inspector of such industrial schools shall be the same Inspector as is appointed to inspect other public elementary schools in the same district."
  He hoped the Government and the Committee would accept a portion, at all events, of the Amendment, and that before long they might have a considerable change introduced in the Industrial Schools Act, so as to make it correspond with this new educational system of the country. He wished it to be provided that where industrial schools existed they should be made use of; and, further, that the magistrates who committed children to them might commit them as day scholars and not as boarders in certain cases where those neglected children had a surviving parent or guardian. He also wished to provide that these schools, like the other schools under the school Board, should be supported by the same rates and under the same Educational Department. This

  261
  clause was objected to, he knew, by the managers of the industrial schools; but the objection was simply urged against the present conduct of the Education Office by managers who disliked its interference, and wished to retain unchecked control. There could be no material objection to taking publicly aided schools from under the Home Office, and placing them under the control of the Education Department. On the contrary, there was every reason of uniformity, of system, and economy for placing all national schools in the national school Department. If that Department needed altering, alter it.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought it would be wise to follow the old proverb and "let well alone." The clause was objected to by the managers of the industrial schools, who felt that it would be very unwise to hand over the discretionary powers which they possessed to another set of authorities who knew nothing whatever about the schools, and who would find it exceedingly difficult to carry out those powers with beneficial results.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, there were great and almost insurmountable difficulties in the way of the Education Department undertaking the care and supervision of those children, and also in the way of allowing children to be sent to industrial schools simply as day scholars. Nor would it be wise to compel the school Boards to put the Industrial Schools Act in force. The Government could not assent to the insertion of any regulation binding or even suggesting to the school Boards the adoption of that course. The question was a very difficult one, and though it might be met in amending the Industrial Schools Act, it had no place in this Bill. It might, however, be of advantage to give the school Boards power to appoint officers to put the Industrial Schools Act into force if they chose to do so, and he therefore proposed the following new clause in lieu of the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman:—
  "Every school Board may, if they think fit, appoint an officer, or officers, to enforce any bye-laws under this Act with reference to the attendance of children at school, and to bring children, who are liable under the Industrial Schools Act (1866) to be sent to a certified industrial school, before two justices in order to their being so sent, and any expenses incurred under this section may be paid out of the school fund."
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEagreed with his right hon. Friend in endeavouring to make industrial schools more efficient than at present; but he thought it would be wrong not to lay down the principle that detention in such schools was a punishment, for otherwise there would be no answer to those who asked why such an expensive education should be given to the children of dishonest parents. That detention in such schools was penal, or quasi penal, was proved by the way in which discipline was enforced under the Act: insubordination or absconding were punished by consignment to a reformatory, or by imprisonment. Again, it was considered of great importance that children should be kept away from their former associates. But if ordinary day scholars were sent to an industrial school to mix with the children who were detained there, the discipline of the establishment would be interfered with, and the day scholars might be corrupted by their associates. Those schools had no wish to be under the Education Department, their work not being education properly so called, but industrial training; and as the children there were committed by the magistrates, the Home Office seemed to be more appropriate, and it was quite a mistake to suppose that any penal stigma attached to the children after leaving the schools in consequence of that. The expenses of industrial schools were very much heavier than those of other schools, and they could not be saddled upon the rates. Under all the circumstances of the case it would be better to leave well alone, although the proposal of the Vice President would enable school Boards to put the law in motion, and would carry out his right hon. Friend's object to increase the efficiency of industrial schools.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he thought that the Amendment of the light hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) would be a serious injury to the industrial schools. The essence of the reformation carried out in these schools depended on the schools becoming the home of the children, and a permanent home influence being exercised in them. If children were admitted as day scholars the result would be contamination, and the spread of evil associations. Besides that, the opinion of the managers of industrial schools was almost universally against the proposal.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the children received into industrial schools were not criminals, but only children who had no visible means of subsistence. Criminal children were sent to the reformatories. He was, however, ready to take all he could obtain, and would accept the offer of the Vice President, looking forward with confidence to the operation of the clause.
  MR. T. HUGHESjoined in the protest against the assertion that industrial schools were schools for criminal children. The general rule was, that the children admitted should be destitute children not convicted of crime.
  New Clause (Sir Charles Adderley) negatived.
  Now Clause (Mr. Forster) agreed to.
  COLONEL DYOTTmoved the insertion of the following clause, after Clause 40:—
  "The Education Department shall make no order to direct that any parish shall be united to another parish for the purpose of forming a school district if such union be opposed by any number of ratepayers in the parish proposed to be united, being rated to the poor rate upon a rateable value of not less than one-half of the whole rateable value of such parish."
  There was no new principle in the clause, for it had been recognized over and over again by the Government in the course of this Bill. What he proposed was to give the ratepayers in a parish a more powerful voice in the management of their own affairs, particularly before their parish was united to any other parish for the purpose of forming an enlarged school district.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not, consistently with justice, accept the clause, for they had already provided that union should only take place after inquiry, and after hearing those parties in parishes who made representations against such a step. Following the suggestions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), he had on a previous occasion stated that words should be put into Clause 43 for this purpose. If persons who worked land in a parish worked outside of it, would it not be manifestly unfair that such a parish should not pay its proportion to the rate for the instruction of the children of parents whose labour lay naturally within its borders?
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, there might be a town in which there was a great deficiency of education; and near it a strictly agricultural parish, the property
  264
  of one landlord, in which there had been always school accommodation maintained by the landowner and the clergyman, and it would be a great hardship if the latter had to pay for the education of the former. This would lead to agitation and discontent; and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause of his hon. and gallant Friend.
  SIR GEORGE GREYdeclared that the adoption of the clause would be fatal to the operation of the Bill in the agricultural districts in the North of England, where there were ecclesiastical parishes for the most part arranged in townships, each occupied by a single farmer. If those townships were not combined for the purposes of the Bill, the measure would be inoperative in that part of the country, for the clause would allow a single farmer to put a veto on the union of the townships.
  MR. COLLINSadmitted that certain hardships would arise, but yet he could not support the clause, for there were many townships which were not so in any bonâ fide sense. He hoped the Vice President would see that real townships with sufficient school accommodation should not be subjected to what would clearly be a hardship.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved that the object in view was not to increase the rate, but merely to spread it more equally over the district. He should be sorry if any feeling was created of town against country; but, for the sake of economy and general convenience, he thought it would be necessary to unite country parishes to a considerable extent. He looked forward to the action of the Department in the union of parishes as one of their greatest responsibilities, and he did not think the Committee would gain in the interests of justice by attempting to prejudge the matter by any general rule. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dyott) would be satisfied with having brought the subject under the consideration of the Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would have been very glad if the right hon. Gentleman had assented to some clause to prevent people being married against their will. They might depend on it that if they joined two parishes of which the inhabitants of one were dissentients they would got up what was called a "very awkward resistance." People very often

  265
  said—"You do not know how awkward we can be if we like." Now, everybody wished the Bill to work smoothly, and he did not know anything which would induce so many people to go against it as taking one parish and joining it to another against the will of one or the other. It would be a great security if some portion of the Bill would guard against this. It was a great thing that people should go willingly, for unless they had the will of the people with them in this matter they would be able to do nothing. They might do a great deal by leading them; but if they wished to drive them they would find that people were like pigs, and when driven went all manner of ways.
  DR. BREWERsaid, he thought it was better to leave the matter to the Education Department, for the union of parishes might conduce to economy by preventing the needless multiplication of schools.
  COLONEL DYOTT, in reply, asked why should the state of the parishes in the North of England be considered a sufficient ground for such legislation? Because the parishes in the North of England were divided into townships they were asked to legislate as if all parishes were thus divided. [Sir GEORGE GREY: The township is a parish under the Bill.] In that case they would take their place side by side with the other parishes, and be treated in the same way. It was manifestly unjust that a number of parishes should be rated alike, while the school accommodation was quite different.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. STAPLETONmoved, after Clause 65, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Dissolution of school Boards.)
  "In case the average attendance of children at school in any school district shall fall ten per cent below the average attendance in other school districts in which the school Board is elected in the same manner as in the district in which such failure in attendance takes place, or in the case of the metropolis or of towns which are not boroughs below the average attendance in boroughs, or in any case below the average attendance in the county in which the district where such failure occurs is situated, the Education Department may dissolve the school Board of the district in which such failure takes place, and order the election of another school Board in its stead; and no member of the board so dissolved shall be eligible to be a member of the new Board unless he shall be expressly exempted from such disability by an order of the said Department."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not accept the clause. If the power of dissolving school Boards upon such grounds were vested in the Education Department, he did not see how they could exercise it.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LAIRDproposed, after Clause 78, to insert the following Clauso:—
  (Provision for certain districts under Improvement Commissioners.)
  "Where any place not situate in the metropolis, or in a borough, is within the jurisdiction of any Commissioners intrusted by a local Act with the improvement of such place, and has under any general or local Act a separate police establishment, and consists of an entire parish or entire parishes, such place shall be a school district within the moaning of this Act, in like manner as if it were a borough and the said Commissioners were the council; but the local rate and the rating authority in such place shall be respectively the poor rate and the overseers."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the proposition was a very natural one for the hon. Gentleman to make; but in its terms it would be impossible for the Government to accept it, for this reason—the constituency of the Commissioners of Birkenhead was a limited constituency—only £10 ratepayers; and to give the election of the school Board to these Commissioners would be contrary to the principle of this Bill, which required that the parents of children should have a voice in the election of the Board. With the leave of the Committee he would state the change in the clause which the Government proposed to make. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that a discussion recently took place upon the question whether the elections should be carried on in the boroughs indirectly through the Town Council, or directly through the ratepayers, as in the country parishes. The Government, on that occasion, did not conceal their opinion from the House that there were strong arguments on both sides, and that they would be willing to be guided by the opinion of the House. He had stated that the Government adhered to the intention originally stated in the Bill, and he still thought that they had done right in proposing to place the elections in the hands of the Town Councils in boroughs, because by so doing they avoided the contention which might attend an annual election by the ratepayers, and because,

  267
  in the large boroughs, at all events, the Town Councils were likely to be exceedingly good bodies for the election of school Boards. But it was impossible to deny that the strength of the arguments against the indirect election of school Boards had been much increased by the changes which had been made in the Bill. Among other reasons, they had decided that the election in the metropolis should not be conducted through the Common Council, and after hesitating to intrust this duty to so distinguished a body as the Common Council in the City, it was difficult to maintain the elections by the Councils in provincial towns. Again, in many large provincial towns—towns with frequently 10,000, 12,000, or 15,000 inhabitants—there were no Town Councils, and in these places the elections would have to be conducted by the ratepayers. They had, too, admitted into the Bill principles which would make it very difficult to apply the principle of indirect representation. They had, for instance, changed the elections from annual to triennial, and there was no doubt that the body electing the school Board ought to represent the feelings of the ratepayers at the time of the election. In Town Councils, however, though there were fresh elections every year, it was only to the extent of a third of the members. The Government had, though with reluctance, come to the conclusion that, having admitted the principle of direct representation in so large a portion of the country, and especially in the metropolis, they were bound to adopt it generally, and, therefore, on the bringing up of the Report, the Government would be prepared to accept this change.
  MR. DIXONsaid, he hoped that if Government adopted such a clause as that proposed, they would except Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham from its operation. The Corporation of the City of London could not be said to represent the whole of the ratepayers of the metropolis; whereas in the large towns to which he had referred the share in the election of Town Councillors was general.
  MR. COLLINScongratulated the Vice President of the Council upon having come to the determination that the school Boards should in all cases be elected directly, as it was not likely that the men best qualified to act on those Boards
  268
  would be found in such a turbulent body as a Town Council.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he would not press his Amendment after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MUNDELLAbelieved that in the large towns the proposed change in the mode of election would deprive the schools of the services of some of the best men. Clergymen and Dissenting ministers would not stand a contest if they had to appeal to 20,000 or 30,000 ratepayers.
  MR. MELLYsaid, he hoped that the election would not be fixed for the month of November, when the elections for Town Councillors was held, but would be fixed at an earlier period of the year, when they would not be mixed up with political elections.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that direct elections in large towns would be an act of extreme impolicy. Such elections would be attended with religious acrimony, party bitterness, and enormous expense. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his determination to throw over the Town Councils.
  MR. J. S. HARDYthanked the Vice President of the Council for his intention to make the change. He could assure him that in the small towns there would be no confidence whatever in the school Boards if they were elected by the Town Council.
  MR. WHITWELLdeprecated election by the ratepayers.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEbelieved the change contemplated by the Government would be eminently satisfactory to most large towns.
  MR. BAINESsaid, these popular elections ran in exactly the same groove, and were managed by the same people. Town Councils would be far more likely to make an honourable compromise between the different parties, political and religious, and would make a more impartial and more intelligent selection than the ratepayers.
  MR. GLADSTONEsuggested that they should reserve the discussion of this question till the Report was brought up. The Committee was going to decide presently a question with regard to the mode of election, which had an important bearing on the subject, and it would be eminently desirable that they should postpone the matter upon which they were now engaged until the Report.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRAVESrose to move the following clause:—
  (Schools on board training ships.)
  "A school Board may, if they think fit, with the consent of the Education Department, provide, establish, and maintain a school on board of a training ship for boys not liable to be sent to a reformatory or industrial school, and grant pecuniary assistance to any such school not provided by them; but every such school shall be conducted as a public elementary school."
  He wished that the same privileges should be enjoyed by the virtuously destitute classes as were enjoyed by the criminal classes, and that some help should be given from the rates to valuable institutions which were struggling to maintain themselves in various ports. He hoped there would be no objection to giving a power which could only be permissive, and which could only be exercised with the sanction of the Privy Council. He, therefore, moved the new clause with the greatest confidence.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the question had been two or three times before the Committee. School Boards had power to establish schools for neglected children, and there was nothing to prevent these schools being on board ships, if they came within the definition of public elementary schools. That would depend upon the regulations of the Revised Code, and he had already promised that the question should be fully considered in the further revision of the Code. The Department had been left perfectly free by the elision of the definitions which would have excluded the schools referred to. They could not, however, give power to Boards to spend money for other than educational purposes.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he would be content with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NORWOOD, on the same assurance, withdrew a new clause for extending to ragged schools and to schools in orphan homes the operations of the Act.
  First Schedule.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved the Amendment in the first Schedule rendered necessary by the acceptance of a metropolitan school Board.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MAJOR GENERAL FORESTERmoved, First Schedule, page 27, line 29, after
  270
  "Oxford." insert "and Wenlock." His reason for doing so was that the borough was so extensive, being 15 miles in length, and that it included 13 parishes, several of them in different Poor Law Unions. On these grounds he thought the borough should be put on the same footing as agricultural boroughs without municipal councils or corporations, such as Shoreham and Aylesbury. As this was an exceptional case he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the request he made, which had been supported by Petitions not only from Wenlock, but also from most of the parishes in the borough.
  MR. BROWNseconded the Amendment, and said that the extent of the borough was 30,000 acres, that it contained a population of 25,000 and that it was impossible for a rate levied upon the whole borough to be spent equally for the benefit of the whole borough. He supposed no other place had so strong a claim to consideration.
  Amendment proposed, First Schedule, page 27, line 29, after "Oxford," to insert "and Wenlock."—(General Forester.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was sorry he could not accede to the Amendment. Oxford was put in an exceptional position merely with reference to the rating of the University, and he did not think that the case of Wenlock was so strong or so exceptional as it had been represented to be. It was one of many similar cases, and he did not see how he could depart from the principle of considering a borough a unit. He supposed the place was proud of its position, and it must take the disadvantages as well as the advantages of being a municipal borough. He did not see how they could deviate from the principle he had laid down without sacrificing the borough unit altogether. It must be remembered that they were dealing solely with municipal boroughs and not with Parliamentary boroughs, and it might be that in this case the municipal borough had a large area; but they must take it as they found it.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if the Government had adhered to their original proposal of the election of school Boards by Town Councils, the opposition to the Amendment would have been tenable; but, as they now proposed that the ratepayers should

  271
  elect the school Boards, he could not see that there was much force in the objection to the proposed Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not accept the conclusion that the question of the body which was to elect had anything whatever to do with considering the borough the unit, or with the area over which the rate was to extend.
  MR. GILPINsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment, because he could name a dozen places that were in the same position as Wenlock.
  Amendment negatived.
  First Schedule agreed to, with Amendments.
  On Motion of Mr. W. E. FORSTER, New Second Schedule brought up, and read the first and second time.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "held," in paragraph 1 of the Rules (Election by a Council), to the end of paragraph 30 of the General Rules, in order to insert the words "at such time and in such manner, and in accordance with such regulations, as the Education Department may from time to time by order prescribe, and the Education Department may appoint or direct the appointment of any officers requisite for the purpose of such election: Provided, That any poll shall be taken by a secret Ballot."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERadmitted the importance of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and it would be convenient that he should state how the Government proposed to deal with the Schedule and the Amendment. No doubt there was inconvenience in having imparted into this difficult educational question the question of the Ballot. The Government were anxious not to prejudge the question either way as regarded the great principle of the Ballot. But as regarded the question of education, it was thought desirable on the second reading to make it quite clear throughout the country that the votes of parents should be given freely and fairly; and therefore, without prejudging the question of Ballot in the matter of Parliamentary or municipal elections, there were serious reasons for adopting the Ballot in elections of school Boards under this Bill. The Ballot already existed in many bodies similar to those which would have to elect the school Board. Under the Metropolis Management Act the Ballot was part of the machinery, and elections, therefore, were constantly going on in London conducted by Ballot. He had himself gone into the City to see a Ballot
  272
  for a popular election. It was a contested election for vestrymen, and the Ballot was taken under Sir Benjamin Hall's Act of 1855. There might be objections to the working of the machinery; but it was evident to him that every voter who wished to give his vote secretly might do so. London would probably be the very first place where a school Board would have to be elected, and, therefore, they would have been prejudging the question against Ballot if they had said that it should not be used under this Bill. But then his hon. Friend increased the difficulty by insisting that the Ballot must be secret; meaning thereby that the voter should be obliged to give his vote secretly. He thought they had enough difficulty on their hands without taking on themselves that responsibility. How, then, could they arrange practically for the election of these Boards? They had already agreed to the adoption of the cumulative vote, and they had endeavoured to frame a Schedule containing the necessary regulations. He could not, however, rely on it to meet all the difficulties; and it would be a great convenience if the Committee assented to the proposition of his hon. Friend, giving them the power to make the regulations. On the other hand, he could not expect the House or the Committee to leave this matter with carte blanche in their hands. That would be unreasonable. He, therefore, proposed that the Committee should accept the principle of his hon. Friend's Amendment with this understanding—that the order to be made should be enforced for every election tip to the 1st of September next year, but not afterwards unless confirmed by Parliament. In the mean time, the question of the Ballot generally would not be prejudged, and he hoped that by next year it would be finally settled by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman then stated the alterations which he intended to propose.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEobserved that, considering the right hon. Gentleman's desire to get this Bill passed speedily, and, as far as possible, unanimously, through the House, he was astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's audacity in foisting in at the fag-end of the Bill the difficult and perplexed question of the Ballot. This was the more surprising, inasmuch as the Ballot had never yet been a Ministerial question;

  273
  it had only hitherto been a crotchet of private Members. Such a plan as this was unconstitutional, and he objected to this sort of pilot-balloon measure, which could only have the effect of frustrating legislation on sound and broad principles.
  MR. JAMESobjected to the adoption of so important a principle as the Ballot by a side wind and without a fair and full discussion, without which it was unreasonable to expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to yield up opinions to which they held very strongly. He was one of those who had brought themselves, however unwillingly, to believe that the Ballot was a necessity; but he could not deny that there were many and strong arguments in favour of open voting; and in deference to the opinions of those who were adverse to the Ballot, and in justice to the Ballot itself, he objected to this mode of determining this great and radical change. He would suggest an Amendment, authorizing the Education Board to determine the mode of election for 12 months. By striking out the words providing for secret voting, his hon. Friend would render assistance to the cause of the Ballot much more than by taking advantage of the present state of the House.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to know the question really before the Committee. Was it the question of the Ballot?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea, which involved the omission from the Schedule of certain passages relating to Ballot.
  MR. HIBBERTreminded the hon. Gentleman opposite that the principle of the Ballot was not, as he appeared to believe, new in this country, because the principle was embodied in an Act passed in 1831, relating to the election of Boards of Guardians, and which provided that on the requisition of five ratepayers, the poll should be taken by Ballot. Considering that there had been upon the statute book for nearly 40 years an acknowledgment of this principle, he thought the Committee might properly adopt it for a year, until the greater measure was passed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope), demurred to the remark made by the hon. Gentleman that the Government were "foisting in" this question.
  274
  The intention of the Government to accept this principle had been before the House for weeks, for it was one of the first alterations which the Government agreed to make in consequence of the discussion on the second reading of the Bill; and the discussions had since been conducted on the understanding that the Government intended to accept it, and hon. Members on his side of the House would have a right to complain if they now departed from the principle. The power was only asked for for one year, and surely that would leave the House uncommitted on the question. Under 18 & 19 Vict. vestry elections were by Ballot; and, therefore, unless the voting for school Boards was by Ballot, the Committee would undo that principle in such districts, and the Government would also be departing from the pledge given by the Prime Minister.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that when he used the word complained of, he simply referred to the place which the subject occupied in the Bill. He contended that the Committee were put in a false position by this proposal. It ought not to have been made in a Schedule, but should have formed part of the Bill, and then it would have come under consideration earlier in their proceedings. He did not want to alter the status quo in districts where the Ballot now prevailed.
  MR. W. FOWLERreminded the hon. Member that large majorities in that House had pronounced in favour of the Ballot, and if the Government abandoned the principle in the Bill, it would be thought that they had given it up altogether. He hoped the Government would stand firm on this question.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the application of the Ballot in the election of school Boards by municipal corporations, so far from having been before the country for weeks, had only just been before the House, and in the case of municipal corporations it had hitherto been understood that the elections were to be by open voting. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to resist or accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it had been stated and understood in the discussions weeks ago that the election was to be by Ballot. The Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend with the additional words he had stated,

  275
  and with the omission of the words "a secret." He asked his hon. Friend to omit these words, because two interpretations were given to them. What he understood the clause to mean was that any election for school Boards held before September 1 of next year should be by Ballot; and it was limited for a year in order that the House should not be pledged upon the general question.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that if he had thought the Ballot had been mixed up with this question he should not have been found voting for the second reading of the Bill. Nobody expected that in such a measure vote by Ballot was to be introduced, complicating the education question, and separating, by a strong line of demarcation, one side of the House from the other. He had entertained great hopes that the Bill would have gone quietly through the House with the consent and sanction of all parties, for all were alike deeply interested in the education of the people. But they differed on the Ballot, and he would take every opportunity of opposing it, for he regarded it as a most un-English practice. In whatever position a man might be placed when the responsibility devolved on him of choosing another man to fill any office, he was bound to give his vote in the face of day, showing thereby that he voted conscientiously for the best man. He ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would reconsider the question. He had proved himself well worthy of the position he occupied, and he (Colonel Barttelot) hoped the right hon. Gentleman, who had conducted the measure in that House in the most conciliatory manner, would not now at the last moment throw into the discussion this apple of discord, which might endanger the ultimate passing of the Bill. It depended entirely on him and on the Government whether the Bill would soon receive the Royal Assent or not. If they waited for another year, and the Ballot was carried—which, however, he hoped would not be the case—then they could adjust its machinery to all other matters, as well as to Parliamentary elections. Mixing up such a question as that dealt with generally in the Bill with the Ballot was unfair to the country, and was characterized by more unwisdom than any proposal which had hitherto been made by the Government.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he thought it unfair that, at the end of the consideration in Committe of this important Bill, the question of the Ballot should have been brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman had said the Ballot would be prejudiced if the Bill was passed without sanctioning that mode of voting. That was an unfortunate declaration, for it challenged the opinion of Parliament on the subject. He did not entertain such strong objections to the Ballot as many persons, his feeling with regard to it depending very much on the way in which it was carried out. If it did not secure secretary and protection for the voter it would become a great nuisance and abomination, and he did not believe that simply by the delivery of voting-papers secretary would be secured among the great mass of the people. In order that the Bill might not be endangered elsewhere, the Ballot should be eliminated from the Bill. In that case the Ballot would be adopted in London and other places where the Ballot at present prevailed, and would be excluded only from places where there was no evidence that it would be acceptable.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he could not help feeling that the good vessel Education was now getting into troubled waters. He denied that there was a general and fair impression in the minds of hon. Gentlemen that the question of the Ballot was to be mixed up with education. This was the real question. Hon. Members opposite had contended that the Education Bill should not drown the Ballot; but he (Mr. Scourfield) thought it was just as likely that the Ballot would drown education.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he would so far consent to modify his Amendment that he would omit the word "secret;" but he must remark that what the hon. Member (Mr. Cawley) had said about there being a Ballot in London now must be greatly qualified, because there was no security for protection, and the people did not care about it, so far as the election of the guardians was concerned. It would be a very different thing in the rural districts where the greatest interest would be felt in the election of school Boards.
  MR. HERMONsaid, that if he voted on the present occasion against the proposal under consideration, he might be supposed to be altogether opposed to the

  277
  Ballot; but his vote on the Ballot would very much depend on the nature of the Ballot Bill, when it was introduced in its amended form, for he was of opinion that the Ballot, unless it secured secretary, would do more harm than good. He should not vote for or against the Amendment, but reserve himself on the question of Ballot until he could vote in an independent manner, when the question of the Ballot was brought before the House in its true shape.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Vice President had made a complaint of the hardship of having incidentally in the Education Bill to decide on the constitution of the government of the metropolis, and also to deal with the vexed question of the Ballot. But the Amendment of which he had given Notice would relieve the right hon. Gentleman of the difficulty so far as the Ballot was concerned. Neither in the country nor in that House was there the slightest wish that the Ballot should be insinuated—he would not say foisted, as that word was objected to—into a Schedule of the Education Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman now told them it had been discovered since the second reading of the Bill there were purely educational reasons for establishing a great code of regulations for vote by Ballot. He had listened in vain for those educational reasons. The right hon. Gentleman said it was of great importance that in the country the parents of children should give their votes freely and fairly in the election of school Boards; but why was this distinction made between the parents of children in the rural districts and those of children in the towns? It was a most unworthy imputation against local management in the rural districts, where they exercised their franchise as fully and freely as the ratepayers in the metropolitan boroughs. He altogether denied that the Ballot was necessary to protect the parents of children in the rural districts. At last the Government had come to an agreement with the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke). There was an amicable arrangement between the two champions of the different kinds of Ballot. The Government accepted the major proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, and he, in turn, with many protestations, yielded his favourite word "secret." But what did it all come to? That for the first year—
  278
  the crucial year, when the Boards were to be set up, the Education Department would, all over the country, have absolute power to dictate in what mode these elections for school Boards should be conducted. But at whose expense was the machinery for this noble mode of voting, prescribed by a public office in Whitehall, to be carried out? Why, it was to be carried out at the expense of the ratepayers; and they were told that if they did not, without discussion, examination, or deliberation adopt this vague mode of voting, the general question of the Ballot would be prejudged. Nothing could be more absurd. His own opinion was, that if anything was calculated to prejudge that question it was the very course now being adopted by the Government. He maintained that great expense must necessarily attend the adoption of the principle of the Ballot in the case of the Education Bill. There must be polling places; there must be Ballot machines, such, he supposed, as those to which their attention had recently been called. Each machine of that sort, he understood, was estimated to cost £150. Then, too, unless the whole thing was a mockery and a sham there must be a whole army of assessors, means and men to secure the secretary of vote by Ballot. All this machinery would have to be provided, and at the expense of the ratepayers—it must actually be paid out of the education rate. Would not this tend to make the rate, which would be sufficiently unpopular, perfectly odious? The Vice President urged them to adopt the Ballot in connection with education, and hoped that the general question would be settled next Session. He did not, however, adduce any argument for adopting such a system in the hasty and unsatisfactory manner that was now proposed. If it was the intention of the Government not to proceed with the Ballot for Parliamentary and municipal elections this year, was not that an argument for not proceeding with it this year in regard to education? Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell them that next year he would propose that all Parliamentary elections should be taken by Ballot, but that municipal, Poor Law, and other elections should continue to be carried on as now by open and not by secret voting? If he did not mean that, why introduce the Ballot by this extraordinary

  279
  side wind, enormously increasing the local taxation of the country? The right hon. Gentleman said that in London, under the Metropolitan Management Act, the election of vestrymen was by Ballot; but the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea said that was a perfectly futile and inoperative mode of Ballot. He would ask why they should follow the analogy presented by the voting in the London Vestries instead of that presented by the voting for Poor Law Guardians. These elections were conducted at an inconceivably small expense and without annoyance or inconvenience to the ratepayers. In the election the other day at St. Pancras, for instance, a parish with 150,000 ratepayers, where 35,000 votes were recorded, and where the excitement was as great as it was at an ordinary Parliamentary election, the whole expenses to the ratepayers was only £213. But, with the plan proposed by the Government, with polling-places, the Ballot-box, and an army of clerks, to secure secretary, such an election would cost 10 or 20 times as much. He had reserved his opinion with respect to the more general measure which the Government had before the House, because it should be remembered that there was this vital distinction, that while the expense of the Ballot in the case of Parliamentary elections was to be thrown upon the candidate, in the election of the school Boards the expense would be borne by the ratepayers. He could not, holding these opinions, therefore help censuring the Government for endeavouring to force the Ballot upon the ratepayers of the country in a manner never anticipated or expected; and in the interests of the ratepayers, in the interests of the great cause of education, and he would add in the interests of the Ballot itself, he entreated the Committee to reject this proposal.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that the noble Lord had unduly inflated the magnitude of the question. He had stated that next year would be the crucial year for the formation of school Boards. He (Mr. Forster), however, believed that, with the exception of the metropolis, it was difficult to say whether any school Board would be formed at all next year. The only two cases in which they were sure of such Boards being elected were first in the metropolis, where the Ballot already existed;
  280
  and secondly, in those districts, which might call at once for them. On the second reading of the Bill the Government, in view of the religious difficulty, felt themselves bound to provide that the election of school Boards in the country should be conducted freely and fairly, and therefore by the Ballot; and accordingly, after Whitsuntide, he gave Notice of Amendments, one of which was the Ballot, and it remained on the Notice Paper from that time to the present. He would remind the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) that it was impossible to allow the law to remain exactly as it now was, because the House had imposed upon the Government the adoption of a new form of voting, the now principle of cumulative voting, and the Government were pledged to make special regulations for carrying out the principle. They must decide whether it should be done by Ballot or not. For educational reasons they pledged themselves to legislate in favour of the Ballot; and they would certainly be prejudging the question if they adopted any other principle, such as that suggested by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), and carried out in the elections of the Poor Law Guardians.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he did not intend that they should leave the law as it stood, but that they should leave the present mode of voting as it stood by law. He would remind the Committee that the proposal was entirely new, for it had never been proposed that the elections in the large municipal boroughs should be taken by Ballot. It was not until within the last two or three hours he knew that the Government announced their intention on the subject. It was previously understood that the elections should be vested in the Town Councils, and he heard during the dinner hour that the change had been announced by the Government. The Committee should also bear in mind that if only two or three elections were to be held during the next 12 months, there could be no harm in retaining the present mode of voting during that period. This new proposal would introduce an apple of discord which he thought would endanger the passing of the measure.
  COLONEL CORBETTsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman, in his anxiety to avoid the great oppression which he fancied would be exercised in rural districts,

  281
  was preventing a large number of persons from voting who ought to record their opinions in regard to the election of school Boards. In many districts a great number of ratepayers would be unable to vote unless the polling-places were close to their residences. Consequently, either the ratepayers must be put to enormous expense for providing numerous polling-places, or else a large number of people would be unable to record their votes.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had listened with astonishment and dismay to the present discussion. It had been stated that this proposal for the Ballot had been for a long time on the face of the Bill; and, though he admitted this to be quite true, it was obvious that the Committee could not discuss the question until it was brought under their notice. There were surely enough difficulties in the way of the Education Bill; and, as a friend to education, who was desirous to see this measure pass, he asked why, in the name of common sense, the Government should embarrass its progress by a most unnecessary and extravagant proposal. During the last 20 years Parliament had been considering the difficulties of an Education Bill, and during that period there had been repeated battles on the subject of the Ballot. Why should the present measure be complicated by the introduction of a mode of voting which was strongly objected to by many hon. Members—not on party grounds, but on principle? He had always opposed the Ballot on principle, being of opinion that all public functions ought to be discharged openly and in the face of day. He could not conceive any greater unwisdom than the complication of the Bill by unnecessarily importing into it a mode of voting which formed the subject of differences between different classes in that House.
  MR. DIXONsaid, that hon. Members opposite were now doing what they had charged them with doing—namely, throwing impediments in the way of passing the Bill. If the Government were now to recede from the principle of the Ballot, it would render them most unpopular with their party.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, arguments like those used by the last speaker were not calculated to have much influence with those who sat on
  282
  the Opposition side of the House. The disputes of the Government with their supporters below the Gangway did not interest that side of the House any more than the quarrels of those with whom they were not in the least connected. They looked upon them with amusement and occasionally with contempt; but they were not led thereby to adopt measures contrary to their own principles. He entertained the greatest respect for his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, who had acted with reference to this subject of education in a manner which must do him honour in the eyes of the public, and would not make him so unpopular as the Member for Birmingham seemed to suppose. He was astonished, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should ask the Committee to commit to his hands, or to the hands of any other person, the mode of the election of the members of the school Boards. The Committee was asked to allow the Education Department to determine how the voting should be conducted with regard to a question which would not raise animosities, as the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) thought, but which would furnish a number of posts that would not be much coveted by persons engaged in the political arena. These places would, he believed, be given to and sought by educationists, and not by a clique of politicians, as would have been the case if the election had been vested in the Town Councils. The right hon. Gentleman had stated his views as to the mode of election, and of all the comic means of keeping secretary, those adopted by the Government in the matter of the Ballot were the most extraordinary. There were to be two nominators and eight seconders for each candidate, and consequently the Government which desired to secure the secretary of every man's vote insisted on some 500 or 600 porsons—as far as the metropolis alone was concerned—declaring their opinions, for, unless they were the greatest hypocrites, they would vote in accordance with the opinions they had declared. However, they would have an opportunity of going into a secret corner and voting against the persons they had proposed or seconded. The Department intrusted with educating the people in moral principles was to inaugurate this system of hypocrisy, treachery, and baseness. He had reluctantly

  283
  sacrificed many of his opinions in order that the Bill might be carried; but he warned the Government that the question before the Committee was not one of education at all. Having brought in a Ballot Bill, and finding they could not carry it this year, the Government had determined to throw dust into the eyes of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway by offering them the Ballot in a matter with which comparatively it had no concern whatever. He told the Government that if they thought they were going to carry the measure in its integrity with the Ballot in it, they would find themselves grievously mistaken. He had sat upon a Committee which had investigated that subject, and he was prepared for a discussion on it when the proper occasion arrived. This was an invasion of all the principles by which they ought to be actuated. Bills were introduced, read a second time, and carried into Committee, reported, and read a third time. What was the course adopted by the Government in reference to the present Bill? It was read a second time, with no such principle as the Ballot in it at all; but, on the contrary, containing a totally different principle. The Bill went into Committee in the same condition as it was in at the second reading. At the suggestion of several hon. Members the Bill was amended pro formâ; but nothing was said about the Ballot at the time. An hon. Member with a powerful imagination had an impression it was in the original Bill; but this was not so. But in the Bill as amended pro formâ the Ballot appeared in a Schedule quite different from the one now before the Committee. Thus, the Ballot provision was introduced in Committee, never having been read a first time, and placed in a Bill to which it was wholly inappropriate. If over there was a case in which the arguments against the Ballot were strong, it was in regard to its introduction in a measure of this kind. It was applied, too, in a perfectly new principle, for the Ballot had never yet been adopted for a cumulative system. He asked, was this a reasonable thing to do in an Education Bill? Hon. Members opposite had been very urgent in their recommendations that the House should divest itself of party feeling and discuss the measure with calmness and moderation, and then, by way of promoting calmness,
  284
  they had introduced a question which had been agitating the political mind for the last 50 years, and which had nothing to do with the subject of the Bill to boot. He could not discover what were the educational reasons for the Ballot referred to by the right hon. Gentleman; but he wished to remind the Committee of the most important arguments brought before it by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) in respect to the unfairness of a rate. The question of expense was no small element in the consideration of this point in the case of a district composed of 40,000 or 50,000 voters. Which was the cheapest way of conducting an election, to carry the poll to the voters or to oblige the voters to go to the poll? The polling of 40,000 or 50,000 voters by the first process would cost £100 or £200; but if the whole machinery of booths, election agents, and canvassers were introduced, the cost would be more like £2,000, and that would be the beginning of the educational charge upon the rates. He wished to know what would be gained by this. Hon. Gentlemen talked of some extraordinary pressure which was to be put upon the electors; but that was a farce and a folly, a sham and a delusion. No doubt, at some contests pressure would be exerted on one side and on the other, from above and from below, pressure which was perfectly legitimate and beneficial, and pressure which he would reprehend as decidedly as any other; but in the case of the election of these school Boards none of those dangers need be anticipated, for nobody could suppose that these offices would be so coveted that there would be partizan candidates such as appeared at municipal or Parliamentary elections. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had taunted them with turning against the Education Bill. It was no such thing; they objected to the Ballot, which had nothing to do with the measure, and they objected only to that and to foisting secret voting into a Bill in a way which could only educate the people in hypocrisy and fraud. ["Oh!"] He did not expect hon. Members opposite to agree with him; he simply expressed his views, and he trusted no one would desire him to profess any other opinion but his own. If the Government found any difficulty in passing this

  285
  Bill, they had the satisfaction of knowing they had brought it on themselves; this difficulty would arise not from any want of support from the Opposition with regard to the educational measure itself, but because the Government had thought it necessary to insinuate into the Bill, at the last moment, principles which had no connection with it, and which if they pressed would inevitably result in the rejection of the Bill itself.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made a somewhat heated speech. ["No, no!"] When he had quoted some passages from it he would leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to judge whether the description was not correct, but for the present he would withdraw that remark. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by saying that the disputes of the Government with their supporters below the Gangway did not interest him. He might be permitted to observe that nobody troubled the right hon. Gentleman with any request to undertake that office. It was not at all necessary. Mr. Mill had spoken of the Liberal party as constituting a sort of Broad Church, in which differences of opinion amongst themselves were tolerated, and he (Mr. Gladstone) thought it would be a long time before they had occasion to appeal to anyone sitting on the opposite Benches to undertake an office which no one had a right to intrude upon them. But if the Liberal party habitually tolerated differences amongst themselves, he must take the liberty of observing that there was another party which, though not perhaps so tolerant of them habitually, was exceedingly tolerant of them upon occasions when they thought subjects material to the public interests were involved. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the differences amongst the Liberal party in terms which in other moments he would probably repent. The right hon. Gentleman said that when he saw the differences of opinion between the different classes of persons on that side they were sometimes the subject of amusement to him. That was perfectly fair, and it was some satisfaction to know that if they could not supply the right hon. Gentleman with anything better, they could at least amuse him. But he went on to say that he sometimes viewed these differences with contempt. He (Mr. Gladstone) was bound to say
  286
  that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman made use of that expression in a period of momentary warmth; because, if that was not so, he must assert respectfully but firmly that that was not a word which ought to be applied by a Member of that House, and still less by one who had held high Office under the Crown, to differences which he might think erroneous. ["No, no!"] At any rate, if hon. Members on the other side claimed that as a proper style of language, in which to refer to any differences of opinion between different sections of the House, he trusted that the claim would be confined to the other side, and would not extend beyond it. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government had introduced a Bill with reference to secret voting when they knew they could not pass it. The Government did not deserve that imputation. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to name any Government which had worked harder for the purpose of passing through the House the Bills it had introduced. When the Government had filled the days and nights of this year as it had with subjects of the greatest importance, did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that they were so poor in credit that they required to bring in a Bill on the subject of secret voting for the sake of maintaining their reputation, or that they could stoop to bring in such a Bill with the knowledge that they could not pass it?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. What he said was, that when the Government found they could not pass the Bill they had introduced, they adopted this mode of dealing with the question. He did not say that the Government had introduced the Bill with the view of its not passing.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government brought in that Bill knowing that they could not pass it; but he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had now fully convoyed to him what was his meaning. But he could not help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman also went beyond the limits which were fairly allowable to a Member of that House, when he took upon his own responsibility to assure the Committee that if a majority of this House passed the Education Bill, with a provision

  287
  as to secret voting, they would find that they were mistaken in expecting the Bill to pass. The right hon. Gentleman might be perfectly entitled to entertain that as his opinion; but he had no title to announce it as a conviction. Therefore, he thought he was justified in stating that warmth of the moment had characterized some portions of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. However, it was much more pleasant to think not of this or that isolated expression, but of the friendly and liberal manner in which the right hon. Gentleman, and those who sat near him, had striven, in all their proceedings hitherto on that Bill, to promote the purpose which they held in common with the Government, even at the expense of many of their individual opinions. He would endeavour to forget the matters of which he had felt it his duty to speak, and address himself to the charges which had been made against the Government by the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). These charges were chiefly two. In the first place, it was said they were introducing into the Education Bill a proposal totally inconsistent with education; and, secondly, that the matter which they were thus thrusting into the Education Bill was in the nature of a serious innovation, which hon. Members opposite were entitled and felt themselves called upon to resist to the utmost. He wished to contest both these propositions. There was another point, relating to the amount of discretion to be reserved to the Education Department; but that was a matter which might be easily arranged, and it had nothing to do with the real question at issue. The Government contended that the Ballot was, under present circumstances, closely and logically connected with education. This was a Rating Bill, and it was necessary by it to provide means of election; and thus, by an indissoluble bond, the provisions they were making for promoting national education were interwoven with the absolute necessity of dealing with modes of local election. The Ballot was equally connected with the subject as regarded the history of the case, because it was admitted that in the debate upon the second reading of the Education Bill they declared that they felt it to be absolutely necessary to secure, as far as possible, the personal
  288
  freedom and independence of the parents in these elections, and to make that consideration paramount in their provisions with regard to the constitutions and the mode of election of the Boards. The pledge contained in that declaration the Government had redeemed by introducing before the month of May had expired the provisions which were now under discussion, and which were intended to give the utmost independence of action to those who elected the Boards. In reply to the allegation that the introduction of the Ballot as the mode of election was an innovation, he would ask, was that statement true? If this was the first occasion on which secret voting was used to carry out a particular purpose, then the objections of the opponents of the measure might be, in a great measure, justified. But this was not the case. There were two laws on the statute book recognizing and justifying secret voting in connection with local and particular purposes. The first was the Metropolitan Local Management Act, where it was compulsory, and the second was the Vestries Act, for the better regulation of vestries, where it was optional, but so optional that it might be demanded by any five ratepayers. Now, when was this Bill passed? Was it a recent innovation—was it the fruit of household suffrage—was it the fruit, even, of the £10 householder suffrage? No; it was in an Act passed in the reign of William IV., but before the introduction of the first Reform Bill, that this innovation which was so greatly condemned by some opponents was introduced. It was impossible, under these circumstances, to look upon the present proposal as an unheard-of innovation, now sought for the first time to be thrust upon Parliament. It was clear that the system of secret voting had already been applied to cases where it was important to secure independence of election for purposes of local government. Here was a now purpose of local government, in which it was most essential that independence of election should be maintained, and, accordingly, Her Majesty's Government had resorted to the method recognized by Parliament before the first Reform Bill as being the best to secure that end. And had there been any extraordinary demand made upon hon. Gentlemen opposite? He confidentially asked them to admit this, that they had

  289
  reduced to the lowest possible point the claim they made upon them; they felt that with the great question of the mode of taking Parliamentary elections so close impending, they might naturally feel a jealousy which, however, the Parliament of William IV. did not appear to have felt—that they were called upon to give a vote which might afterwards be cited as a precedent against them. But then look at the position of the Government. They must either ask hon. Gentlemen to yield something, or they must make a great, and as they felt, an unnecessary condition themselves. They were dealing with a question in which the independence of the ratepayers was, above all things, the great and paramount object. Was it unnecessary or unreasonable that in such a case they should follow what they believed to be the predominant feeling in the House. They did not object to hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that they were opposed to the Ballot, and that they would resist it in every form. But they did object to much of the language that had been used; to their saying that this was something monstrous—that the House was taken by surprise. Why, the proposition for secret voting was one that had been adopted into the Bill more than two months ago, when he described the mode in which it was proposed that the elections should be taken. When his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council proceeded to carry out the engagements into which they had entered, he naturally adopted without any check the principle of secret voting. But as they came nearer to the point, they felt that it was their duty to make as small a demand as possible upon hon. Gentlemen opposite to reduce their claims to the minimum, and they had therefore introduced that reference to the Privy Council which the right hon. Gentleman opposite described as an additional offence, and they had reduced the limitation as to time. He should not have wondered if a complaint had come from below the Gangway, that the introduction of these provisional regulations was evidence that the Ballot was not to be a permanent measure. The Government asked for the adoption of this principle only in the case of those elections that might emerge in the course of the next 12 months. Then they were told that enormous expense would attend the working of this
  290
  principle of secret voting. Was it not odd that the unreformed Parliament of 1831 was not terrified by this question of expense? If they were not, why was the present Parliament, that was elected by the free suffrages of the people of England, to be terrified at an expense of which Parliaments less popular and democratic — no, he would not say less popular, were not afraid? The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) talked of the election for the parish of St. Pancras. Had the noble Lord ever heard the dearness of secret voting complained of? The noble Lord said if that election had taken place by secret voting it would have cost £2,000. What was the noble Lord's authority for that statement? There were thousands of vestries that had been elected by secret voting, and who had ever heard of their being more expensive than on the open system? He thought a great deal of matter had been imported into this question that was quite unnecessary. He did not wonder that they should object to secret voting. It was quite right and fair that they should oppose it. But there were other things that were not so—the language that had been used—the prophecies of failure — the allusions to what would be done in the other House. ["No, no!"] Well, he was delighted to hear the disclaimer; he did not wish to catch the right hon. Gentleman in the use of a word, though he must say nothing could be more distinct than the language that was used. ["No, no!"] If not so, then let them look at the question in itself. It was not of large dimensions, for it was only in rare cases; that the power would be used before the time when the definitive judgment of Parliament would be called for. He hoped the House would see that the Government was asking the least concession that would be sufficient for the purpose they had in view, while for that purpose they felt that what they voted for was a paramount necessity. It was in this spirit, whether the sense of the House was to be taken upon it or not, that they viewed it—it was in this sense they voted for it, and they were anxious to show right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side that they appreciated the spirit in which they had striven to deal with this Bill; but if the proposition of the Government was disagreeable to them, it was yet in the mildest

  291
  form to which they could give it effect consistent with their own pledges.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to express his regret for having used the word "contempt." He thought it due to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to do so. That word did not convey his meaning. What he meant to convey was that he viewed the quarrels to which he referred with amusement and indifference, but not with contempt.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he could quite feel after what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council and also by the Prime Minister, supplemented as it had been by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), what were the circumstances of pressure under which this change had been made. It was impossible not to feel for the position the Government was placed in. But what he wished to observe was this—the time of the introduction of this element of discord—he must not call it new, as the right hon. Gentleman had discovered some old statutes that were drawn on the same principle. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman was in any circumstances inclined to look back. But what struck him was the utter misgiving and mistrust with which the Government had introduced this change. As the Bill was first drawn the school Boards were to be elected on the old principle of election, and the Government were then content to trust them, unless there should be some statutory Department to frame the directions laid down for them. But, now that they had introduced secret voting, were they as content to trust them as before? Not a bit of it. Look at the clause passed early in the evening, by which the Government took powers to sweep away the Boards so elected by secret voting, without assigning any reason. They would not trust them; but they took power to sweep them away entirely, subject only to the control of this House. That was what the Government proposed to do with the Boards elected by Ballot—they took arbitrary power to reject them after they were elected. There was not a more arbitrary clause to be found anywhere, and it was only introduced into the Bill at the same time with secret voting. That showed the opinion of the Government itself upon the subject. For
  292
  himself, he was never fond of secret voting. He hated all secret proceedings; but he thought this showed the mistrust of the Government itself as to the change. If the Government could not trust its own child, with what face could they ask the House to trust it? For that reason alone he should refuse to support this proposition of the Government.
  MR. LIDDELLadmitted this was a small matter, but it involved a large principle. He wished to ask the Government what was the necessity for introducing this secret principle into the elections of the school Boards? Its introduction would give an impulse to the movement in favour of the Ballot, for which the country was not prepared. He was not going to discuss the question of the Ballot. The people of England had never looked the principle of the Ballot in the face, and they certainty were not prepared to admit it by the back door. The great argument in favour of the adoption of the Ballot was that it produced tranquility at elections; but what reason was there for supposing that the elections of school Boards would be anything but tranquil and commonplace occurrences? His opinion was that they would be both common-place and dull, because the Bill itself was a great compromise. There was no reason for supposing that the freedom of action of the parents would in any way be restrained—that, in fact, it was impossible that any coercion could be practised upon them. To attempt to secure tranquility by secret voting was a pure myth. He hoped the day was distant when the Ballot would be adopted; but if they were to have it let it be discussed openly and upon its merits. If the voice of the country were challenged upon the subject he was certain the majority would be against it.
  MR. GREENEsaid, the Opposition had fairly met the Government on the Bill, and they ought not to be called on to admit, on the consideration of an education measure, a principle in no way connected with it, and which they felt to be an evil of the greatest magnitude. If a Parliament of King William IV. was benighted enough to adopt a Bill introducing the Ballot, all he could say was that he much regretted it. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had lectured the Opposition for what he

  293
  termed their desire to stop the progress of the Bill. If he (Mr. Greene) represented a borough so dark as Birmingham he should feel he was doing wrong in stopping it for a moment; but he had the happiness of representing a town in which the Bill would not be required, because there they educated every man, from the highest to the lowest. Gentlemen below the opposite Gangway talked when it suited their purpose of raising the working man to the position of an independent member of society, and now they spoke of him as needing the protection of secret voting. He did not want to make a stalking-horse of the working men of England; but he said they gave their votes as independently as any Member in that House. If they wished to lower the moral standard of the country, they would resort to secret voting, which he, for one, hated even in a club, and whenever he adopted it he invariably disclosed afterwards how he had voted. The thing must be checked in the bud; and therefore he hoped that hon. Members on his side of the House would continue that debate and adjourn it. That proposition was, he believed, brought forward merely to please Members below the opposite Gangway. Where the carcase was there the birds of prey gathered together; and he had observed that evening that hon. Gentlemen opposite had been early in their attendance, hoping that there would be a Division, while Gentleman on his side of the House were at dinner. If they were to have the Ballot, let it be put forward fairly and honestly on its own merits.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he objected to the introduction of the principle of the Ballot into the Bill, and he complained of the Government, in order to propitiate the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) and those below the Gangway, having acceded to it. The Government were about to render the Bill agreeable to the hon. Member for Birmingham by introducing the Ballot into it. He viewed with interest any manifestation of independence on the Government side of the House, and he was glad the hon. Member for Birmingham felt he was in a position to be able to make a bargain with the Government, because it was a revival in his person of the character for independence which that town had hitherto maintained.
  294
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, who was opposed to the Bill, was likely to have the best of the bargain; but there was little chance of the principle of secret voting being adopted by the House of Lords. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister professed himself a neophyte with respect to the Ballot, he must remind that right hon. Gentleman that at one time there was no more earnest opponent of it than the right hon. Gentleman, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for reminding him that it was the non-adoption of the Ballot by the vestries under the Act of Will. IV. that Lord Palmerston relied on showing how distasteful the Ballot was to the people of England. The Ballot was invariably introduced when the once Radical, but now the Liberal, section of the House was short of a cry. He had seen the question wax and wane, but never persevered in in earnest, and, notwithstanding Mr. Berkeley's annual exertions, the principle had never been adopted. He further objected to the introduction of such a principle into the Bill after it had been read a second time. Once provide the machinery in every parish for taking the Ballot in these minor elections, and they would be told every time the question was brought forward with reference to Parliamentary elections that, as the expense had been incurred, they had better try it. When he saw hon. Members examining those neat boxes that had been exhibited in that House for taking the Ballot, and studying how they might conceal how they gave their votes, he wished hon. Members should be compelled to purchase one, and have it in his own house, so that John the footman, Sally the cook, and Jane the housemaid, might one by one every Saturday use it as a means of expressing their choice of precedent for the ensuing week. The Ballot was a principle alien to the purpose of the measure, and they were perfectly justified in using every means to defeat it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to know how the Chairman proposed to put the Question? The Government accepted the Motion down to the end of Paragraph 30.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the proposal of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) was to leave out from the word "held,"

  295
  in paragraph 1 of the Rules (Election by a Council), to the end of paragraph 30 of the General Rules, in order to insert the words—
  "At such time and in such manner, and in accordance with such regulations, as the Educacation Department may from time to time by order prescribe, and the Education Department may appoint or direct the appointment of any officers requisite for the purpose of such election: Provided, That any poll shall be taken by a secret ballot."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked for some explanation, as those on that side of the House who wished to vote against the Ballot were in a great difficulty as to how they were to vote.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, if the words upon which the Question was put were struck out the Committee would be held to have assented to the omission of all the words the hon. Baronet now proposed to omit. The Question would then be put to insert the words which the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea proposed, and it would after that be open to the noble Lord to move the omission of any paragraph down to paragraph 30. On the other hand, if the Committee should refuse to omit any of the words which the hon. Baronet proposed to omit, the Question having been put only on the first words it would be open to the noble Lord or any hon. Member to move the omission of any of the subsequent words.
  Question, "That the words 'on the prescribed day' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words
  'At such time and in such manner, and in accordance with such regulations, as the Education Department may from time to time by order prescribe, and the Education Department may appoint or direct the appointment of any officers requisite for the purpose of such election: Provided, That any poll shall be taken by a secret ballot,'
  be there added."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEinquired whether it was competent now to move the omission of any portion of the hon. Baronet's Amendment. If so, he would more that the words from "provided" be omitted.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Committee, in assenting to the omission of the words named, had virtually assented to the omission of all the words the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea proposed
  296
  to omit. It was now proposed to insert the words of the hon. Baronet, and that Amendment was open to Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to make some verbal Amendment in the hon. Baronet's Amendment. He would move to insert before "appoint" in line 3, "by order."
  Amendment amended accordingly.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved, after the word "election," in line 4, to insert "to do all other necessary things preliminary or incidental to such election."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked for some explanation of the very vague words which it was now proposed to insert.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they were intended to give the Education Department power to conduct the few elections that might be necessary between this time and next year.
  MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTwanted to know whether that included any arrangement incidental to election by Ballot called "stuffing the books."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not answer the question, as he had never before heard that expression.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the words showed not only how provisional the arrangement was, but now extremely unwise it was for the Government to force this matter. That was an additional reason, if any were required, for resisting, by every means, in their power, this attempt to force the Ballot.
  Amendment amended accordingly.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "election," in line 4, to leave out the words "Provided, That any poll shall be taken by a secret ballot."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Provided' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained, that although the word "secret" still stood in the Amendment, his hon. Friend had assented to its omission.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENwanted to know whether they were or were not going to vote on the question that there should be a poll by Ballot?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the objection taken to the word "secret" was, that it raised the question of the kind of Ballot. A Ballot might be compulsorily secret, or it might not, and the Government did not wish to raise that point. The question that would be before the Committee was, whether the poll should be taken by Ballot or not?
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEasked, whether, if the word "secret" were omitted, the right hon. Gentleman would agree to insert the word "public."
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he thought the discussion which had taken place would suffice to show that the Government had made a great mistake in introducing this question, because up to that moment the Committee were advancing rapidly and happily to a conclusion; very many Members on his side of the House having sacrificed their cherished opinions for the sake of facilitating the progress of the measure and of arriving at an amicable conclusion on a very difficult matter. It would not be denied that many of them did not see the necessity for so great a change, yet, having sacrificed their opinions, they had now to meet a question which sought, by a side wind, to change the constitution of the country. If the Government wished to arrive at a rapid settlement of the subject they should withdraw that change and fall back upon the old mode of voting, for the change had no connection with the Bill, and its introduction by the Government was an element of discord which might well have been avoided. He trusted that his right hon. Friend, who had throughout the progress of the measure shown such a conciliatory disposition, would again consider this question before pressing it to a Division.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he wished to see the Bill passed, and having on all occasions voted with the Vice President, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had wantonly introduced this subject into the debate. It seemed to him that the Government did not altogether like the proposed Ballot, for they had resolved to suggest that the word "secret" should be omitted. He should like to hear from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) whether the word "secret" was in the Parliamentary Elections Bill, and, if so, whether it was his intention to strike it out of that measure.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he fully appreciated the feelings of hon. Members opposite when they desired that the Ballot should not be made part of the law, still more fully did he understand the feelings of those who wished that there should be a complete Ballot, while he was most strongly opposed to that method of Ballot which was not to be secret. Treating the Ballot as a remedy for an evil, he would accept it or entirely discard it; for if he were sick and a physician sent him a potion he might take it, or he might refuse it, but he could not be right in taking only half of it. The Government asked the Committee to give powers to the Education Boards to employ not a secret Ballot, but one in which it might be disclosed how an elector had recorded his vote. It was against such a method that he protested, and it was admitted that the Committee could not now discuss this question. Hon. Members opposite might easily state their objections to the Ballot; but it was difficult to express opposition to a mode of semi-Ballot, because hon. Members might be unable to show how they wished to alter the law in order to render security unnecessary. He should be unwillingly compelled not to vote on the proposition now before the House, and therefore wished to justify that course.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he wished to inquire of the Chairman whether, if hon. Members were first asked to vote upon the words "that any poll shall be taken by a secret Ballot," the Government would afterwards be at liberty to propose to omit the word "secret?" That form seemed to him to be exceedingly inconvenient and clumsy, besides which he had a recollection that, when the Committee had once passed any proposition, those who had carried it were apt to say that the House had assented to a principle. He did not wish to hear that said when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to abstract the word "secret," thereby weakening the proposition; and he, therefore, asked whether, if the Committee assented to the proposition now before it, hon. Members would be considered to have pledged themselves on the subject of secret voting?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not for him to say what interpretation hon. Members should put upon the words of any proposition that was submitted to

  299
  them. It was now proposed to omit the words "Provided, That any poll shall be taken by a secret Ballot," and the Question he should put was on the first word only. If the Committee negatived that word they would be held to have negatived all the subsequent ones, and to have assented to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope). On the other hand, if the Committee decided that the word "provided" should stand part of the proposed Amendment, they would not have precluded themselves from amending the subsequent words, and it would therefore be open to any hon. Member to propose the omission of the word "secret."
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was anxious that the Government should have one night of calm reflection on the subject now before the Committee in order to decide whether they would take half the potion or not. He, therefore, moved that the Chairman should report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Barttelot.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could hardly believe that the hon. and gallant Member was serious in his proposition. The Committee had now arrived at the only point which remained for discussion, and if the hon. and gallant Member thought that the Committee might arrive at a decision which was adverse to him, he would have an opportunity of challenging that decision at another stage of the Bill. The Government proposition, which had been before the House for six weeks, had been modified to-night, but modified in such a way as to bring it nearer to the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Under the circumstances, and at this late period of the Session, he thought it would be the duty of the Committee to utterly resist all Motions intended to consume the remainder of the evening and waste valuable time; and he felt confident that, if the Motion was persevered in, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would fail in obtaining the support even of those among whom he sat.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had also supposed that they were on the eve of passing an Education Bill which, on the
  300
  whole, enlisted the respectful sympathies of both sides of the House. It was remarkable, however, that Her Majesty's Government had been able to excite passions at the last moment. This, he thought, was quite unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman truly remarked that this plan had been before the Committee for a considerable time; but the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to mention that it had been greatly modified in some of its most important features, and for himself he was bound to say, in respect of the subject now before them, that it was a most unfortunate determination on the part of the Government to ask them to decide on a great principle of politics by a side wind, by remitting to a question which, of all others, widely enlisted the sympathies of all sections and parties in the country working for a common end, another subject upon which, no doubt, great controversy existed. But this measure of education had even to-night, as he had learned to his surprise—for he had thought it was pretty well safe and settled—received considerable changes and modifications; and, under the circumstances, he could not think the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) so ill-timed as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 136; Noes 244: Majority 108.
  Question put, "That the word 'Provided' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 234; Noes 155: Majority 79.

  AYES.

  Acland, T. D.

  Bentall, E. H.

  Adam, W. P.

  Bolckow, H. W. F.

  Allen, W. S.

  Bowmont, Marquess of

  Anderson, G.

  Bowring, E. A.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Brand, right hon. H.

  Armitstead, G.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Ayrton, rt. hon. A. S.

  Brassey, T.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Brewer, Dr.

  Backhouse, E.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Baines, E.

  Brinckman, Captain

  Baker, R. B. W.

  Brogden, A.

  Bass, A.

  Brown, A. H.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Browne, G. E.

  Bazley, Sir T.

  Bruce, Lord C.

  Beaumont, Captain F.

  Bruce, right hon. H. A.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Buxton, C.

  Beaumont, S. A.

  Campbell, H.

  301

  Candlish, J.

  Herbert, hon. A. E. W.

  Cardwell, right hon. E.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Hoare, Sir H. A.

  Carter, Mr. Alderman

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Castlerosse, Viscount

  Holland, S.

  Cave, T.

  Holms, J.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Hornby, E. K.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Hoskyns, C. Wren-

  Chadwick, D.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Cholmeley, Captain

  Hughes, T.

  Cholmeley, Sir M.

  Hurst, R. H.

  Clay, J.

  Illingworth, A.

  Coleridge, Sir J. D.

  Jardine, R.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Johnston, A.

  Cowen, J.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, U. J.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E. H.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Dalglish, R.

  Lambert, N. G.

  Dalrymple, D.

  Lancaster, J.

  Davies, R.

  Lawrence, Sir J. C.

  Dease, E.

  Lawrence, W.

  Dickinson, S. S.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Digby, K. T.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Dixon, G.

  Lewis, J. D.

  Dodds, J.

  Lewis, J. H.

  Downing, M'C.

  Lloyd, Sir T. D.

  Dowse, R.

  Locke, J.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Dundas, F.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Edwardes, hon. Col. W.

  Lush, Dr.

  Edwards, H.

  Lusk, A.

  Egerton, Capt. hon. F.

  Lyttelton, hon. C. G.

  Enfield, Viscount

  M'Arthur, W.

  Erskine, Admiral J. E.

  M'Clure, T.

  Esmonde, Sir J.

  M'Combie, W.

  Ewing, H. E. C.

  Macfie, R. A.

  Eykyn, R.

  Mackintosh, E. W.

  Fawcett, H.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Finnie, W.

  M'Laren, D.

  FitzGerald, right hon. Lord O. A.

  M'Mahon, P.

  Magniac, C.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Forster, C.

  Marling, S. S.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C. P.

  Melly, G.

  Fothergill, R.

  Miall, E.

  Fowler, W.

  Miller, J.

  Gavin, Major

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Monk, C. J.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Morgan, G. O.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Morley, S.

  Gower, Lord R.

  Morrison, W.

  Graham, W.

  Mundella, A. J.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Greville, hon. Captain

  Murphy, N. D.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Nicol, J. D.

  Grosvenor, hon. N.

  Norwood, C. M.

  Grosvenor, Capt. R. W.

  O'Conor, D. M.

  Grove, T. F.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  O'Loghlen, rt. hon. Sir C. M.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Harcourt, W. G. G. V. V.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Otway, A. J.

  Harris, J. D.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Parker, C. S.

  Haviland-Burke, E.

  Pease, J. W.

  Hay, Lord J.

  Peel, A. W.

  Henderson, J.

  Philips, R. N.

  302

  Pim, J.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Platt, J.

  Stapleton, J.

  Playfair, L.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Plimsoll, S.

  Strutt, hon. H.

  Potter, E.

  Stuart, Colonel

  Potter, T. B.

  Synan, E. J.

  Power, J. T.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Price, W. P.

  Tillett, J. H.

  Rathbone, W.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Rebow, J. G.

  Torrens, R. R.

  Reed, C.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Richard, H.

  Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury-

  Richards, E. M.

  Robertson, D.

  Trelawny, Sir J. S.

  Roden, W. S.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Russell, A.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Russell, F. W.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Rylands, P.

  Vivian, Capt. hon. J. C. W.

  Salomons, Sir D.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Samuda, J. D'A.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Samuelson, B.

  White, J.

  Samuelson, H. B.

  Whitwell, J.

  Sartoris, E. J.

  Whitworth, T.

  Seely, C. (Lincoln)

  Williams, W.

  Seely, C. (Nottingham)

  Wingfield, Sir C.

  Shaw, R.

  Winterbotham, H. S. P.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Young, A. W.

  Sherlock, D.

  Young, G.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  Simon, Mr. Serjeant

  TELLERS.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Smith, E.

  Glyn, hon. G. G.

  NOES.

  Allen, Major

  Dowdeswell, W. E.

  Amphlett, R. P.

  Duncombe, hon. Col.

  Archdall, Captain M.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Arkwright, R.

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Barnett, H.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Barrington, Viscount

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Elliot, G.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Ennis, J. J.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Beresford, Lt.-Col. M.

  Feilden, H. M.

  Bingham, Lord

  Fielden, J.

  Birley, H.

  Figgins, J.

  Bourke, hon. R.

  Floyer, J.

  Bourne, Colonel

  Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

  Bright, R.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Brise, Colonel R.

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Galway, Viscount

  Brodrick, hon. W.

  Gilpin, Colonel

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Goldney, G.

  Cameron, D.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Cartwright, F.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Cave, right hon. S.

  Grant, Col. hon. J.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Graves, S. R.

  Chaplin, H.

  Gray, Lieut.-Colonel

  Child, Sir S.

  Greaves, E.

  Collins, T.

  Greene, E.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Corbett, Colonel

  Guest, A. E.

  Corrance, F. S.

  Gurney, right hon. R.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. T. L.

  Hambro, C.

  Cowper-Temple, rt. hn W.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Hamilton, Lord G.

  Cubitt, G.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Hardy, right hon. G.

  Dimsdale, R.

  Hardy, J.

  Disraeli, right hon. B.

  Hardy, J. S.

  303

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  North, Colonel

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Herbert, rt. hon. Gen. Sir P.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Hervey, Lord A. H. C.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Parker, Lt.-Col. W.

  Heygate, W. U.

  Patten, rt. hon. Col. W.

  Hick, J.

  Pell, A.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Percy, Earl

  Hodgson, W. N.

  Phipps, C. P.

  Holt, J. M.

  Powell, W.

  Hood, Captain hon. A. W. A. N.

  Raikes, H. C.

  Read, C. S.

  Hutton, J.

  Ridley, M. W.

  Jenkinson, Sir G. S.

  Round, J.

  Jones, J.

  Sackville, S. G. S.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Sandon, Viscount

  Kennaway, J. H.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Knight, F. W.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

  Seymour, H. de G.

  Laird, J.

  Smith, R.

  Langton, W. G.

  Smith, S. G.

  Legh, W. J.

  Smith, W. H.

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Stanley, hon. F.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Starkie, J. P. C.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Sykes, C.

  Lindsay, hon. Colonel C.

  Taylor, rt. hon. Colonel

  Lindsay, Colonel R. L.

  Tollemache, J.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Turner, C.

  Lowther, J.

  Turnor, E.

  Lowther, W.

  Vance, J.

  Mahon, Viscount

  Waterhouse, S.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Welby, W. E.

  Meyrick, T.

  Wethered, T. O.

  Milles, hon. G. W.

  Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

  Mills, C. H.

  Wilmot, H.

  Montagu, rt. hn. Lord R.

  Wise, H. C.

  Montgomery, Sir G. G.

  Winn, R.

  Morgan, C. O.

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Wynn, Sir W. W.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Neville-Grenville, R.

  TELLERS.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Cawley, C. E.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he should move the omission of the word "a" for the purpose of afterwards inserting the words "voting papers." He had voted with his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) night after night, and he could not express how deep was his regret that at the eleventh hour such an unfortunate element should have been introduced. He hoped that no person would be found imputing motives to those who felt themselves bound to take up a position of painful hostility to the measure. He could not support secret voting, as it was contrary to the system which had been the honour and glory of England.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "a," in order to insert the words "voting papers."—(Lord Claud Hamilton.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government would agree with the noble
  304
  Lord opposite in omitting the word "a," because for reasons which he had already stated, they proposed to omit the words "a secret." He must be allowed for the sake of his own position, and as having charge of the Bill, to state that while he did not in the slightest degree blame hon. Members opposite in voting against the Ballot, even though limited in its operation to one year, it was hardly fair upon him when they expressed surprise at his now proposing on the part of the Government the Amendment of which he had given Notice six weeks ago, and to which the Government were pledged to such an extent that he should almost have forfeited his personal honour if he had neglected to bring it forward. Seeing that the Committee was now much more full than than it had been at an earlier period of the evening he wished to state that the reason why he proposed to omit the words "a secret," was not because they did not intend to secure secretary, for they intended to secure such a Ballot as would give the fullest protection to the voters from intimidation, but because the hon. Baronet opposite had by a strange construction of the words discovered that they meant a Ballot which must be secret, rather than a Ballot which might be secret. They did not look forward to a sham Ballot, but one that would protect all who needed it in recording their votes. With regard to the particular Amendment under consideration, the Government agreed with the noble Lord's proposal to omit the word "a."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that having, in common with others on that side of the House, supported the Education Bill very cordially for some time, giving up many of their own predilections, and laying aside points of difference at some sacrifice of their own feelings, he felt that they had a just right to be greatly grieved on that occasion. He must entirely demur to the justice and wisdom of calling upon the Committee to decide, âpropos of the Education Bill, the great and important question of the Ballot. They were distinct questions, and the former should not have been brought before them in an indirect manner, for they were surprised to a certain extent into that debate. Greatly as he approved of the Education Bill, he yet thought it was so important not to have matters of this weight and character treated incidentally,

  305
  as had been done in this instance, that he should feel justified in raising any opposition in his power to the progress of the Bill, on account of entirely extraneous matter having been introduced into it.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, he fully agreed with the views just expressed by his noble Friend. This was not so much a question of the Ballot as of the confusion into which the Bill had been thrown. The Vice President of the Council had been obliged to leave a most despotic power in the hands of the Privy Council. The Committee ought to have time given it for further consideration of the question.
  MR. R. TORRENSsaid, on a question of this importance, it was of all things necessary that the Committee should have a clear understanding as to what they were about to vote upon. He therefore called upon the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to explain to the Committee in a more detailed and distinct manner than he had done what he meant by a Ballot which was not to be secret. He also wished, before he recorded his vote, to have explained to him what possible advantage the Government could expect from a system of Ballot which was not secret. The Ballot was looked upon as a remedy for intimidation, undue influence, and corruption; but how was the desired object to be secured if secretary were not preserved? By leaving out the words "a secret" the right hon. Gentleman certainly laid himself open to the charge that he had repudiated; that the Ballot proposed would be a sham. He could not support the Government in this matter, unless he were assured that the proposed form of Ballot would protect the voters from intimidation, undue influence, and corruption.
  MR. BRODRICK, who rose amid cries of "Divide," said, he did not think he could be accused of having trespassed unduly upon the time of the Committee or of the House. He entirely concurred with the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon). His opinion was that the Government had thrown great obstacles in the way of the passing of the measure by their attempt to introduce a principle into voting, which he believed would never receive the sanction of the people of this country.
  Question put, "That the word 'a' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 228: Majority 71.

  AYES.

  Allen, Major

  Grant, Colonel hon. J.

  Amphlett, R. P.

  Graves, S. R.

  Archdall, Captain M.

  Gray, Lieut.-Colonel

  Arkwright, R.

  Greene, E.

  Ball, J. T.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Barnett, H.

  Guest, A. E.

  Barrington, Viscount

  Gurney, right hon. R.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Hambro, C.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Hamilton, Lord G.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Hardy, right hon. G.

  Beresford, Lt.-Col. M.

  Hardy, J.

  Bingham, Lord

  Hardy, J. S.

  Birley, H.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Bourke, hon. R.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Bourne, Colonel

  Herbert, rt. hn. Gen. Sir P.

  Bright, R.

  Hermon, E.

  Brise, Colonel R.

  Hervey, Lord A. H. C.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Heygate, W. U.

  Brodrick, hon. W.

  Hick, J.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord E.

  Hodgson, W. N.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Holt, J. M.

  Burrell, Sir P.

  Hood, Captain hon. A. W. A. N.

  Bury, Viscount

  Cameron, D.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Cartwright, F.

  Hutton, J.

  Cave, right hon. S.

  Jenkinson, Sir G. S.

  Cawley, C. E.

  Jones, J.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Knight, F. W.

  Chaplin, H.

  Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

  Child, Sir S.

  Laird, J.

  Collins, T.

  Langton, W. G.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Legh, W. J.

  Corbett, Colonel

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Corrance, F. S.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. T. L.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Lindsay, Col. R. L.

  Cubitt, G.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Denison, C. B.

  Lowther, J.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Lowther, W.

  Dimsdale, R.

  Mahon, Viscount

  Disraeli, right hon. B.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Dowdeswell, W. E.

  Meyrick, T.

  Duncombe, hon. Col.

  Milles, hon. G. W.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Mills, C. H.

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Montagu, rt. hn. Lord R.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Montgomery, Sir G. G.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Morgan, C. O.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Elliot, G.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H.

  Neville-Grenville, R.

  Feilden, H. M.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Fielden, J.

  North, Colonel

  Figgins, J.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Floyer, J.

  Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Parker, Lt.-Colonel W.

  Galway, Viscount

  Patten, rt. hon. Col. W.

  Gilpin, Colonel

  Pell, A.

  Goldney, G.

  Percy, Earl

  Gordon, E. S.

  Phipps, C. P.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Powell, W.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Raikes, H. C.

  307

  Read, C. S.

  Tollemache, J.

  Ridley, M. W.

  Turner, C.

  Round, J.

  Turnor, E.

  Sackville, S. G. S.

  Vance, J.

  Sandon, Viscount

  Waterhouse, S.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Welby, W. E.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Wethered, T. O.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

  Wilmot, H.

  Seymour, H. de G.

  Wise, H. C.

  Smith, R.

  Winn, R.

  Smith, S. G.

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Stone, W. H.

  Wynn, Sir W. W.

  Stanley, hon. F.

  Starkie, J. P. C.

  TELLERS.

  Sykes, C.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Taylor, rt. hon. Colonel

  Lindsay, hon. Colonel C.

  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "secret."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was proposed to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting the word "secret" before "Ballot."
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKasked what was meant by that Amendment. He understood that the Ballot was intended to protect the voter from the consequences of his vote, and how could it do that unless it was secret?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he wished to utter a word as to the term "secret." His hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens) was mistaken if he supposed that by omitting the word "secret" the Government meant to say that the Ballot could not be kept secret. His right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council had explained several times that evening that the word "secret" was capable of bearing, and in the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) it did bear, the interpretation of limiting the Ballot which was suggested under that clause to a Ballot which was absolutely secret. For himself, he had stated, in bringing in the Bill on Parliamentary Elections, that there were different kinds of Ballot, differing in the degree of secretary attached to them. It would be very easy to adopt a mode of voting that would secure absolute secretary, so that whatever might have been the malpractices connected with an election, it could not be discovered in favour of which candidate the fictitious votes had been given. The Ballot which the Government had proposed for Parliamentary elections was
  308
  one of a totally different character, and admitted of a scrutiny being applied as easily as in the case of an open system of voting. That was the kind of Ballot which the Government would prefer, and they did not wish by any words in that Bill to pledge the House upon so little discussion as it was possible to give the matter that evening to the adoption, even for that limited purpose, of any particular mode of Ballot. Therefore, they now proposed to omit the word "secret;" and, although it appeared to be now to the House, it did not at all follow from the omission of that word that the Ballot should not be secret.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYasked the noble Marquess whether the Ballot was to be open?
  Question put, "That the word 'secret' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 288: Majority 241.

  AYES.

  Allen, W. S.

  Morgan, G. O.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Beaumont, S. A.

  Plimsoll, S.

  Brewer, Dr.

  Richard, H.

  Campbell, H.

  Samuelson, H. B.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  Cave, T.

  Simon, Mr. Serjeant

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Smith, E.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Stuart, Colonel

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Dixon, G.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Downing, M'C.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Edwards, H.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Eykyn, R.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Fawcett, H.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Fothergill, R.

  White, J.

  Gavin, Major

  Whitworth, T.

  Grove, T. F.

  Williams, W.

  Hoare, Sir H. A.

  Winterbotham, H. S. P.

  Hurst, R. H.

  Young, A. W.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Lush, Dr.

  TELLERS.

  Macfie, R. A.

  James, H.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Torrens, R.

  Monk, C. J.

  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, this was not the period of the night, nor was this the time, for introducing the question of the Ballot. He would, therefore, move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
  MR. GLADSTONEreminded the hon. Gentleman that they had not only discussed during nearly the whole evening the question of the Ballot, but they had voted upon it by decided majorities; and as the question was now disposed of, he was not aware that any other Motion would arise. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Baronet would not persist.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he rose at the same time as the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) for the purpose of moving an Amendment, which would really raise the question. The Committee had just eliminated secresy from the Ballot. They had now only to go one step further and eliminate Ballot from the voting. The words by which he proposed to do that was by moving to omit the word "Ballot" for the purpose of inserting "the method now in force for the election of guardians of the poor."
  MR. DISRAELI: I rise to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister, to consider the position in which the Committee is placed with regard to the proposition before it. In dealing with the education question we had to deal with one of the most difficult of questions—more difficult I believe than the Irish Land Bill, or even the Reform Bill, for all the religious prejudices of every section in the country were enlisted in the discussion. I cannot help feeling that these difficulties were quite enough for even the most ambitious Minister to contend with, and considering the mode in which the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman have been received by the House—that on all sides we have endeavoured to remove obstacles and to facilitate the progress of the Bill, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have felt it his duty to introduce another element of difficulty, that one of the most disputed points of controversy of the present day should be brought in at the fag-end of the measure, and that there should be the appearance—I hope it is only the appearance—of obtaining the opinion of Parliament upon it in a manner so objectionable. Acquitting the right hon. Gentleman of any intention of that kind, which, I am sure, is foreign to his nature, we find ourselves in this position—We encountered difficulties with regard to the education question which at one moment appeared insurmountable, and when a successful
  310
  conclusion appears at hand, owing not merely to the ability of the Government in the conduct of the measure, but also to the excellent temper and discretion of the House on both sides, this new difficulty, which I think very much to be regretted, has been brought before us. The right hon. Gentleman must see that his proposition does not please a majority of the House, and the late Division showed that there is a considerable section of his constant supporters who do not approve it. I think, therefore, that in deference to a feeling which cannot be mistaken; considering the critical state of foreign affairs; and, considering also the state of Public Business, and the great desirability that we should now proceed in a manner to show the unanimity of Parliament—the right hon. Gentleman might, with perfect dignity and in a temper becoming a powerful Minister, refrain from pressing farther a proposition—which, as I may remind the Committee, was not contained in the original measure—which is an unhappy innovation, and which has produced an unfortunate discord at a time when I with many others believed that a considerable measure of national elementary education was, so far as this House is concerned, about to be brought to a conclusion. Again—though it is not a class of considerations upon which I care to dwell, a Cabinet Minister must recollect the spirit in which this measure will be discussed in "another place." When, therefore, we have to offend many prejudices in this House, and have no doubt many difficulties to encounter, and, as I hope, to surmount in "another place," why introduce into a House almost unanimous upon the general question a matter of political controversy, which has already led to much discord, and which may prepare for us difficulties in "another place" at a period of the Session when it is most desirable that all elements of difference between the two Houses should cease. Sir, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find it consistent with his duty not to press this question, but allow the elections to be conducted as originally proposed, and, as is usual among the ratepayers, by voting papers or more open voting. Let us have the usual custom of the country, that which was contemplated by the Government in their original Bill, and which, under all the circumstances of the case, will meet, more generally than

  311
  the one proposed, the views and wishes of Parliament.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I acknowledge the mildness of the language in which the right hon. Gentleman has made his demand upon the Government, and if I am unable to accede to the demand I trust I shall have no occasion to say anything which will make a refusal more disagreeable than it must be from its own nature. The case stands thus—During case the discussions on this Bill this is not the first occasion upon which we have had to encounter great difficulties and to give serious offence. When these occasions have arisen we have never been troubled and hindered in our course by any of those more selfish considerations relating to the dignity of the Government which it may be sometimes, unfortunately, necessary to take into view. We have found it unnecessary to fall back upon any considerations of that kind, and we have simply asked what was our duty with regard to the great public interests involved. Upon each of these occasions what we have endeavoured to do has been this—We have striven to reduce to a minimum the cause which was in dispute between ourselves and those who differ from us. That is the manner in which we endeavoured to meet the debates on the second reading and the Amendments subsequently introduced into the Bill. It is not in our power now, or on former occasions, alto-together to remove those causes of difference. We have had to encounter from many valued Friends objections to the course we felt it our duty to adopt similar to those now made by opponents, who, as I fully own, by their conduct on this question have merited every consideration at our hands. But the position we now occupy is precisely that in which we have stood before, only with reference to different persons. We have shown our disposition to meet the views of hon. Members opposite, by reducing to the character of a provisional and temporary regulation the adoption of the principle which we propose to introduce into the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says we have encumbered the measure with a great political difficulty. I venture to question the justice of that criticism; because the principle of secret voting, with reference to local elections for particular purposes, is a principle which already has its place upon the
  312
  statute book, and formed no political difficulty when thus enacted. I admit that you may now raise further debates upon the precise terms in which it is proposed to frame this portion of the Bill; but I think I am fully justified in saying that, so far as regards the simple recognition of the principle of secret voting for elections of a local character, it is not true that we have encumbered the Bill with a political difficulty, at least with one which can be reckoned a political innovation. If, then, we are unable to accede to the demand of the right hon. Gentleman, we have not been in the least unwilling that there should have been a full discussion of the question. We shall make no complaint if the discussion is renewed hereafter; but we can only now take the course we have taken during the progress of the Bill—reduce the range of controversy within the narrowest limits, and abide in the last resort by what our public duty seems to demand.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 210: Majority 96.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "ballot," in order to insert the words "the method now in force for the election of guardians of the poor."—(Lord John Manners.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought this was substantially the question on which they had already divided when they divided on the Motion with reference to voting papers. He merely wished to recall the fact to the attention of the noble Lord, who could not wish to divide the Committee twice on the same question.
  Question put, "That the word 'ballot' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 127: Majority 69.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmade an appeal to the Prime Minister, as a steady supporter of his Bill, to support the Amendment he was about to move—that after the word "Ballot" those words should be added—"But the votes given shall be open to the inspection of any ratepayer." As the word secret was given up, there could be no objection to his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "ballot" to add the words "but the votes given shall be open to the inspection of any ratepayer."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved, that the Act of Will, IV., to which the Prime Minister referred, imposed no obligation on the inspectors of the voting papers to make any secret of them after they were delivered.
  SIR HENRY HOAREappealed to the Opposition to accept the proposal in favour of the Ballot as un fait accompli, and to allow the Bill to go to "another place," where they might hope that it would, be deprived of the objectionable feature they so much disliked.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was now proposed to convert the word "Ballot" into a mockery. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) he had to say that by the Act of 1831 the inspectors were forbidden to open the voting papers when delivered, which was the only time when they could be identified with the voter.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, whether the Vice President could name any parish where the Act of Will. IV. had been put in operation?
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that they were placing in the hands of the Education Department, by the provision under which a scrutiny was to be made, the extraordinary power to cancel any election.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was not aware of any parish where the Act of Will. IV. had been put in operation; but a subsequent compulsory Act of the 18 & 19 Vict. applied to the whole of the metropolis, and it was probably in the metropolis alone that this election would occur. There was no power given to the inspectors to identify the vote with the voter after the vote was given. It was said that extraordinary powers were now asked for; but the Government only took powers for one year, and not for the purpose of prejudging the Ballot question, but because they were obliged not to let the wheels of the system stop during that year.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped, if this Amendment was not carried, another would be moved to make the Ballot permissive.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 98; Noes 187: Majority 89.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur Guest.)
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 178: Majority 88.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he had not until this evening given a vote, because he thought the Bill contained principles which ought not to be extended to Ireland next year. He could, however, no longer restrain himself. He had heard that there was a good deal more business on the Paper, and as he understood that the Dublin City Voters Disfranchisement Bill was to be brought on about 3 o'clock, he thought it would be better that the House should now adjourn. He moved, in conclusion, that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Vance.)
  MR. R. N. FOWLERregretted the decision to which Her Majesty's Government had come to mix up the Ballot with the question of education. Still, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House had fully expressed their opinion on the subject, and he hoped the Bill would now be allowed to proceed. If the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) pressed his Motion to a Division he should be compelled to vote against it.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he hoped the Government would abandon their intention of incorporating the principle of vote by Ballot in the Bill.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he thought the Government might compromise the matter by confining the Ballot to the metropolis.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he was opposed to treating the metropolis in an exceptional manner.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 171: Majority 89.
  MR. HIBBERTsuggested that the Ballot should be taken in accordance with the provisions of 18 & 19 Vict.

  315
  c. 120, the Metropolitan Government Act.
  MR. CAWLEYmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting the words "in any district in which the ratepayers shall so determine."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to add, after the word "ballot," the words "in any district in which the ratepayers shall so determine."—(Mr. Cawley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had already stated that the intention of Government was to introduce the principle of secret voting into the election of local Boards, and he could not accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley). This was the first time since the accession of the present Government to Office that the majority of the House had had to maintain a conflict with a minority. He had before this given way after one Division; but there were cases in which the Public Business was of such importance as made it the duty of the majority to assort its just rights. He was not going to dictate to the House; but his opinion personally was that the present was a case in which the majority should persist, leaving the question of which side was right and which wrong to the intelligent judgment of the country.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was of opinion that the country, when it read to-morrow what had occurred in the House this evening, would unanimously condemn the conduct of Government. If the Bill should be defeated, on the Government would rest the responsibility.
  MR. COLLINSsuggested that the Ballot be taken according to the provisions of the Vestries Act.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was perfectly willing to give an unprejudiced consideration to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert), and would be prepared to discuss it on bringing up the Report to-morrow.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the House ought to close with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. His side of the House had made sufficient protest against the Ballot, and they ought now to look to the passing of the Bill.
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  SIR JOHN ESMONDEsaid, he thought it was not creditable to the House to keep the Prime Minister in such a position. He would suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should follow the example of the Leaders of the Opposition, and leave his supporters to fight the battle.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not reconsider the principle of Ballot; but he would promise a careful consideration for any other proposal.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 64; Noes 161: Majority 97.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Hugh Seymour.)
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 56; Noes 161: Majority 105.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. F. W. Cartwright.)
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 59; Noes 160: Majority 101.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Cubitt.)
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 30; Noes 148: Majority 118.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Percy Burrell.)
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 144: Majority 125.
  Bill, as amended, to be reported.
  The Clerk Assistant informed the House, that Mr. Speaker was unable to resume the Chair during the present sitting of the House.
  Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 218.]

  EXCHEQUER BONDS (£1,300,000) BILL.
  Resolutions reported;

  (1.) "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to raise any sum of money, not exceeding £1,300,000, by the issue of Exchequer Bonds."

  (2.) "That the principal of all Exchequer Bonds which may be so issued shall be paid off at par, at any period not exceeding five years from the date of such Bonds."

  (3.) "That the interest of such Bonds shall be payable half-yearly, and shall be charged upon and issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof."

  Resolutions agreed to: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. STANSFELD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.

  STAMP DUTIES MANAGEMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Bill for consolidating and amending the Law relating to the Management of Stamp Duties, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 220.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
— Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Beaumont, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Telegraph Acts Extension* (206); New Zealand (Guarantee of Loan)* (207); Paupers Conveyance (Expenses)* (208); Sugar Duties (Isle of Man)* (209); Clerical Disabilities* (210); Extradition* (211); Judicial Committee* (212).
Second Reading—University Tests (182); Customs and Inland Revenue* (146); Siam and Straits Settlement Jurisdiction* (197); Charitable Funds Investment* (181); Rents and Periodical Payments* (180).
Select Committee—Report—Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental*.
Committee—Evidence Further Amendment Act (1869) Amendment* (75); Tramways (194–204); Benefices (130) discharged.
Committee—Report—Petty Customs (Scotland) Abolition* (106–205); Consolidated Fund* (£9,000,000)*.
Report—Prayer Book (Table of Lessons (202).
Third Reading — Salmon Acts Amendment* (147); Cattle Disease (Ireland) (171); Magistrates in populous Places (Scotland) (143); Dividends and Stock* (200); Sligo and Cashel Disfranchisement* (201), and passed.
Royal Assent—Attorneys and Solicitors Remuneration [33 & 34 Vict. c. 28]; Wages Attachment Abolition [33 & 34 Vict. c. 30]; Wine and Beerhouse Act (1869) Amendment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 29]; Sale of Poisons (Ireland) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 26]; Protection of Inventions [33 & 34 Vict. c. 27]; Jewish United Synagogues [33 & 34 Vict. c. 116]; Saint Olave, &c. Charities [33 & 34 Vict. c. 117]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Supplemental [33 & 34 Vict. c. 115]; Local Government Supplemental [33 & 34 Vict. c. 114].

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(No. 182.)
(The Lord President.)
UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(No. 182.)

  SECOND READING. BILL REFERRED TO A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of asking your Lordships to give a second reading to a Bill which has for its object the repeal of the tests and restrictions in respect of religious opinions at present imposed on persons who seek to occupy certain positions and to hold various offices in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham. It will first be my duty to establish that, in principle, the measure is founded alike on justice and expediency. In doing so, I first refer to the history of our Universities. We are all aware that during the Middle Ages the interests of the then existing Church in the Universities were universal; and for the best of all reasons—namely, because in those days the Church and the nation were, speaking broadly, co-extensive. I do not desire to press the argument too far; but it will not be disputed that nothing in the nature of religious tests or restrictions then existed, and that the Universities in those times included in their walls and their circle of instruction not Englishmen only, but men of all nations, and I believe I may say of all creeds then in existence. It is, no doubt, true that after the Reformation, when religious differences began to spring up in this country, the practice of imposing tests,

  197
  whether as regarded the admission of students or the holding of offices, gradually arose; but this was simply a part of what was then the general policy of the country, which imposed tests of a similar character as a qualification for admission to the Legislature and various offices, and which were then relied on as a means of bringing back men to a sense of loyalty and unanimity in matters of religion. It is matter of history that the imposition of tests and restrictions were not successful, and that so far from bringing men to an agreement on religious subjects, religious differences and the number of religious denominations have increased, so that, in spite of the many laudable and successful efforts made by the Church of England to advance the form of faith to which most of your Lordships adhere, a very large portion of the community are not now members of it. For many years past the constant and steady policy of this country has been to remove these tests and restrictions one after another from our national institutions, and the circumstances of the time and the condition of the world, over which we can exercise but small control, have brought us to a point at which we must choose between maintaining the exclusive Church character of the Universities and making them in the fullest sense national institutions. It may be held that men were happier in former times when no such choice was necessary; but the opinion of the country and the circumstances of the time render it impossible that the Legislature can much longer evade a decision, for which I believe the voice of the nation has already pronounced. I can, at any rate, say assuredly, that the opinion of the Legislature has been already pronounced upon it, for your Lordships must bear in mind that this, so far from being the first step which Parliament has taken respecting University tests, is rather the final step which we are called upon to take. In considering the Bill now before the House, your Lordships must steadily keep in mind the steps which have already been taken in this direction. Your Lordships are aware that at present men of all religious opinions are admitted to the Universities with which the Bill deals in the character of students. At Oxford and Cambridge a man of any religious opinions may enter as an undergraduate, devote himself to the studies of the University,
  198
  compete with his fellows, and by his own exertions and talents gain for himself the highest academical honours. When, however, he has gained these distinctions—and the case is no hypothetical one—he is told that, according to the law as it now stands, although he may have won a Senior Wranglership he cannot, without subscribing to tests to which he cannot conscientiously submit, proceed to obtain the honours and advantages of his College and become a Fellow, say of Trinity College. Now, surely that is a state of things which it is impossible to maintain as a matter of justice and expediency. Neither can it be maintained in the interests of the Church itself; for I can conceive few things more calculated to injure the real interests of the Church. I can conceive nothing more calculated to excite indisposition or hostility towards a Church, whose influence we desire to see extending, than the exclusion, in its supposed interest, from Collegiate and University offices and emoluments, and from the Governing Body, of a man who, while an undergraduate, had been on a perfect equality with his fellow - students, and who had conferred lustre on his College and University.
  These being the general arguments in favour of the measure, lot me turn for a moment to the Parliamentary history of the question. When last year my noble Friend (Earl Russell), with all the weight of his great authority, asked your Lordships to read a similar measure a second time, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) moved the Previous Question, partly on the ground that this was to your Lordships a comparatively novel question. Now, whatever may have been the fact as to this House, it cannot be said that as a Parliamentary question this is a novel one. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has been engaged, with his usual power and energy, in more than one contest in the House of Commons upon the question; and, with one exception, there has not been a Session since 1864 in which a measure dealing with the subject has not been brought forward in that House. The question has been considered in no loss than three distinct Parliaments, in every one of which the opinion of that House has been more and more decidedly affirmed in favour of the principle of the Bill. I admit that in 1864 that opinion was of a doubtful description, for the Bill was thrown out on one occasion by

  199
  a majority of 2; but in 1865 it passed the second reading, although circumstances prevented its further progress. In the Parliament elected in the autumn of 1865 the opinion of the House of Commons became more pronounced; and in 1867 a measure dealing with tests as far as the Universities were concerned came up to this House, when the second reading was moved by my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), and rejected by no very large majority. In the present Parliament—partly perhaps on account of the removal from the House of Commons of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), but partly on account of the progress of opinion in the country—the majorities in favour of the measure have become more and more decided than on any previous occasion. Under these circumstances, your Lordships are called upon to re-consider your previous decisions on this question. I can claim no right to express an opinion as to the feeling of the Universities themselves in regard to this Bill; but this I can give as a matter of fact—I understand that both at Oxford and Cambridge a very large proportion of those engaged in the actual work of teaching are in favour of the principle of the Bill.
  This being the history of the past with regard to the measure, I need detain your Lordships but a very short time in explaining its provisions. The measure deals not only with the Universities, but with the Colleges within them. It provides that all tests and restrictions as to graduation and offices founded on religious opinion shall be abolished. This, as regards the Universities, was the principle of the Bill of last Session, as it was also more or less of the Bills offered in previous Sessions; but with regard to the Colleges there is a material difference which it is right I should point out. The Bill of last year simply gave power to the Governing Bodies of the Colleges to make what arrangements they might think fit with respect to the admission of graduates to honours, Fellowships, and a share in the government of the Colleges. So far the Bill of last year was a permissive Bill; whereas the Bill now before your Lordships is one of an imperative character, declaring that all religious tests shall hence forth be done away with. The permissive proposal of last year, however, met with little favour either at the hands of University reformers or from the direct opponents of
  200
  those reforms; and, as I understand, even in the Universities and the Colleges there was a general feeling that a permissive measure would lead to many and continuous disputes, and a common consent that it would be better for Parliament to legislate directly and decidedly upon the subject. In consequence of these representations the permissive principle has been abandoned in this Bill, and it absolutely repeals all statutory enactments contrary to its principle. It is important, however, to remember that the 4th clause of the Bill is intended to protect the religious character of the education given at the Universities. The clause was introduced into the Bill of last year on the Motion of Sir Roundell Palmer, and the arrangement was deemed so satisfactory by that hon. and learned Gentleman that he withdrew all further opposition to the Bill, and Her Majesty's Government have adopted it without hesitation. I attach some importance to this clause, because I am not one of those who desire to see what is called exclusively secular education or colourless religious teaching introduced into the Universities. By this Bill your Lordships will find that a renewed Parliamentary sanction is given to the religious character of the instruction to be imparted at the Universities; so that, as it appears to me, while we maintain the religious character of the instruction given at our ancient seats of learning, we shall at the same time by this Bill remove the obstacles which have hitherto prevented a wider and more general participation in the benefits of a University education. It might naturally have been hoped that, after the frequent discussions the subject has undergone and the numerous Bills which have been sent up from the other House, the Motion with which I am about to conclude would be agreed to without any opposition. Last year the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) moved the Previous Question, chiefly on the ground that further consideration was required, for he did not like to combat the principle of the measure, and he urged that Oxford had had no time or opportunity of considering the question. That plea can hardly be repeated after the lapse of 12 months; but I find that I am to be met by a Motion, not directed against the principle of the Bill, but calculated to raise a by-issue. No man can doubt the sincere interest which the noble Marquess (the

  201
  Marquess of Salisbury) feels in everything which relates to the permanent welfare of our Universities—especially of that illustrious one which has recently conferred on him, with so much wisdom and advantage to itself, the highest honour it is in its power to bestow. I cannot for a moment doubt that the noble Marquess is influenced by a pure desire to maintain the advantages which the Universities confer upon the country. At the same time, I think I shall be able to show reasons for doubting whether the course the noble Marquess proposes to pursue is the best calculated to secure the objects in view. The noble Marquess proposes to meet the Motion for the second reading of the Bill by two Resolutions. To the first of these I should be disposed to interpose no objection, were it not interposed in the way of the second reading of the Bill. I am bound to say that, taking the words of that Resolution in their general sense, they are not in my mind inconsistent with the general principle of the Bill. Indeed, on comparing it with part of the Preamble of the measure, it will be found substantially identical with it. [The Marquess of SALISBURY: It is a transcript of it.] My noble Friend admits more than I was going to argue, for he acknowledges that his Resolution is a transcript from the Preamble. Now, if he thinks that the Bill does not sufficiently carry out the declaration of the Preamble, let him in Committee propose Amendments for that purpose; and provided they are consistent with his own Resolution in enabling "persons not members of the Church of England to hold offices to which they are not now eligible," I shall be ready to give the most careful and complete consideration to any proposal which may provide—
  "Proper safeguards for the maintenance of religious instruction and worship, and for the religious character of the education to be given."
  I should have the greatest hopes that the noble Marquess and your Lordships would accept the offer which in all sincerity I make if the first Resolution stood alone; but, unfortunately, there is behind a second Resolution, to which I cannot so readily assent. When I first read that Resolution I confess I was somewhat startled, and found it difficult to comprehend the meaning. At
  202
  first reading it seemed simply intended—though I may have been doing an injustice to the noble Marquess—to get rid of the Bill altogether. It does not even propose the appointment of a Select Committee, but merely speaks of a Committee, and it is so vague and general that I regarded it as an euphemistic mode of rejecting the Bill. [The Marquess of SALISBURY was understood to intimate that he intended a Select Committee.] Then I will not press that argument. But there is another which I am obliged to press. If the noble Marquess thought a great advantage would be derived from an inquiry by your Lordships' House into all the bearings of the subject, why, when he was apprised by the Speech from the Throne that the Government intended to deal with the question, did he not take the earliest opportunity—especially as he is so apt to complain of your Lordships having nothing to do—of proposing a Select Committee, in order that the subject might be fairly investigated, and that when the Bill reached this House your Lordships might be fully informed upon it? I venture to think that the notion of a Committee and of an inquiry suggested itself at a later period, and had some connection with the shadow, if not with the actual presence of this Bill. He does not even now propose a Select Committee on the Bill, but he wishes to set the Bill aside and refer the general question to a Committee; the effect of which must, of course, be to postpone, at least for another year, the settlement of the question. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) and the noble Marquess are evidently sensible that a settlement of the question on the principle of this Bill is inevitable, for otherwise they would distinctly oppose the second reading. Such a settlement being, then, inevitable, what substantial advantage does the noble Marquess expect to obtain by a twelvemonths' postponement? Nobody knows better than he that our ancient Universities have before them a great and important task. They have to consider to what extent and in what manner they can admit into the curriculum of their studies those sciences which during the last quarter of a century have grown so rapidly as almost to threaten the overshadowing of other branches of knowledge. They have the task of combining those subjects with

  203
  the ancient and time-honoured studies to which they have hitherto devoted themselves, and of reconciling the spirit of those modern studies with that spirit of religious faith for which the Universities are distinguished. That is a great and truly national work—one of wide and vast importance. How can it be advanced by the continuance for another year of the agitation upon this worn-out question? Is it desirable to divert the Universities from their real duty for the sake of maintaining a contest which is really settled, a battle which has long been lost, on a question which my noble Friend will admit to be of vastly inferior importance to the more pressing task to which I have alluded? It appears to me that such a course is fraught only with mischief to the Universities themselves—it will only increase the agitation and party bitterness which we have already experienced. Entertaining these views, and believing this measure to be just and expedient, I earnestly entreat your Lordships, for the sake of the Universities themselves, for the sake of the Church, for the sake of justice to individuals and the interests of the nation at large, to read this Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord, President.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I trust that I shall be able to clear myself from the imputation which the noble Lord President, to some extent, threw upon me, of having unnecessarily delayed the Motion for a Committee to inquire into the measure proposed by the Government, when, warned by the Queen's Speech, I might have done it earlier in the Session. I confess that that course occurred to me at the beginning of the year; but on consideration, I said to myself—"This is a measure which has never before been adopted as a Government measure; the House of Commons and the Ministry depend entirely upon one eminent individual; and that eminent individual has himself but very recently held the opinion which I wish to defend. He has a perfect right, like everybody else, on sufficient cause shown, to change his opinion; but the inevitable impression made by such a change is that a further change is always possible." People doubt the stability of convictions recently
  204
  acquired—and acquired in opposition to the previous convictions of a whole life; and I, therefore, thought to myself that although we should certainly know what the Bill would be when brought into the House of Commons, yet it was probable that we should know nothing, whatever its original shape, of what it would be when it left the House of Commons and was sent up to the House of Lords. Feeling, therefore, that it was of very little use to inquire into a measure of which we did not know the exact provisions, I thought it the wisest and most convenient course to defer any proposition for inquiry until we knew what the subject of inquiry was likely to be. And I confess I am glad I did so, for an inquiry into the Bill as it went into the House of Commons would have been of little use in its bearing upon the present Bill as it has been sent up to us by the Commons. The question, as the noble Earl has remarked, has been for many Sessions the subject of private Motions. It has been handed over from independent Member to independent Member of the House of Commons; it has been carried by gradually increasing majorities, and at last it has been adopted by a Government some of whose Members have almost up to the end retained their objections to it. In that respect it does not differ much from the genesis of many other Bills with which I am acquainted; but it differs from all that I know in this—that it has reached the stage of ultimate legislation, dealing with such important interests, without any inquiry by a Royal Commission or by a Committee of either House. My duty is not to argue against the principle of the Bill, if by the principle of the Bill is meant the admission to offices of persons who cannot now hold office in the Universities—my business is to impress on your Lordships that so grave a step in legislation ought not, if you are faithful to your own traditions and precedents, to be adopted without due and careful inquiry. What is the object of this Bill. My noble Friend the Lord President has sufficiently explained what, to his mind, is its object. He desires to admit persons who are generally, though somewhat vaguely, known as "orthodox Dissenters" to the benefits of University honours and emoluments, from which they are now excluded by the test of

  205
  subscription to the Thirty Nine Articles. That is a very intelligible and, from their point of view, a very legitimate object on the part of the Dissenters—were I a Dissenter myself I should do very much the same thing. It is quite right that the adherents to any form of belief should do their best to attain all that may tend to the honour and propagation of that belief; nor do I dispute that the circumstances of the day have very muck changed with respect to the power of resisting such a claim. I do not profess to have changed my opinion; but seeing what the political forces of the day are, and knowing, as I have had the opportunity of knowing, the opinions of the leading men—at least in the University to which I have the honour to belong—I do not intend to maintain that we desire as an object to exclude Nonconformists from University and collegiate honours and emoluments. We are content that that should be so, subject to one condition. We are content to admit that in the present condition of the world — in the existing state of things—it would be wiser and better, and more for the interests of peace, learning, and religion, to admit such a state of things than to resist it. But there is one condition — a condition affirmed in the Preamble of this Bill, and as a mere abstract piece of sentimentality contained in the clauses, though there is not one shred of enactment to secure it—the one condition to which we attach an importance immeasurably superior to any consideration of honours or emoluments. I will describe it in the very words of the Government—
  "It is expedient that such restrictions, tests, and disabilities should be removed, under proper safeguards for maintenance of religious instruction and worship in the said Universities and the Colleges and Halls now subsisting within the same."
  These words point, whether designedly or not, to the real enemy with whom we have to contend. Our contention with the Dissenters has been in one sense only political. The points on which the mass of the Dissenters differ from the Church of England are points upon which, in their day, men felt with intense earnestness and fought with unflagging vigour, and I do not wish to underrate their importance; but they are points from which the intellectual interest of the age has passed away. They are no longer the battle-fields of religious controversy.
  206
  The points of Church government which separate us from the Wesleyans and Independents, the question of the age of baptism which separates us from another important sect—important as these questions are, and I should be sorry to treat them as trivial—they are not points on which those who are interested in the condition of Christendom, all who look with interest on the present relations of the progress of civilization and the purity of Christian faith, are most deeply interested. We feel that the battle is shifted to another ground, and that we have to deal with a much more potent and dangerous enemy. The progress of physical science, the gradual familiarity which political events have given us with the modes of thought of the Eastern world—these, together with other less powerful causes, have produced effects on the human mind similar to those which previous inventions and discoveries have produced. Just as 300 years ago the discovery of America, the invention of printing, and the sudden familiarity with ancient literature dazzled and confused men's minds, and drove them in some cases from the landmarks of the faith—so in our day there is a violent movement towards utter unbelief, which is principally felt among the most educated and cultivated classes of society. No one who deserves the name of Christian can look upon that movement with anything of permanent alarm, or can believe it will ultimately compromise interests very dear to us; but undoubtedly it is a force which, within our own generation, has been tremendous, and we cannot say it is yet spent. No doubt, after a time, better counsels, a more moderate estimate of the relations of the new discoveries to the ancient beliefs and their bearing on the ancient faith will prevail; but, in the meanwhile, we have to deal with a class of men, earnest men of clear and powerful intellect, honest, pure in the morality which they have derived from the Christianity which they repudiate, who seek with all the earnestness of a religious propaganda to overthrow the religion in which they have been brought up. That is the real enemy whom we have to deal, and all our differences of opinion on points of secondary importance with Dissenters sink into immeasurable insignificance compared with the magnitude of this

  207
  contest. Now, it is from the feeling that this Bill bears upon this great controversy, that it may for the course of some time, if carried in its present form, delay the ultimate and sure victory of the truth and cause many souls to be gathered into the net of error, that I have always looked upon it as far superior in importance to any measures dealing with merely secular and terrestrial interests. I am aware that, happily, there are very few in Parliament who would be prepared to maintain the desirability of giving free course to unbelief. That the Dissenting forces are used by those who desire such an issue I do not doubt; but I know well that those who are really guiding the Dissenting forces do so with a scarcely concealed contempt for the credulity of the allies they are forced to use. I can understand statesmen who have not thought of these things wishing to thrust aside a controversy which is always barren and certainly acrimonious; and therefore many sophistries, if I may call them so, have been devised to induce us to believe that a measure of this kind will have no influence in forwarding the progress of those errors to which I have called attention. It is said, for instance, that tests are of no real effect, and they have been compared to a hedge or wall which can easily be broken through or climbed over. Well, no doubt, there are people who can break through tests just as there are unscrupulous intruders who can climb over a wall or force their way through a hedge; but you do not on that account abandon your garden walls, and I see no prudence in abandoning tests in the case of institutions to which they are adapted. They do keep out a very large proportion of the persons against whom they are directed, though, no doubt, there are a certain number of people with minds sufficiently subtle and consciences sufficiently elastic to break through them. If I wanted to prove the efficiency of tests I should not refer to mere theoretical arguments, but give a practical illustration. No set of people in the world are freer from prejudices connected with antiquated traditions than our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic. Yet the Americans when, in the height of a fierce political contest, they desired to keep certain members out of Congress, could conceive of nothing more efficient than the antiquated
  208
  tests which you despise. If those tests were not practically useful, I am sure the Americans would not have adopted them; and, as a matter of fact, they have effected the object in view, and they keep out everyone whom their authors desired to keep out. But then we are told that the Church is strong in the Universities, and that if you only give free trade and fair play in regard to religion, the Church will be in no danger. If the Universities had the power of electing the Fellows and Tutors of each College, I should admit that there was a great deal of force in the argument; but those who use it do so in utter forgetfulness of the strange constitutions of our Colleges. The College Fellows have always been a body electing their own members; and the perpetuation of that body has been confided to the existing Fellows who have had the entire power over the education of their College. It was for them to decide whether the statutes should be altered, and on what conditions, and with what qualifications the Tutors should be selected. Until 1854, the Fellows had absolute discretion as to whom they should elect; but in that year Parliament passed a statute altering all this. It deprived the Fellows of their absolute power, and said to them—"You shall take the man who has done the best in an intellectual examination." The consequence is, that the condition of the Colleges has come to this—the College Tutors now consist of men who, at the age of 22, or thereabouts, are able to compose better Greek Iambics, or to give a better account of Greek philosophy than their fellow-students. On that qualification, and on that qualification alone, they have gained a permanent right to govern and control the education of the youth of this country. There is no appeal against their decision; there is no power of regulating them; and neither the State nor the Universities can interfere with them. Whatever happens, the circumstance of their having had at the age of 22 this peculiar educational qualification enables them—no matter how much their opinions may subsequently change on matters of belief or morality—to go on to their dying day regulating the discipline and appointing the officers of their College. So long as there was a statutory guarantee for the faith of these College Fellows, it perhaps

  209
  was not worth while to interfere. The arrangement was always an anomalous one; but I can understand that, as long as there existed some guarantee for the faith of the Tutors and the Fellows, it might be sustained. It does seem to me, however, that you are exposed to extreme danger if you allow—if on the mere score of intellectual superiority at the age of 22 you allow this vested right of managing education to men for whose religious belief or opinions you have not the slightest guarantee. I do not for a moment pretend that if the course of opinion in this country should unhappily be such that Christianity loses its hold over the people, and if they should no longer desire their children to be brought up in that religious belief, it would be possible to prevent the Universities from being drawn into that common destiny. What I say is this—that the Universities should not become the echo of every vicissitude of opinion. As the Colleges are now constituted, a very small number of men might make a College in either of the Universities a centre for propagating unbelief. In many of the Colleges, the Fellows are not more than a dozen or so in number, and by reason of some of them being non-resident, the practical Governing Body is reduced to six or seven. These are selected purely on this principle of their intellectual superiority at the age of 22 or 23, and four or five persons who had got in on this ground, if it so happened that they were agreed in opinions hostile to Christianity, might set up an infidel College in the midst of either University. There would be absolutely nothing to prevent this. You may say, perhaps, that this is exceedingly improbable. I admit its improbability; but still the mere chance of some three or four men holding peculiar opinions being able to get in, seems a very dangerous thing to which to trust the education of our youth. What I dread more than anything else is that, at an age when the character is unformed, the passions strong, and the conviction not yet settled, young men going to the Universities should find College set against College, and Professor against Professor, with reference to the deepest mysteries of the Christian faith, and all that they had been accustomed to regard with reverence, and all the restraining truths of religion called in question every hour of the day. You cannot, I am
  210
  aware, silence differences of opinion—truth must be fought out amidst controversy—but the young, with tender and unformed minds, surely ought not to be plunged, at the most dangerous period of life, into the arena of such controversies as these. I maintain that the constitution of our Universities is not fitted for this unrestricted liberty of religious opinion, and that we must overhaul the whole question, and go into all the arrangements which have existed so long, if we are about to introduce an element so strange and novel. I do not see how, in justice to the parents of this country who, undoubtedly, look to the Universities to bring up their children in the habits of morality and the truths of religion, we can establish a system which would offer such a fair field for an infidel propaganda. I have heard no argument against this inquiry—nothing that anyone could say was worthy to be called an argument. My noble Friend (Earl De Grey and Ripon) indeed descanted on the dangers of delay, and hinted that, if delay occurs, we shall have something worse than the present measure. Well, my Lords, I am quite at ease on that score, for I defy my noble Friend to produce a worse measure than this.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that he had made no hint of the kind referred to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly thought I heard my noble Friend say something about the agitation growing every day more acrimonious; but I am very glad to find I was mistaken on this point. As to what my noble Friend said about delay it is quite clear that, if there is no evil in delay, the case for inquiry becomes overwhelming. Remember that the step you are asked to take in my Motion is quite in accordance with precedent; because small measures as well as large ones have always been preceded by adequate and sufficient inquiry. Previous to the disestablishment of the Irish Church, previous to the alteration of the Lectionary, you had such an inquiry; and the very fact that my noble Friend and we on this side of the House differ so widely as to the effect of the Bill, and as to whether the 4th clause affords an adequate protection from religious instruction, is in itself sufficient to show that inquiry is

  211
  necessary before we proceed to the second reading of this Bill. I should like the House to listen again to what my noble Friend believes to be a security for religious worship and instruction. The 4th clause provides that
  "Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or affect—any further or otherwise than is herein expressly enacted—the system of religious instruction, worship, and discipline which now is or may hereafter be lawfully established in the said Universities respectively, or in the Colleges thereof or any of them, or the statutes and ordinances of the said Universities and Colleges respectively relating to such instruction, worship, and discipline."
  Of course, we are asked to assume that the Bill does what it says it does; and, consequently, my noble Friend tells us that it secures religions worship and instruction. I do not differ from the Preamble; but it certainly does not appear to me to be an extravagant thing to ask that, when we are called upon to pass a measure professing to be in conformity with the Preamble, we should take means to inquire whether that conformity is real or not. It appears to me that we are called upon to alter a system which has existed for centuries, and to introduce in its place one of which we know nothing. Surely, the mere circumstance that we are called upon to do this—and called upon to do it in opposition to the strongly-expressed opinion of the majority of those bodies with whom the Bill deals—is a sufficient ground for granting the inquiry for which I ask. I would only put it to your Lordships as a question of alternative. Just as a matter of hypothesis, compare the risk of the two courses which you are called upon to take. It may be that we are wrong—it may be that the Bill does provide, as it professes to do, sufficient security for religious instruction and worship. In such an event, what evil will have been done by referring the matter to a Select Committee? The truth will come out in due time; and, by adopting the course I recommend, your Lordships will adhere to your ordinary traditions and precedents of legislation, and you will legislate with all the more confidence because you will legislate carefully. But suppose, on the other hand, that our anticipations are well-founded, and that this Bill is about to cut the link between religious and other instruction in the Universities, I ask you to consider the evil
  212
  which would be caused by hot precipitin. You will have inflicted evils which are absolutely irreparable; you will have deprived the people of this country of their most efficient instrument for sustaining the Christian faith, and for upholding Christian morality; and you will have despoiled the Universities of that which has been for centimes their chiefest honour, and which is now their most endearing claim to the affections of the people.
  Amendment moved, to leave out from ("that") to the end of the Motion, and insert the following Resolution, viz.:—
  "In any measure for enabling persons not members of the Church of England to hold offices to which they are not now eligible in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and the Colleges and Halls in those Universities, it is essential to provide by law proper safeguards for the maintenance of religious instruction and worship and for the religious character of the education to be given therein."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, being so closely connected with the University of Oxford, I think I need not apologize to your Lordships for making a few remarks on this important subject. I am the more anxious to do so because I feel that, notwithstanding what the noble Marquess the Chancellor of the University has said, it is my duty to vote against the Amendment which he has just proposed. I am quite willing to admit that there are many reasons why I, and I suppose many of your Lordships, should regret that there is any necessity for this measure; but my regrets go farther back than most people's. I not only regret that it should be necessary to bring in a measure for the abolition of tests, but I regret that it was ever necessary to enact them. I am very sorry that a state of things should ever have existed in England, rendering it necessary to provide on behalf of one part of the country against the admission of another part to any privilege to which all seem to be primâ facie entitled. If all had been of one mind—if all the subjects of the Crown of England had been members of the Church of England—the tests would have been unnecessary; but it was in view of religious divisions that tests were enacted, and it is in view of religious divisions that it is now sought to repeal them. There is little doubt public opinion supported their introduction, and there is no doubt

  213
  that, at present, public opinion supports their abolition. It is folly, then, on the part of either branch of the Legislature—for I make no distinction between them—to attempt to resist the mature political conviction of the country when it has been clearly expressed; and if it be the verdict of public opinion that all Englishmen shall have equal right to the endowments and honours of the great Universities, it is folly to resist this verdict, and to go on upholding a succession of untenable posts until you have no longer the power to dictate the terms of your surrender—while the very fact of your resistance is calculated to diminish the weight of your advice, or, perhaps, to preclude you from giving it in all subsequent consideration of the question. Yet this is what we should be doing if we adopted the Amendment. I cannot regard that Amendment as other than an attempt, for the present Session at least, to defeat the Bill, and I cannot see that the Committee the noble Marquess asks for would in any way affect the conclusion to which your Lordships are invited to come. I can think of nothing into which that Committee would inquire which is not obvious to the minds of all who know anything of those who are resident in the Universities. I admit there are very strong opinions in the Universities against the measure; it was only yesterday I was told that if I voted for this Bill—this accursed measure, my correspondent was pleased to call it—I should lose every friend I valued in Oxford. I have a better opinion of Oxford—I have a better opinion of my friends than to be intimidated by that threat. And now, if your Lordships will allow me, I will give you my reasons for supporting the Bill. As I understand it, the Church of England is face to face with a new order of things. The Church of England is face to face with the conviction of the country that the Universities are to be opened; and it seems to me that it would be wisdom on the part of the Church frankly to accept the situation, and, as far as she may, to guide and control the movement. It is vain for the Church to cling to Acts of Parliament in matters of this kind. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has said that this Bill contains provisions on behalf of religion which are illusory and sentimental. I cannot see that the Bill is to enact anything which would prevent
  214
  the Universities from maintaining their religious character. The present tests have no effect in maintaining the religious character of the Universities. There are Colleges at Oxford at this moment where a candidate for a Fellowship, known to have strongly religious sentiments, would have no chance against a latitudinarian competitor. There are Tutors at these Colleges, who make no secret of entertaining views hostile to Christianity; the present tests do not restrain them. If I were to choose between a Freethinker and a pious Dissenter, in electing to an office of influence in the University, I should choose the pious Dissenter. ["Hear, hear!"] I thought this Bill was to admit the Dissenters—[A noble LORD: "Not the Freethinkers"],—and I do not see that their admission would so seriously affect the Universities as some people think. I would even say that in point of morality and sobriety some Colleges may be usefully affected by an element such as I have described. The noble Marquess speaks in his Amendment of "safeguards in law;" but as protectors of religion it seems to me these standards fixed by law do more harm than good. No religious teaching is forbidden by the Bill—it was not the intention of its authors to forbid it. Some have said it would be improper under its provisions even to say grace in College hall; but, so far from that, as I read it, the Bill would allow the restoration of the old College practice of reading a good book during meals if the Society wished to restore it; and surely the noble Marquess does not mean to say we shall not, if the Bill is passed, elect Christians to be Fellows. We mean to uphold Christianity not in spite of this Bill, but by virtue of this Bill; we mean to uphold Christianity, because the Bill leaves us perfectly free to uphold it, more free than under the false system of the present time. I do not cherish any illusions. I do not suppose that when this Bill becomes law Dissenters and Churchmen will all immediately live at peace. I am very well aware—more so during the past few weeks than before—that a great number of men who, I suppose, love religion much hate the Church a great deal more, and with regard to them I do not suppose this Bill will tend to produce amity; but the influences of what

  215
  is called extreme political Dissent are not the influences which prevail at the Universities. They have their spheres in vestries and election committee-rooms, not in academical Senates and Convocations. The pious Dissenter who really values learning and religion is the man who will come in under the Bill. I claim the same credit for honesty in holding my opinions as is claimed for those from whom I differ. I believe that religion will prosper as much without these tests as under them; and I ask noble Lords who oppose the Bill not to think that we who support it are given up to wicked imaginings, but are as honest and true friends of religion as themselves, and as determined to maintain it in its integrity and at all hazards.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, that though he concurred in much that his right rev. Brother had said, he could not but think that the whole tone of his address sounded as that of one who receded step by step before the foe. Whatever views they might take up on this question, they should regard each other as honourable and honest men who differed on certain points, and who were moved by a conscientious desire to do what was right; and, therefore, he was not prepared to regard those upon whom they were seeking to confer privileges as hostile. He confessed frankly that he was prepared to stand by the Amendment of the noble Marquess—not with a view of gaining time, which, in many cases, meant gaining time in following a disastrous cause; but the time they were now seeking to gain was a proceeding based on considerations of the deepest regard for religion. The whole tenour of the remarks he was then making turned upon his feeling that this Bill would not conduce to the best interests of religion, although he was satisfied that that was not the belief of those who had introduced the measure, and who appeared to regard the safeguards it contained as sufficient to protect those interests. The proposal of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) was that an opportunity should be afforded for eliciting the opinion of the country upon the subject, so that that opinion might be ascertained with something like certainty. With regard to the question whether Dissenters should be admitted to our Universities or not,
  216
  he should take a very different tone from that of his right rev. Brother. There were three arguments why Nonconformists should be admitted to the Universities. The first was the great argument of common sense; the second was, that having conceded privileges to the Nonconformists long ago further privileges must be conceded to them; and the third was, that the larger half of the Nonconformists had proved themselves worthy of those privileges. There was, however, another argument that came more nearly home to themselves, and that was the argument of feeling. That very day he had spent six long hours in a circumscribed chamber not 100 yards from that House, round the table in which were grouped Nonconformists, mingled with the dignitaries of the Church of England; and he felt that it was a duty to extend to men, who had proved themselves worthy, the opportunities of the highest culture. Therefore, upon the question of feeling alone, he should be disposed to admit the Nonconformists into the Universities. There was, however, one very plain and distinct point to which he wished to draw attention—and that was, whether the Bill, in proposing to open the door to the Nonconformists—to whom he would willingly concede entrance—would not also open the door to the Freethinkers, the Secularists, and to those who at this moment were endeavouring to strike down religion under their feet? If their Lordships were of opinion that the Bill would have that effect, it became their duty, as plain, simple, earnest men, to fall back upon the Amendment of the noble Marquess, which suggested that they should pause before they entered upon such a rapid and downward course, and decline to proceed until they had ascertained whether the serious fears that were entertained with respect to the security of religion were or were not well founded. Having said thus much upon the general question, he now came to consider the matter in detail. It was evident that the measure contemplated certain results; but those results were stated by those who were attempting to legislate upon this subject to be folly counterbalanced by certain safeguards. He would proceed to inquire, in the first place, whether the results which it was anticipated would follow the Bill were formidable in their character; and, secondly, whether the safeguards

  217
  were or were not sufficiently strong to resist the apprehended evil. If he could establish the formidable character of those results and the insufficient nature of the safeguards, he should have some ground why the proposition of the noble Marquess should be entertained. He would test the Bill by the effect it would have first upon the Colleges and then upon the Universities. When a young man entered the College he was brought into the immediate control of the tutor; the Dean of the College, who looked after his morality and his attendance upon public worship; (and, thirdly, the Master of the College. Under this Bill the Tutor might be not only a layman—to which he had not the slightest objection—but a man who had no creed whatever, and one who would pass by with almost a sneer all sacred truths. Again, what would be the feelings of the youth if the Dean of the College, who more or less superintended his moral bearing, and the Master of the College, were habitually absent from public worship and treated religious matters with levity? The way that the Universities would be affected by the Bill was this—There were at Cambridge four Professorships, the first of winch must necessarily be held by a clergyman of the Church of England, and the holder of the second, being elected by the Bachelors of Divinity, might be assumed to be a religious man. The holders of the Norrisean and the Hulsean Professorships were, however, elected by the General Congregation, and might be men of no religious belief whatever, as far as the tonus of the Bill went. Much had been said of the 4th clause; but the 5th clause had not been sufficiently alluded to. All the sting of the Bill lay in that clause, and in Christian fairness the two clauses ought to be read together. By that clause certain Acts of Parliament were repealed in whole or in part. Part of the Act of Uniformity was repealed, and the consequence would be that the Colleges might make what alterations they pleased in the celebration of Divine service; because it was hardly to be supposed that the recommendations arrived at by any of the Colleges would be refused by the Queen in Council. Therefore, he feared that disastrous changes would follow on the passing of this Bill, and he claimed on behalf of not only sons of members of
  218
  the Church of England, but for the sons of Nonconformists, that care should be taken to prevent such consequences, for they could not be afterwards removed by Amendments made in that House. He was anxious that the Committee should be appointed for the ulterior purpose of leading to the introduction of a broad and comprehensive measure, that should deal with several matters in the Colleges needing reform. As an illustration of the points to which he referred he might ask whether it was fair that young men obtaining Fellowships should take hundreds of pounds away from their University, while they prepared at a distance for Parliamentary life, or some other pursuits, and never return anything to their Alma Mater? In this and other matters reform was necessary, and therefore he was in favour of a full consideration of the subject.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, it must be a great satisfaction to those who have watched the growth of feeling with regard to this question for so many years, to find that the country and the Legislature have at length come to one point, at any rate, on which all men seem to agree. All seem to be agreed that it is no longer possible, and no longer right to exclude from office and emoluments in our great Universities those who conscientiously are not members of the Church of England. The question, when we have come to that point, is not what shall be done, but how shall it be done? I think, my Lords, we ought not only to pass this Bill, but pass it with the least possible delay. I am confident that, for the interests of truth and justice, and, emphatically and above all, for the interests of the Church of England, delay would be a serious mischief. It is mischievous that we should be, day by day, alienating from that Church the affections of many of her own sons, and provoking still more the hostility of those who are without her pale. We are constantly alienating the affections of those who belong to us, who were brought up in our own communion. Many who were taught the doctrines of the Church of England find these tests a very heavy burden to bear. Many are lost to the Church because we require of them what their consciences will not accept. When a young man carries off a Fellowship, and signs the necessary declaration, it often

  219
  occurs that he is vexed in conscience by all manner of questions which it would be much better to allow him to put aside, and consider calmly and deliberately, and without anything depending on his decision. But by the very nature of the case, he is obliged to settle such questions for himself at once, or forfeit the character of an honest man. When he proceeds to examine them, he is all the while tormented with the thought that possibly he may be doing wrong in retaining his Fellowship at all; and, at the same time, he is prompted to come to a conclusion years before he ought to do so, from the fear that he should otherwise be dishonestly holding his place. It is no trifling thing to put a young man in such a difficulty. The result is, that either he retains his Fellowship in spite of doubts and to the injury of his conscience, or, finding that the scales are unfairly weighed, and seeing that it will be impossible to decide a question in which his personal interests are involved, he throws up his Fellowship and stands aside. From that day forward his mind has received a fatal twist, and he may be unable for ever after to forget how he had been treated at such a critical time. If left to himself these questions would be settled in a legitimate manner, by his quietly thinking over them until the conclusion to which his conscience would lead him should be quite clear to his understanding. Whilst, however, he is called upon to decide under such circumstances as exist at present, it is almost inevitable that difficulties should arise like mountains before him, and that doubts which were in reality hardly worth considering, should appear insurmountable obstacles, and, in this frame of mind, you call upon him to decide what must affect the whole future tenour of his life. He knows perfectly well that, as far as the duties of a Tutor are concerned, there are many subjects which he can teach without troubling himself about these points. But now, if he is a mathematician, and wants to teach mathematics; if he is a Greek scholar, and wants to teach Greek; if he is a student of Natural Science, and wants to teach Natural Science, he is compelled long before he is fit for their decision, to decide for himself the most momentous questions that can possibly be put before anyone to determine. I do not mean to
  220
  say these tests may not have been of use in protecting the Church in the Universities in other times. At a period when there is no great amount of speculation going on, when people are not eagerly bent on the pursuit of the most difficult truths, when the intellects of men are, as it were, stagnating, then certainly it is quite possible to turn out one or two restless spirits who choose to depart from the ordinary line of thought, and to keep the rest of the University quite quiet. But, as it is now, these tests, so far from keeping out anybody, are absolutely of themselves, to a great degree, the very cause why there is so much mischievous speculation going on in young men's minds. They are forced to consider these questions, and even if they would leave them alone, as many of them would be disposed to do, they have no choice in the matter. I speak from experience, and I say I am sure that, as long as this state of things continues, the Church of England must suffer, and suffer in a way which it is most difficult to meet. They may be a few who are thus compelled to enter into these speculations and decide for themselves; but they are the very pick of the Universisities—the very men who are to lead their fellow-men; and to lose one of them is a matter of grievous consequence. Very often I would rather sacrifice the endowments of the Universities altogether than lose the men who are sometimes lost through the present system. Meanwhile, my Lords, what is the impression we are making on those outside of the Church. The Bill is rejected; a year is lost; then it comes before us again, and now once more it is proposed to postpone it. Will the Dissenters really believe that this is done for no other purpose than simply to provide safeguards for religion, when they are put off year after year, and when they know perfectly well that all who have anything to do with the question have had plenty of opportunities of studying it to the bottom, and ought to know by this time what kind of safeguards they require? It is said the Bill does not contain sufficient safeguards. What kind of safeguards are we to have? Are we to devise new tests? ["No!"] "We are not to require these men to be members of the Church of England! Are we to require them to hold some new religion to be invented by the Legislature?

  221
  What sort of restrictions are we to have? How can we provide anything that is not provided already? The safeguards contained in this Bill are the very kind which these postponements put in peril. You have these safeguards—that a certain number of the Headships of Colleges and the clerical Fellowships are protected by the Bill at present. ["Oh!"] Certainly, the Heads of Colleges are open by the Bill in as far as they are laymen without any restriction; but I do not see that it anywhere opens them in as far as they are clergymen. Therefore I say that this, which is one of the safeguards in the Bill, still stands—that the clerical Heads of Colleges still remain; and I say this is one of the very safeguards that you put in peril by delay. Anyone who watches the course of feeling in this country will see what is the popular instinct in these matters. That popular instinct endeavours, as far as it can, to provide for religion everywhere; and, thank God, the people of England happily are still truly religious. The people still desire that there should be religious instruction. But they constantly see that those who have charge of that religious instruction contend so bitterly among themselves, that it is hardly possible to contrive that it shall be provided through their means; and the tendency of the popular mind is at last to say—"We will have nothing to do with religious instruction at all; we must come down to that about which there is no such bitter contention, and have a purely secular system." The country is, I believe, now opposed to a secular system, and will only be driven to it by finding it impracticable to bring about some agreement among those who have the charge of religious instruction. But that is the road we are going. Now this Bill still protects the clerical Headships of Colleges and the clerical Fellowships. But wait another year, and the chances are you may then find that the clerical Fellowships and the clerical Headships of Colleges are gone too. This is no menace. It is not a thing that I desire, nor do I believe the Government desire it; but it is the irresistible current of popular feeling; and I am quite sure you will put in peril the remaining safeguards of religious instruction if you allow this Bill to wait. What is it, I ask, that we are to wait for? I do not wish to speak with any
  222
  disrespect of what was said by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) or by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Gloucester), but it really seems to me that the fears they have expressed are almost ludicrously exaggerated. What are we to be afraid of? That one or two clever men should set themselves up in the University to give infidel teaching. The right rev. Prelate is afraid that even although he has his own choice of the College and the University, though he may select which Head of a College he will in trust his son to, and which Tutor he will put him under for instruction, it will be quite impossible to find any Head of a College or any Tutor who is to be entirely trusted to teach him as he would wish. The noble Marquess fears that we are to have an infidel propaganda of one or two able men that will swoop the religious teaching of the Universities away, and seems to think that we must invent some new test to meet that danger. My Lords, it appears to me that to fight the battle of truth now with those old tests is very like endeavouring to fight a battle between soldiers with the armour of the Middle Ages. These tests are, in reality, far more hampering than helping. There is no question that the atmosphere of truth is freedom, and that it is quite inconsistent with narrowness and exclusiveness. If you will only remove these tests, I, for one, have no fear of what can be done by the Church of England. It could fight its own battles without fear or favour. I have no fear that any infidel propagandism would prevail against the power that will be there to meet it. Nay, I am quite sure that nothing could be better for truth than that that infidel propagandism should have an opportunity to come forward into the open and show exactly what it thinks and to fight face to face. As it is now, what happens with all your religious teaching? There is a perpetual sense in the minds of the learners that they are not really hearing what their teachers themselves believe. There is the perpetual feeling that the teachers are tongue-tied—[" No, no!"] — the perpetual feeling that a man is not saying exactly what he thinks. ["No, no!"] I am not at all saying that this feeling is just—that is another matter; but I know there is a kind of suspicion which constantly poisons the teaching of the Universities,

  223
  simply because there is a feeling that men are not allowed to be perfectly honest through these tests to which they have submitted. Men are frequently found unwilling to speak to each other about religious subjects, because they have a fear that it is not possible to do so with perfect freedom and openness. Thus a most unhealthy reticence or reserve is practised where there ought to be entire plainness and frankness of speech. ["No, no!"] Those who say "No, no!" express no doubt what they feel in regard to their own University; and I am glad to know that what I have described is not the general character of Oxford and Cambridge. But although the general character of these two Universities is still sound and excellent, yet there is this poison creeping into all their life and doing them the most terrible mischief. I hold then, my Lords, that this is not the way to fight the battle. On this occasion let us rather throw aside all those ramparts which have been erected to protect the truth, but which have very often been made the prison walls within which she has languished, and let us call upon religious men from all quarters to come in and bear their part in the battle, in which we should be glad to have their aid. It is said we shall do little to conciliate the Dissenters by admitting them into the Universities. My Lords, I believe we shall do much. Pardon me if I speak warmly of my own University. It is impossible for a man who has learnt much in that University not to feel that no words can express the depth of his affection or the strength of his conviction of her power to extend to others the blessings which she has conferred on himself. And when those now outside of her pale are introduced within it, will they be insensible, my Lords, to what we have all felt so keenly? Will they not be touched with something like the love that we have cherished for our own Universities? Will not that have some effect in softening down their asperities? The sooner we Churchmen invite them to join us the better, for we shall find them, I am quite sure, such allies that there will not be the slightest reason for what I cannot but think the bugbears held up to frighten us by those who advocate delay.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I regard this Bill not as an attack
  224
  on the Universities, but as an endeavour to redress a state of things which it is now acknowledged on all hands requires to be redressed. Ever since the year 1854, when you admitted, but very grudgingly, the Nonconformists to a share in the education of the great Universities, this question has pressed upon you to be disposed of. I well remember that the first step taken by my own University, and taken to my great regret, was to narrow the very narrow privileges conferred by the Legislature, by providing that no Nonconformist should enter the University save to receive his education under a clergyman of the Church of England. It has always seemed to me, as it seems now, that one of two things must happen—either that the Nonconformists must be excluded on the ground that the Universities belong entirely to the Church of England, or else that they must be admitted to a real and substantial share of every advantage the Universities possess. Well, how does the case stand at present? Two men side by side receive the same education, employ the same diligence, and obtain the same honours; and you say to them—"You must sign the tests, and then you will find a place open to you of considerable emolument, which generally lasts for fife." One of them signs, and the other refuses. But it does not follow that you have got the best man, or that the hand that signs carries with it the heart and the head that thinks and believes; while you have committed an injustice, and failed in your object. I admit that the endeavour to redress this state of things does involve a certain hardship, and shocks the feelings of many. But I find, on the other hand, that there is not one on either side your Lordships' House who has undertaken the question, who does not admit that we must give to the Nonconformists a substantial share in the emoluments of the Universities. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) admits it in the very terms of his Motion; and the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) who opposed the measure last year admitted it, because he suggested that one-half of the Fellowships should be appropriated to Nonconformists. And this suggests to my mind that when the measure appears next year, perhaps in a more severe form, we shall accept whatever it may be that is proposed. Therefore I must either acknowledge

  225
  that some substantial advantage would arise from acceding to the Motion of the noble Marquess, or else vote against it. I am quite sure, my Lords, that no substantial advantage can follow from sending this question to a Select Committee. We know there is no question in the whole circle of the political field that we understand more clearly—none that comes more home to us. And I do not know why the noble Marquess calls that "sentimentality" which occurs in the 4th clause, when it appears very good argument in his Resolution. That clause provides that the Colleges shall be secured as places of religious education; and what more do you require than that? There are defects no doubt in this measure; but these defects are not to be cured next year by a Committee such as the noble Marquess proposes, but by discussion in Committee of the whole House sitting this year, and while the subject itself and all the arguments for and against it are fresh in our minds. Let us try, my Lords, as a practical question, what will be the result to the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. The noble Marquess has drawn a terrible picture of a number of persons meeting together and electing a Fellow by a purely intellectual standard. Then what is the use of tests if you are to elect by an intellectual standard? Because the statutes say you are not to elect by such a standard, but that those who are to be elected must be fitted by religion, by learning, and by morals. If that injunction be systematically ignored, what is the use of restrictions? Besides, in all the Colleges half of the Fellows are clerical, and does the noble Marquess imagine that these gentlemen, with clergymen at their back, will elect persons who will turn the Universities into places of infidel education? What, then, is the use of tests?—because all these clerical Fellows have been tied up as strictly as possible by tests at the time of their ordination. My Lords, lot us take a more practical view of the change proposed. For my part, I do not welcome it—nobody who who has lived in Oxford, as I have done, is likely to do so; but we must take a practical view of it, and I must say I do not believe that the change that will be wrought in the Universities will be very considerable. There is as great a divergence of opinion in Oxford at this moment as in your Lordships'
  226
  House. The tests have not succeeded in keeping out revolutions of thought in Oxford, and the abolition of tests would not increase those revolutions. My Lords, I will not trouble you at greater length. I am connected with Oxford as Visitor of one of its Colleges, and as having lived a great part of my life and spent all my happiest days there. It is the birthplace of my children, and the place where I hope they will be educated, and I would not inflict an injury on a University for which I entertain so strong a feeling of affection. But I am convinced, my Lords, that things have come to this—that the wisest and most prudent, as well as the most just course, is to pass some Bill at present, and not by means of illusory promises to defer to a future day, amid acrimony and irritation, the settlement which must surely come, and to which I foresee that your Lordships will one day accede.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? — Their Lordships divided: — Contents 83; Not - Contents 97: Majority 14.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Russell, E.

  Spencer, E.

  York, Archp.

  Halifax, V.

  Cleveland, D.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Devonshire, D.

  Grafton, D.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]

  Sydney, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Torrington, V.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  London, Bp.

  Camden, M.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Normanby, M.

  Townshend, M.

  Ashburton, L.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Beaumont, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Belper, L.

  Cawdor, E.

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

  Cottenham, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Camoys, L.

  De Grey and Ripon, E.

  Castletown, L.

  De La Warr, E.

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

  Effingham, E.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Clermont, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Granville, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Grey, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Morley, E.

  Greville, L.

  227

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Robartes, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Lurgan, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Monson, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll

  Mostyn, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Penzance, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Abercromby, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bolton, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Cairns, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Churston, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Clarina, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Colchester, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Colonsay, L.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Abergavenny, E.

  Denman, L.

  Amherst, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Annesley, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Grantley, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Hawke, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Kellie, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Portarlington, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Powis, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Sherborne, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Sinclair, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Ely, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Thurlow, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Tredegar, L.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Walsingham, L.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Wynford, L.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Zouche, L.

  Then it was moved, To insert the words of the Amendment.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would offer no opposition. The noble Marquess had sketched in his speech the principles on which he would found his securities, and his Bill would probably be in accordance with them. He would offer no further opposition, but would say Not Content to the Resolution.
  Then the said words inserted.
  Then it was moved—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the best mode of giving effect to the foregoing Resolution."
  EARL GREYsaid, that before this Resolution was agreed to he asked their Lordships to seriously consider what advantage was to be derived from the course proposed. Opening the Universities to Dissenters might be a good or a bad thing—in his opinion, it would be for the happiness of the Church; but if their Lordships proceeded upon the assumption that the admission of Dissenters required to be guarded by certain precautions, as regarded religious instruction, he asked them, as reasonable men, whether to refer the question to a Select Committee was a probable mode of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, as to what those safeguards ought to be? If safeguards were necessary—and if they could be devised—would it not have been in the power of the noble Marquess, who held a high position at Oxford, to have consulted with the loading menbers of that University, and to have devised some measures which would have accomplished his object? Those measures he could have placed before the House. Was it because he was unable to devise safeguards that he asked their Lordships to send the subject to a Select Committee? And did the noble Marquess think that a Committee, composed of men of various and clashing opinions, with no scheme laid before them, would be likely to form a correct notion of what safeguards there ought to be? He thought the appointment of a Committee would be an idle, not to say a mischievous, stop; and he trusted that his noble Friend (Earl de Grey and Ripon) would give their Lordships an opportunity of expressing their opinion on this part of the quesion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not wish it to be understood that

  229
  he had no recommendation to propose, but he would rather have a scheme which was approved by a Select Committee than one which was only suggested by himself; and, further, he desired that there should be placed on record, by means of the testimony of witnesses, the grounds on which the Select Committee made their recommendation. If he brought forward a proposition on his own authority only, he would not have those strong and valid reasons with which he would be furnished by the Report of a Select Committee, and the evidence of the witnesses whom they examined.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, in the course of this debate he had heard many remarkable speeches for and against this Bill; but he was bound to say that up to that moment he had not heard a single argument in favour of the plan of referring this question to a Select Committee, which his noble Friend (Earl Grey) had so strongly denounced. What was this Committee to inquire into? Was it proposed that the Committee should inquire whether infidelity existed now in the Universities, and to what degree — and whether doubts, discussions, and extreme opinions prevailed at Oxford? Or would the Committtee inquire into what tests could be suggested? The noble Marquess had not told their Lordships what new test he thought it would be wise and expedient to offer to the Committee; and did he really mean to invite them to appoint a Select Committee to consider certain clauses of the Act of Uniformity, on which every educated man, both in and out of the House, had already formed his opinion?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, the measure appeared to him an ingenious device to separate what the noble Marquess called the Protestant Dissenters from the great body of Nonconformists. Now, if he had any knowledge of Protestant Dissenters, he believed that no such bribe would be accepted. The noble Marquess might frame a test with that object; but he felt convinced that the Dissenters would never enter the Universities under such degrading conditions.
  THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFsaid, that in her very wise regulations for the government of Trinity College, Cambridge, Queen Elizabeth included an oath for the young men appointed to scholarships, probably in order to protect them from being embarrassed by the doubts and
  230
  difficulties that were then rife. It simply required a declaration on the part of these young men that they embraced the Christian faith and preferred the written Word of God to things that were unwritten. A Select Committee might adopt some such test, which would admit all orthodox Nonconformists, whom all were anxious to admit, but would exclude those who had no creed at all. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the appointment of a Committee, in order that it might be ascertained whether some simple acknowledgment of the Christian faith would not answer the object the noble Marquess had in view.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, all that the proposed Committee could do had been done already; information had been given, and the subject was thoroughly known. He remembered a case where a noble Duke obtained a Committee on a Bill; but after a few witnesses had been examined he went out of town, and the Bill was thus conveniently shelved. He wished to know, therefore, whether the noble Marquess would stick to his Committee after he got it?
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he had the honour of being the Visitor of Colleges in both our Universities and also of the greatest public school in England and the world—the Royal foundation at Eton of King Henry VI. Consequently he had a public duty to perform towards those institutions, and he must express his strong conviction that the subject of the safeguards for religious instruction and worship in the Colleges of our Universities ought to receive a sifting inquiry at the hands of a Select Committee. He held in his hand a communication he had received from the head of a College in Cambridge, who had occupied that position for 23 years, who, in the course of 22 years, had thrice been Vice Chancellor of that University, and had displayed great ability in the administration of academical affairs, and had proved his disinterestedness by declining the highest dignities in the Church of England. The writer declared—
  "The Bill speaks of safeguards for the maintenance of religious instruction and worship in Colleges; because it does not allow such Fellowships as are now restricted to clergymen to be held by laymen, or by persons who are not members of the Church of England; but the fact is that in some of the Colleges at Cambridge very few of the Fellows are required to take Holy

  231
  Orders; and, therefore, if the Bill become law, a very large majority of the Fellows of the Colleges might be non-Churchmen, including Jews, Mahommedans, and even avowed Deists and Atheists. Besides, in all the Colleges the obligation to Holy Orders rests only upon College statutes, and these College statutes at Cambridge,"—and the same, my Lords, is the case at Oxford with the consent of the Visitors,—"may now be altered at any time by the Queen in Council on the petition of a portion of the Fellows; so that there would be no safeguards whatever, if the Bill become law. Also, by Clause 5 of the Bill, one of the provisions of the Act of Uniformity—namely, Clause 13—is repealed; and, consequently, any religious or anti-religious services might take place in the College chapels generally. The College statutes at present require the daily performance of Divine service according to the forms in use in the Church of England, but they do not prohibit any other. I will not believe that such a provision as this can become law; if it should become law, there would be a precedent for using the parish churches and cathedrals in England for Popish Mass, or for any other rites and ceremonies."
  Such was the language of that distinguished person. He believed that the supposed religious safeguards in the Bill would prove illusory and worthless. This showed the need of careful examination into the subject. It would be the duty of the Select Committee to provide adequate securities. His right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Exeter) appeared to regard the Colleges and Universities merely as places where gifted young men might gain intellectual prizes and distinctions. He seemed to consider them as existing mainly for the benefit of the few who gain scholarships and Fellowships there. He (the Bishop of Lincoln) looked at them in a different light. They did, indeed, afford stimulants to literature and science, and were greatly to be honoured on that account. But their noblest function was to be seminaries of sound learning and religious education for the English nation, in the principles of the English Church. He spoke in the interest of parents when he expressed his belief that safeguards were necessary to prevent the Colleges being made schools of scepticism or seminaries of superstition. It might be said, perhaps, that this was the language of exclusive bigotry; but he would remind their Lordships that one of the most arbitrary monarchs who ever sat upon the throne of England used the abolition of tests as a means of introducing Popery into both our Universities. King James II., professing a zeal for toleration, and for the abolition of all religious tests and subscriptions, sent a Popish Bishop to be President of
  232
  Magdalen College at Oxford, and to Cambridge a Benedictine monk; and let their Lordships remember who the persons were who, at that time, the year 1686, came forward to maintain the tests and religious safeguards of the Universities and Colleges. Were they intolerant bigots? Surely not. One of the foremost among them at Cambridge was a person whose name shed the brightest lustre on the science and philosophy of England and the world—the immortal Isaac Newton. Unless adequate religious securities were maintained, the youth of the country would run the risk of being brought under the influence of unbelievers, or of those whose seductive arts lead them into another Church. He therefore earnestly supported the proposal of the noble Marquess.
  On Question?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 95; Not-Contents 79: Majority 16.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Committee appointed accordingly.
  And, on July 21, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Abp. York.

  E. Harrowby.

  Ld. President.

  E. Morley.

  D. Somerset.

  E. Beauchamp.

  D. Marlborough.

  Bp. Gloucester and Bristol.

  M. Salisbury.

  E. Cowper.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Stanley of Alderley.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Lyveden.

  E. Powis.

  L. Houghton.

  And, on July 22, The Lord Rosebery added.

TRAMWAYS BILL—(No. 104.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
TRAMWAYS BILL—(No. 104.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment which he proposed to move on the Report, extending the term of the concession to be granted to promoters to a period not exceeding 63 years, at the end of which term the tramway was to be given up in a good condition to the local authority. The information at present possessed upon the subject of tramways did not warrant the conclusion that they would be an unquestionable success; indeed, the Report which had been made to the War Department upon the subject of road-traction engines showed that conveyances of that kind would very soon come into general use. The Report

  233
  to which he referred stated that an omnibus was now being constructed with india-rubber wheels, to carry 65 passengers, and could be easily adapted, both in size and power, to carry a whole company of infantry, and run over the road at from six to ten miles an hour, at a cost of wear and tear, including depreciation of plant, of 2d. per ton per mile. This would be a great competitor with the tramways, and the promoters of such schemes should bear in mind what a formidable rival was likely to come into competition with them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was not prepared to offer any opinion on that part of the Report to the War Department to which the noble Lord had referred; but he thought that the fact that a large number of persons were willing to invest their money in tramway schemes, and were anxious to carry them out, was sufficient justification for granting them Parliamentary powers.
  House in Committee.
  New clauses added, one authorizing the Board of Trade to issue a Provisional Order, under certain circumstances, authorizing the construction of a tramway where the local authority refuse their consent; the other authorizing the promoters of any tramway, which shall have been opened for traffic for a period of six months, to sell their undertaking to any person, corporation, or company, or to the local authority of the district.
  Further Amendments made.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)

BENEFICES BILL—(No. 130.)
(The Duke of Marlborough.)
BENEFICES BILL—(No. 130.)

  COMMITTEE. ORDER DISCHARGED.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that this Bill had passed the other House of Parliament with singular unanimity, having been accepted generally on both sides of the House. Since, however, it had been read a second time he had heard grave objections to it expressed by several noble Lords on that and the other side of the House, who
  234
  represented to him that its main provisions ought to form the subject of a special inquiry. Under such circumstances, and in deference to the opinions thus expressed, he should propose to discharge the Order for going into Committee; and, early next Session, he should move for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry on the matter.
  LORD ROMILLY, referring to the observation of the noble Duke that the Bill had passed through the House of Commons with singular unanimity, said, he had no doubt of the truth of that statement, notwithstanding that the measure might be open to grave objections. Everyone who had had much experience of the House of Commons must know that it was a common practice in that House to pass a Bill through it without consideration, relying upon their Lordships to throw it out if it were an objectionable measure. From his own experience in the Lower House he declared he had heard it frequently said—"We will not go into this Bill as it takes up too much of our time. The Lords will be sure to throw it out if it be not a fit measure to enact." That was a practice that he believed was going on at that very day. He recollected Mr. Joseph Hume saying on one occasion—"Do not let us trouble ourselves with this Bill. The Lords will consider it, and if there be any difficulty involved they will have the assistance of the Judges, who are more competent than we are to remove it." The unanimity of the other House of Parliament in passing a Bill was rather a compliment to the vigilance and judgment of their Lordships than a reason for the adoption of the measure by that House.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he was informed by some noble Lords who entertained objections to the Bill that, in consequence of its being moved at a very late hour of the night in the House of Commons it was passed without consideration.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the noble and learned Lord was mistaken, for it was at a Morning Sitting of the House of Commons that the Bill was passed.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, as there was a strong feeling in favour of the measure, he hoped the noble Duke would not lose sight of the subject that Session.
  Order for Committee discharged.

CATTLE DISEASE (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Dufferin.)
CATTLE DISEASE (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 171.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Dufferin.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he did I not want to obstruct the progress of the Bill; but he thought it was one which their Lordships should not allow to pass the final stage without further inquiry. The Bill had passed through the other House without receiving any discussion; and the second reading had been agreed to in their Lordships' House, and the Bill had passed through Committee without, so far as he remembered, a single word of comment. Now, he thought that if their Lordships had been aware of the nature of the measure, it would not have passed those stages without opposition. Its provisions seemed to have been drawn up entirely in the interests of the Irish cattle exporters, and all provisions against the importation of disease with the cattle had been ignored. Very careful regulations had been laid down guarding the importation of cattle into Ireland, but none with regard to exportation from Ireland. He had, therefore, placed some Amendments on the Paper by which he proposed to remedy these defects. Competent judges had declared that Irish cattle were subject to a great many diseases, and he thought it of importance that the exportation of those diseases should be guarded against as far as possible; and, therefore, he considered it only fair to England and Scotland that these Amendments should be introduced. Clause 2 required that cattle brought into Ireland should be provided with hay and water. No doubt, those regulations were very good; but there were no corresponding regulations in respect to cattle exported from Ireland; and, therefore, he proposed to introduce an Amendment into the clause to supply that omission. Again, large powers were given by the Bill to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit cattle entering any Irish port from England or Scotland if he thought fit; but there was no analogous power whatever given in regard to the exportation of Irish cattle into England or Scotland. He, therefore, would propose an Amendment, to follow Clause
  236
  5, providing that cattle should not be shipped from any Irish port without a certificate as to their sound condition from the inspector of the port. Pleuropneumonia had been spread in this country by the Irish cattle brought over to Liverpool, Glasgow, and other places. Unless some such Amendment as he suggested were adopted, the owners of unsound or diseased cattle in Ireland would have every inducement to get rid of them by exportation to England and Scotland. He should be sorry that anything he might propose should have an injurious effect upon Irish landlords, but he did not believe the Amendments he should propose would have any such effect.
  EARL SPENCERprotested against the general attack made by the noble Earl on Irish cattle. He had never seen any proof that the Irish cattle were inferior to English or Scotch, or had more disease among them than any cattle moved from one part of Great Britain to another. He had no objection to the two first Amendments, but he opposed the third—the certificate system—as being wholly unnecessary. It would be unjust to bind down the Irish cattle trade by the severest restrictions by Act of Parliament—especially seeing that the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland had ample power to issue such regulations as in their discretion they deemed requisite. The Bill now before the House put the Irish cattle trade in precisely the same position as the English trade was placed by the consolidated Act passed last year, and it would provide proper safeguards against cattle disease both in Ireland and in Great Britain.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, it was not denied that there was disease among the cattle of Ireland now, and the introduction of this very Bill itself was some evidence of this fact. Why, then, should they not insist on the insertion of provisions which would prevent its spread to England and Scotland? He ventured to say, notwithstanding what had been said by his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that Irish cattle had brought disease to Scotland to a very serious extent. The noble Earl said that he had ample power by an Order in Council to deal with all cases of cattle disease. Why, then, had the noble Earl not exercised those powers?
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he had meant to say that the Bill before the House would give him ample powers.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: The necessity of granting those powers was a good reason why this Act should be passed, and why it should not be confined to Ireland alone. The Bill would not, no doubt, place Ireland in a worse position; but how would it affect England and Scotland? That was a question worthy of consideration. He could not see what sound objection could be taken to the certificate system proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie). It was in the interest of England and Scotland that there should be some such provision. The Amendment of his noble Friend was a very reasonable one; and, if he took the sense of the House upon it, he should vote with him.
  LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEobserved that the most diseased animal he had ever had he had imported direct from Scotland.
  LORD DUNSANYhoped the House would not support the Amendment. The interests of the manufacturing population of Lancashire and West Yorkshire were quite as much concerned as Irish interests, and if the people of those districts were able now to buy meat at a reasonable price, it was owing to this—that there was some grass growing in Ireland, while there was none in this country. Pretty nearly every Monday's market at Liverpool was stocked by 3,000 or 4,000 head of Irish cattle, and three or four times that number of sheep, and did the noble Earl mean that for every one of these 4,000 cattle and 16,000 sheep a certificate must be obtained not only that they were sound, but that for a period of three months preceding they had not been in the way of any contagious disease? No veterinary surgeon could certify on view of the animal that it had not been for three months in the way of contagion.
  Amendments made, Clause 2, page 1, line 24, after ("Ireland") insert ("or shipped from any port in Ireland to any part of England, Wales, or Scotland").
  Clause 5, page 3, line 35, after ("Ireland") insert ("or ship or attempt to ship from any port or place in Ireland to any part of England, Wales, or Scotland").
  An Amendment moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following Clause:—
  238
  "Any person sending cattle from Ireland to England or Wales, or Scotland, must produce a certificate to the inspector at the port of embarkation that they have not been affected with pleura-pneumonia, and have not been in contact with cattle affected with pleura-pneumonia for at least three months previous to the date of their embarkation: and the inspector shall require the production of such certificate in every case in which cattle are sent from Ireland to England, Wales, or Scotland."—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRAYER BOOK (TABLE OF LESSONS) BILL—(No. 202.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PRAYER BOOK (TABLE OF LESSONS) BILL—(No. 202.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYagain called their Lordships' attention to the fact that they were called upon to recite as a fact that the approval of Convocation had been given to the changes proposed in the Bill. What authority had the House for such a statement? No authority—no evidence had been produced to show that the approval of Convocation had been received by that House. As to other matters in the Preamble evidence had been given. For instance, they were told that Commissioners had been appointed by Her Majesty to inquire. There they had the fact that a Commission had been appointed. He thought the information should be extremely precise and official when they inserted any statement in the Preamble of a Bill.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

MAGISTRATES IN POPULOUS PLACES (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No.143.)
(The Earl of Airlie.)
MAGISTRATES IN POPULOUS PLACES (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No.143.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  LORD COLONSAYsaid, the Bill recited that it was expedient that the senior police magistrates of towns and

  239
  populous places in Scotland which were placed under the Police of Towns Act should be placed in the same position with regard to the county as the Provosts of Royal and Parliamentary burghs; and the Bill proceeded to provide that the chief magistrates of such places should be ex-officio Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Supply for the county in which those places were situated; and as any number of contiguous villages might be combined together for the purpose of the Bill, if any portion of those places extended into two or more counties the magistrates would become Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Supply for those two or more counties. That seemed to be a novel mode of creating magistrates; it was quite unprecedented, as far as he knew, and deserved the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, the proposal had been approved not only by the present, but by the late Lord Advocate; it had been submitted to persons on both sides, and no objection had been taken to it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for enabling Her Majesty to appoint additional persons to be members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and for other purposes—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 212.)
  House adjourned at half past Nine o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.