Sitting of 21 June 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Municipal Franchise (Ireland) * [176]; Magistrates, &c. Election (Scotland) * [177].
Committee—Party Processions (Ireland) * [26]—R.P.; Elementary Education (re-comm.) [167], debate resumed and again adjourned.
Committee—Report—Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental (re-comm.) * [136].
Considered as amended—Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) * [118], debate resumed and again adjourned.
Third Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Supplemental * [173], and passed.
Withdrawn—Railway Construction Facilities Act (1864) Amendment * [11].
The House met at Two of the clock.

THE UNIVERSAL ART CATALOGUE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If it be true that there is any intention on the part of the Science and Art Department to publish a Catalogue of all known Works of Art in England and elsewhere; and, what has been the cost of the "Universal Art Catalogue" already published, how

  625
  many copies of it have been sold, and what amount has been received for such sale?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is true, Sir, that since 1864 the Science and Art Department has been collecting very brief notes of objects of industrial art, copies and reproductions of which might be useful to the Schools of Art and the Museums of Art in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin. A part of the work relating to mosaics and stained glass is now printed; 250 copies are printed, and 150 of them will be circulated amongst local Schools of Art. With regard to the Universal Catalogue of Books on Art, the estimated cost of printing, circulating, and advertising it, stated in the House of Commons' Return, 1867, No. 362, moved for by Mr. Gregory, was £8,383. This did not include compilation and editorship. The actual total cost, including all, has been only £8,034, from which has to be deducted sales, estimated to produce £500, reducing the cost to about £7,500. The work has not yet been published complete, but parts only have been sold. The price of the two volumes will be two guineas, and 500 copies have been printed for sale to the general public. The work was produced particularly for the libraries at South Kensington, Edinburgh, and Dublin, and the 110 Schools of Art in the United Kingdom, and has been welcomed throughout Europe as a valuable work.

METROPOLIS—LEICESTER SQUARE.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN DAWSON-DAMERsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that measures are now in progress to let for building purposes the enclosure of Leicester Square; and, if so, if he is prepared to take any steps to preserve that open space in the centre of London for the benefit of the public?
  MR. AYRTONreplied, that he had not been able to ascertain whether any person claiming to be the owner of Leicester Square proposed to let it on a building lease. If such were the case, he could only interfere by means of a Private Bill, which, according to the Standing Orders, he would be precluded from introducing during the present Session. Besides, it would be a dangerous
  626
  thing if, when a local authority neglected its duty, the First Commissioner of Works were to come forward to undertake it, as the result would be to throw on the Treasury an expense which ought to be paid out of the local funds. If the statement in question were correct, it was only a practical illustration of the necessity for a reform of the local government of the metropolis. He had endeavoured to press this subject on the attention of the House by more than one Report from the Select Committee over which he had presided, and he hoped his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able next Session to deal with this very important question.

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

    SECOND NIGHT.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [20th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" and which Amendment was,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Grants to existing denominational schools should not be increased; and that, in any national system of elementary education, the attendance should be everywhere compulsory, and the religious instruction should be supplied by voluntary effort and not out of Public Funds,"—(Mr. Henry Richard,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. MIALLsaid, that however inadequately he might find himself able to express the views he entertained on this question, he still hoped he should not depart in the slightest degree from that temperate spirit that was exhibited during last night's debate from its commencement by his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) to its close by his right hon. Friend and Colleague the Vice President of the Council. He had never addressed an assembly when he attached more responsibility to the words which he might utter than on that occasion. Undoubtedly the educational question was

    627
    in a critical position, and from the manner in which it had been brought forward and submitted to the House, it required all the assistance that could be given to it in order to get it through this Session, supposing the House was determined it should be proceeded with. He would not lift his finger to prevent the passage of the Bill unless he was fully convinced it was not adapted to the necessities and wants of the country; but, at the same time, he protested most respectfully, but most firmly, against the position in which his right hon. Friend had placed those who had refused to accept, and who still refused to accept, the religious clauses of the Bill as finally settled by Government. He did not think it was quite fair to cast upon those Members the whole responsibility of defeating the measure, or of preventing a measure for the education of the people passing this Session. There might be something attributable, perhaps, to the measure having been prematurely submitted to the House, and its containing principles which the House and the country could not accept, that had caused this long delay. There had been, as he had said, long delay, and there had also been some mystery; and now when that delay had been got rid of, and that mystery had been cleared up, and the House was informed precisely what Amendments the Government would accept, and what they would reject, he thought it was a little hard that his right hon. Friend should come down to the House and tell them that the Government had at last reached the extreme limit of concession, and that if they refused to accept those concessions, upon them must be the responsibility of casting out this measure; but he did not think his right hon. Friend intended to produce the impression which he believed had been left on the minds of hon. Members on that side of the House, that something like moral coercion was to be placed upon them. He, however, believed that as every hon. Member appreciated the importance of the question, so he would insist upon coming to a consideration of the measure—a measure that touched some of the most vital and important interests of the Empire—with a mind perfectly free from prejudice and fear. At any rate, that was the spirit in which he wished to approach the question. He recognized at once the
    628
    immense difficulties attaching to the settlement of this question. He did not think it was wise on the part of those who were anxious to pass a measure of that kind to pretend it was not surrounded with difficulties, or that the difficulties were small; but they said on that matter that those difficulties should not in the slightest degree alter the character of the facts. He believed that the country had never been better disposed to reconcile their differences upon the subject of education than they were at the commencement of this Session. They anticipated, as certainly he anticipated, a measure from the Government that would go far towards reconciling the differences between the two sides of the House, and effect a compromise which would allow of a comparatively easy passage through the House of an Educational Bill. He could see in the Government measure the most studious and strenuous efforts made to adopt the Bill to the supposed wants and tastes of the public mind, and yet it was no sooner introduced than it raised almost a storm of excitement. During the last year or two they had had nothing like the contention that had been raised throughout the country on this Bill. This arose from the inherent difficulty of the question. The constitution of society in England made it most difficult to propose anything involving mental, intellectual, moral, or religious progress, without exciting on the one hand or the other deep feeling, and sometimes deep prejudices. He did not wish in the slightest degree to add to the difficulties naturally attending the solution of this question; but he regarded himself under something like a solemn obligation. When a measure of this kind had been brought forward he asked himself two questions which must be answered satisfactorily to his own conscience before he should be able to give it his support. In the first place, he asked, would the measure that had been introduced, and amended, and re-amended, even after it had passed through Committee, be likely to be a permanent settlement of the educational question? He did not think there were many hon. Members who could suppose for a moment that this measure could work longer than 20 years without disturbance, and if the Bill could be described in a few words, he should describe it in these words—

    629
    namely, that it was a system of denominational schools supplemented by rate-aided schools. But was denominationalism a basis upon which they were likely to build up a system that would last, and that would adapt itself to the wants and wishes of the country, not for the present moment, but for a-half or a-quarter of a century to come? Denominationalism did not offer a secure basis upon which to rest any enterprize of a moral or religious character. It appeared to him, and he thought the House would agree with him, that from the facts that were continually turning up, the current of religious, as distinguished from denominational thought, now ran in the direction of a broader, more liberal, and perhaps, in some respects, a more indistinct doctrinal creed. And it was quite impossible to expect if this system was to be permanent that it could be made so upon the basis of denominational schools. But there was also this other remarkable fact that ought to be taken into consideration in relation to denominational schools. They came before them after about 30 years' trial. They knew what they were and what they had done, and they knew very well that they had failed. They had failed to supply the whole wants of the country. ["No, no!"] If they had not, what necessity was there for that Bill? They had failed, perhaps, not so much in supplying local wants here, there, or elsewhere; but, taking the country through, the testimony was that both in rural districts and large populous towns the denominational system had failed to reach the evil which the House now wished to remedy. These schools had undoubtedly failed, but not so much in quantity as the quality of the education given in them. His right hon. Friend had spoken of the education given in them being poor.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not say they were poor from the quality of the education given in them; but that they were poor because the parents of the children were unable to contribute the school-pence.
    MR. MIALLsaid, that if they had failed from the non-attendance of children they had failed to create that interest which a school properly constituted and managed ought to create in this country. For could anyone deny that where schools were properly ma-
    630
    naged they obtained a larger acquisition of scholars than those that were badly managed? Its history had not been such as they ought to have expected, and they ought not now to have to complain that the system had failed from the quality of education given in the schools. But it was not simply in secular knowledge that they had failed; they had failed to give that for which they were originally mainly intended—namely, to communicate religious instruction to the poor. Look at the classes that came under the instruction of these denominational schools, and tell him whether the moral and religious feeling was anything like what it was before those schools were introduced. He made these observations not in reference to one party alone, but in reference to the schools of all parties. And it seemed to him a little odd that when this failure was confessed they should have a measure brought forward rather to extend the influence of denominational schools, and especially to stereotype the form of teaching the poor, so that there should be from this time a strong line of demarcation between the denominational and the rate-aided system, and that the two systems should never be made to converge. They, however, on that side of the House had never wished that the Government should interfere and destroy those schools which had been created. They had always regarded them as having peculiar claims upon all, because they undertook the work of education when it was most wanted by good and enterprizing men. They had supported those schools for the greater part of a century. They had worked hard in connection with them; and with regard to the clergy who had managed them, they had attended to them, and had endeavoured to make them successful with a self-denial and a perseverance that were a credit to human nature, even to human nature sanctified by Christianity. He did not think that that praise was at all too high. Nobody expected that those denominational schools would under any measure brought forward by this Government be utterly set aside, in order that rate-aided schools should be substituted for them; but what they did expect was that such vitality should be infused into them in order, if possible, to make them perpetual. But what they expected was that rate-aided schools

    631
    should be placed on such, a basis that if the voluntary principle failed, and the existing organization became a burden to those who conducted them, that they should gradually merge into a sounder and a better system; and it was because they did not see any proposition made in that direction, because they found that the tendency of the measure was rather in a retrograde direction in that respect, that they found it absolutely necessary, in the discharge of their own conscience and to make themselves at all intelligible to the country, to put forward such Amendments as were then before the House and the country. He might be asked—and very properly asked—Suppose these denominational and recognized schools done away with, what was the religious instruction that was to reach the poor, supposing that the rate-aided schools were forbidden to employ the schoolmaster to teach religion? He confessed he had listened with surprise to some of the assertions that had been put forward in reference to this subject by Members of that House, who, if they were distinguished by any one thing, were distinguished by their unbounded faith in the value of their own principles. If any Member, especially any Nonconformist Member, should express doubt whether religion could stand in this country 50 years unless it were taught by the State-paid schoolmaster, he confessed that such a revelation to him of the want of understanding or appreciation of those principles upon which they had usually acted as Nonconformists would astound him. For his own part, it was because he attached infinite value to religious education that he felt any objection whatever to the employment of a State-paid teacher in religious teaching at schools. A short time ago the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) addressed a large public meeting on the subject, and, in alluding to the Bible, the hon. Gentleman appealed to the audience whether there should be taken from it the Bible—that Bible, the first lessons of which they received at their mother's knee—and the appeal to an indiscriminate audience brought down a most enthusiastic response. It was not the lessons of the Bible that touched the hearts of those people, but the reminiscences of the mother, her tenderness, her care, her self-denial and womanly guidance through-
    632
    out the early part of life came fresh over their remembrance. What he (Mr. Miall) wanted was, that in regard, to their schools and their religious teaching they should have something of the tenderness of a mother's care; that love should be the teacher, for love was the lesson to be taught. He did not believe in teaching Christianity as one taught geography. He did not believe in bringing the influence of Christianity to bear upon the formation of the character and the moving of the hearts of young children, such as the gutter children that were put under teaching in State-paid schools. He did not believe in that being done by the mere formal teaching of lessons, whether through the Bible or otherwise. He did believe in a good man radiating influence, moral and spiritual, from himself, even without opening his lips on the subject of religion. He believed in the example of forbearance, of patience, of self-denial, of truthfulness, of reverence, and of all the Christian virtues, in the course of a teacher's carrying out the functions of his profession; he believed that such a man, even though he were forbidden by the State to open his mouth for the direct instruction of children in religion, would unquestionably exercise a far better, higher, more refining, and more transforming influence upon children, than could be exercised by any formal lessons, however good they might be. Unhappily this Bill could not secure—and indeed no Bill could secure—the teaching of such men. There were men who would doubtless be found active under any system in carrying out the first wishes of their hearts in that respect; but if the House wanted men to rise to the occasion, they should leave the matter to the sympathies and the energies of the Christian Church. Depend upon it that so long as they blinded the eyes of society, and led them to suppose that they were teaching religion by means of the schoolmaster to poor miserable little creatures who probably did not understand one word that was addressed to them, so long they would interpose between the religious bodies and that which constituted their proper mission. The religious bodies must organize themselves for that special purpose, and they would do so unless Parliament meddled with their affairs, and pretended to do that by the schoolmaster which could

    633
    never be done by any but those who had Christian love burning in their hearts. This was the one great mission which was open to women. Under the guidance and direction of the clergy of their respective denominations, ladies might undertake to instil into the minds of those children lessons which they would probably never forget, and exercise over them an influence which would prepare them, at all events, to receive with some degree of susceptibility the truths of divine revelation that might be addressed to them in their after career. He believed that if the State would only undertake to teach that which it could teach, and would leave the religious instruction to be given by those who alone, in his judgment, were competent to give it, the work would be tolerably well done between them. Nothing had ever come out of the House attempting to do that which was naturally beyond its power to accomplish. They had undertaken to teach religion to the great mass of the people, and the people were alienated from Christian institutions. They had undertaken to teach in schools the religious lesson, and they insisted upon that now. What was the consequence? Could they find any distinct traces of the good effects that had been produced by their interposition which would not have been produced supposing they had left the matter entirely to religious bodies? For his own part, he believed that those bodies, when they came to have a clear view of the want of society, would have sufficient of the energy and vitality of religion in them to rise to the occasion, as the right hon. Gentleman had said. If school Boards could be trusted why not the religious bodies? Whether it were in the day school or the Sunday school, the men and women who panted to be useful would feel it to be important to make their lessons interesting and attractive. He believed that in the course of a few years, supposing there were a clear division of duty now made between the State and the religious bodies, they would all recognize the great advantage of the separation, and look back with wonder and surprise to the present hesitation of society to consent to such a separation. Trusting, as he did thoroughly, in the vitality of religion in this country; thinking, as he did, that the spiritual communities in England and Wales would not only show them-
    634
    selves competent to accomplish the end for which they existed in reference to these poor little children; believing, as he did, that the attempt to mix things which could not properly be mixed would be followed by the same failure as had followed the attempt hitherto; looking forward, as he did, to the time when this country should educate by State instrumentality every one of its people, and when the Christian communities of this country would educate successfully the religious susceptibilities and aspirations of the masses, he gave his cordial assent to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard).
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has remarked that this Bill has disappointed the country, which he says desires a more "indistinct doctrinal creed." That is a noble object for the country to have in view. I should have thought it rather a compromise than an object. The hon. Gentleman said the present system has failed; but he was corrected in that by the Vice President of the Council, who remarked that, wherever there were good schools children would come to them. If that is the case, how much must the present schools have achieved already, and where is the necessity for compulsion? If all that is wanted is additional schoolroom, I beg leave to say the existing system has been signally prosperous, and instead of failing it has arrived at a point that no other country has reached. The hon. Gentleman wishes the old system to be merged in a national system; but the probable effect would be to sacrifice the old system, and deprive the country of its ascertained advantages for the sake of other advantages which are problematical, and are moreover hampered by what is called the religious difficulty. The hon. Member for Edinburgh University (Dr. Lyon Playfair), in his able speech last night, expressed his surprise and sorrow that whenever this subject was started for discussion, it immediately ran off on to the religious siding. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman could be surprised at that, as the religious difficulty is, after all, the only topic of discussion in the whole matter. I confess I have never heard the difficulty described as it has been by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down,

    635
    for he has given to it a new, and most mystical and visionary character. Whatever the difficulty may be, at any rate it is the only one. When the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) brought Scotland forward as a model for us to follow, he must have known that among Scotch denominations there are no differences of creeds or catechisms, and that reference to that country shows us no more than the narrowness of polemics, and on what little sustenance they can be fed. This we ought to bear in mind, that the religious difficulty attaches solely to the new schools in this country, and that it has disappeared entirely from the old ones. Yet the proposition of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), as supported by the hon. Member who has just sat down, is to sweep away the existing system, and to substitute what has been so grandiloquently described as a "truly national system to cover the whole land." The proposition we have to dispose of is to complete what is deficient by sweeping away all that is done. If the system which has done everything hitherto is incomplete, the natural process would be to stimulate the system. I can only account for so absurd a proposition as that of sweeping away what we want to increase, by the belief that jealousy embitters the reformers towards those who have accomplished so much. To a certain extent, the proposition may be attributed to the natural inclination, whenever men propose a new scheme, to make a tabula rasa of all gone by. No one here who proposes a new Bill or inquiry goes to the Library first to see and read what has passed already. Finding that we have only one difficulty in our way, and that the difficulty lies only in one direction, is it not clearly wise to avoid that particular direction as much as possible, and to consider what can be done in other directions? As soon as we begin to start new schools upon a new system this religious difficulty will stare us in the face. Therefore, I should say, increase the old schools as much as possible, and have the least necessary recourse to new. There is that insoluble problem, mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment—how can we get everybody fairly to pay for everybody's religion? And it is quite clear no satisfactory solution has been offered to that problem. The Amendment proposes that religion
    636
    should be shunted on some imaginary siding until parents, who are supposed to be under compulsion to educate their children, and ministers of all denominations, shall meet together and happily dispose of the difficulty among themselves. But what operates decisively against such a proposal is that the country has openly expressed its opinion in direct opposition to it; and although it is the most logical conclusion of the question, yet the country will not accept the conclusion—they will not consent to be logical. That being the case, what is the use of discussing this solution of the difficulty any longer? Then the Bill, as it originally stood, proposed to solve the difficulty in another way—namely, by leaving it to be solved by the ratepayers in each of the localities; and it now appears that the localities decline to undertake this sort of indefinite controversy, which is rendered the more unattractive to them, because it appears as a needless proclamation of controversy which unproclaimed does not trouble them at all. Lastly, it is said that by the sacrifice of creeds and formularies we may possibly appease the spirit of religious discord. I ask the House to bear in mind that the solution of the difficulty thus offered is the best of the device before them, and though it is but a rough and unsatisfactory one, which should not be attached to more schools than necessary, yet it avoids the sacrifice of religious teaching in them altogether by the smaller sacrifice of formularies only. It may be necessary to apply such a Concordat to new schools; but do not let us inflict this sacrifice upon existing schools. I hope that Members of this House, who are eager to introduce novelties on the faith of Government Reports, have seen a letter which has been published by the Rev. Mr. Nunn, of Manchester, showing that the gentlemen commissioned to make out a deficiency in the schools of Manchester and Birmingham have made their Reports upon assumptions, which would not be recognized or admitted by all. They have fully made out a deficiency upon their own large postulates, and done what they were asked to do. I base a very different opinion upon the reports which I have received from persons who are locally acquainted with the subject, and I myself know, in Birmingham, of a great number of schools which are at

    637
    present but half filled, and that there are means of compelling attendance by existing laws which are not made use of. This keeps up in me a deep regret that when, 16 years ago, I had the honour of introducing as a private Bill the Manchester Education Bill, the measure was not passed; for I felt strongly convinced at the time, as I have been ever since, that the best way of arriving at what will suit the country is to let some great city try the experiment for itself. But the deficiency of education which we have to supply is of a two-fold kind. It is a deficiency of quantity and a deficiency of quality. But the latter deficiency is very much exaggerated. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), in speaking upon the second reading of the Bill, had endeavoured to shame this country and to excite their rivalry by describing a state of education as existing in other countries which we could hardly hope to attain. The hon. Member stated that the sixth standard of English examination was below the lowest Prussian standard, and that working men in foreign countries were fit to be clerks in our banking-houses, that they could play and sing, read Schiller, and knew the history of their fatherland. But I ask whether men in this country can expect the cultivation of a class which can command longer time for education to be given to them who must remain daily labourers; or whether we should hope to see our housemaids pass their leisure hours with Shakespeare, and the boys sing as well as whistle, and know history whom poverty places early in life at the plough's tail? Such high-coloured statements as these were not calculated to lead the House of Commons to adopt a higher standard of education than they have yet found practicable, or to bring about any practical reform. Nobody disputes that, making all allowances for exaggeration and sanguine views, there are deficiencies of elementary education throughout England both in quantity and in quality. But if we see any important deficiency in our present education, at least do not let us sacrifice what we have already in order to arrive at what, it may be, we cannot reach. Unfortunately it seems to me that the Government have shown that inclination to sweep away the existing system, and to substitute for it what they call a truly
    638
    national system of education. They have made this inclination to supersede rather than stimulate clear in various ways. They will hardly give the existing system a fair chance of filling up its own deficiency before beginning the substitution of the new. They take away the "year of grace" which they had themselves declared necessary to give the old system a fair start in its race with the new. But, further than this, the Prime Minister said it was not fair to weight the old schools in their race with the new, the supporters of the former having also to pay their share of rates to the support of the latter. My own proposition, as contained in the Amendment of which I have given Notice, is that ratepayers voluntarily subscribing to public elementary schools, approved by the Educational Department within any district, shall be entitled to deduct such subscription from any contribution to the local rates made for a school Board, to which they would otherwise be liable. If this principle be adopted, the old and the new schools will be placed upon something like an equal footing in the race which they have to run. If without my Amendment the law is passed the result will be this—In the country schools throughout the kingdom there will probably be no difference whatsoever. I believe, with Mr. Cobden, that the Church of England will always have the country schools in their hands, and the farmers will not be eager to incur a rate to relieve their landlords and parsons who have undertaken their schools. But in the town schools the effect will be gradually to extinguish denominational schools, and to turn them into rated schools. There will be a local Board in every town, and there will be a school rate in every town. Where rates and subscriptions are pitted against each other the latter always give way; and in this case the choice to everyone will be between paying rates alone, or rates and subscriptions. I, therefore, entreat the House to consider whether it will not be wise to restrain the effect of this Bill as much as we can, and if we must have a religious difficulty to diminish the area over which it must extend. Let us do everything, first, to stimulate what we have taken 30 years to set going, and which has worked out the religious difficulty and got rid of it. Let us fill existing schoolrooms now

    639
    empty, and use the Industrial Schools Act, which gives compulsory powers now little used, and then supply what deficiency may still remain with new though inferior means.
    MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he would not attempt by any argument of his own to refute the argument of the last speaker. He would rather meet him on the records of Hansard. Some years ago there was a Motion before the House not very dissimilar from that of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard)—that it was expedient to promote education by the establishment of free schools for secular instruction, to be supported by local rates, and managed by committees elected by the ratepayers. There were speeches made by Mr. Cobden and others, and there was a speech which, when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was addressing the House, struck him, and he was induced to go into the Library and get the book. In that volume there was a speech under the name of Mr. Adderley. The hon. Member alleged that religious and secular instruction were both wanted; that one should be based on the other, and that they could not be carried out without a national rate. But all agreed that while that secular education could not be carried out without a national rate, religious education could not be carried out by a national rate. An objection was raised by the right hon. Gentleman that it was impossible to separate secular and religious education; but that, said his right hon. Friend, was a mere play upon words. They acted upon the principle every day of their lives in the education of their children. No man asked his dancing master to fiddle and at the same time teach religion. The two things could be separated with advantage. The advantages of the hon. Gentleman's proposition would be plain and obvious. The necessities of the case were also obvious, and the plan would compel the people to take care of their own schools. That was the only answer he should give to his right hon. Friend. He entirely agreed with what the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall) had said, that they were placed in a most embarrassing situation with regard to the Bill. What was their original position? Her Majesty's Government introduced a Bill. Diversities
    640
    of opinion were felt in the House and in the country with regard to its provisions. The whole was founded on the principle of the State endowment of secular education, and a State endowment of religious education; for the endowment was a State endowment, whether it came from a grant of the Privy Council or from a parochial rate. The poor rate was as much a State fact as the income tax. What was the nature of the objection to that scheme? Her Majesty's Government made the religious rate endowment depend absolutely and exclusively on the will of the majority; and the objection was that this would be unfair to the minority. But England had never admitted the principle of the majority in reference to religious endowments. Otherwise the history of the last two centuries might be wiped out. His right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council returned to the old story, that there was no religious difficulty. It was a little late in the day to assert this. The fact was that there was a great religious difficulty which had stood in the way of education for the last 30 years. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: That is just what I said.] Some one in the House said that a difficulty had been got up in London and that it had spread over the country. He did not think this was a fair statement of the case. There was a religious difficulty in the question which it was their object to meet. They had been told by the highest authority that the only logical solution was a secular education. He had never been in favour of a secular system of education; and to be told that this was the only logical conclusion of the religious difficulty was not a convincing argument. He had never yet known any great difficulty solved by the principles of logic. They had spent many months in solving the Irish land question; was that solved in accordance with principles of logic? Surely the House had not forgotten the touching farewell of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the principles of political economy during the consideration of that Bill, which was unquestionably the most illogical measure the House had ever passed? Still, that was no objection to the measure, considering the circumstances it was designed to meet, and the House would have to solve the education question very much in the same way; it would have to frame, not

    641
    a logical measure, but one suited to the interests of the people. His hon. Friend had taken far more time than was necessary to demonstrate that the sentiments of the English people were in favour of a religious education. He had never doubted it, and agreed with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), that if religion be necessary for all classes of society, above all it was essential to that class of whom it might be truly said that—"If in this life only they have hope, then they are of all men the most miserable." They had been told by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) that the Birmingham League was in favour of secular education. He knew no such thing. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was not a member of the League. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), who presided over that powerful and useful association, did not appeal for or receive support on the principle of secular education. The words on their banner, and in the promise of which they received the confidence of the country, so far as it had been accorded to them—[Laughter]—if hon. Members thought that a large extent of confidence had not been granted to that association, they were mistaken—the words inscribed on their banner were "unsectarian education." Unsectarian education, as he understood it, meant something which was not non-religious education—unsectarian education which was not denominational education. It meant something which was opposed on the one hand to secular education, and on the other to sectarian education. And it was because he believed that this was—to use an Americanism—the platform of the Birmingham Association, that he had himself joined the association. If the association took any other ground he would say to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham non hœe in fœdera veni. The principles put forth in the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil were not the sentiments of that wide and extensive body which collected the interests of all these classes of opinion who were in favour of unsectarian education. The question for hon. Members had now assumed this shape—either undiluted denominationalism from the Government, or secular education from the
    642
    hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He had resolved to accept neither, and asked whether there was no middle course; whether it was not possible to bring about a system of unsectarian education, a cause which was dear to many, and which he held sacred. He knew that Gentlemen opposite believed in nothing but catechisms and formularies, which they did not understand; but he assured them that the people would have the question argued out, despite the assumption that the question was not debatable. He regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Had the House had the advantage of the presence of that right hon. Gentleman the religious difficulty might have been solved. He might have joined in the deliberations of the Cabinet on the point; and in the House he might have given a solution of the question which might have been accepted. But, fortunately, there was a Motion on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of non-sectarian education, and though he and his supporters might be beaten by believers in denominational education on the Opposition side of the House, joined with the Catholic vote, they had the satisfaction of knowing that they were supported by a majority in the country. They were told that nobody could understand what was meant by unsectarian and undenominational education. But these words came from somewhere, they were used by some people, and people who used them imagined that some sense attached to them. They used the word "Christendom" without using it in a theological or a polemical sense, and they did not thereby refer only to Catholic Spain or Italy, only to Lutheran Germany, or only to Episcopal England, but they expressed by the term something which was common to all. Sects had persecuted one another, and had still held a faith which was common to all. He would ask leave to describe what he meant by unsectarian religion, in the words of a man whose opinion would be received with respect in the House and everywhere by the English people, whose change of views was a great loss to one Church and a great gain to another. In his Grammar of Assent, published this year, speaking of sects, John Henry Newman said—

    643
    "These are only denominations, parties, schools, compared with the national religion of England in its length and breadth. 'Bible religion' is both the recognized title and the best description of English religion. It consists not in rites or creeds, but mainly in having the Bible read in church, in the family, and in private. Now, I am far indeed from undervaluing that mere knowledge of Scripture which is imparted to the population thus promiscuously. At least in England it has to a certain point made up for great and grievous losses in its Christianity. The reiteration again and again in fixed course, in the public service, of the words of inspired teachers under both covenants, and that in grave, majestic English, has, in matter of fact, been to our people a vast benefit. It has attuned their minds to religious thoughts; it has given them a high moral standard; it has served them in associating religion with compositions which, even humanly considered, are among the most sublime and beautiful ever written; especially it has impressed upon them the series of Divine Providences in behalf of man from his creation to his end; and, above all, the words, deeds, and sacred sufferings of Him in whom all the Providences of God centre. It has been comparatively careless of creed and catechism, and has in consequence shown little sense of the need of consistency. What Scripture especially illustrates, from its first page to its last, is God's Providence, and that is nearly the only doctrine held with a real assent by the mass of religious Englishmen. Hence, the Bible is so great a solace and refuge to them in trouble. I repeat, I am not speaking of particular schools and parties in England, whether of the High Church or the Low, but of the mass of piously-minded and well-living people in all ranks of the community."
    That was a description of what, from a long and accurate observation of the English people, the writer believed to be the unsectarian religion of the English people, though he was himself dissatisfied with it. The great mass of the English people were, he believed, satisfied with it; and it was upon this religion, if upon any religion at all, they could, found a national system of education. The hon. Member for Bradford had truly said that the present tendency of education was in an unsectarian direction. And it ought to be so. The undoubted tendency of all modern civilization was to obliterate the line of distinction which differences of place, climate, and race had created. They had learnt that, financially, the least likely method to become rich themselves was to rob their neighbours or artificially to impede their commerce. Their foreign policy was no longer based upon hostility to other nations, and should it be said, that religion was to be the only question which should not be subservient to the law and the progress of civilization? If the House could found a scheme of national educa-
    644
    tion on the great principle of unsectarian education, it would confer upon the country one of the greatest blessings it had ever received from the House. The entire speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was in favour of undenominational Bible religion. It was easy to say that those who advocated it were not school managers; but the Nottingham and Leicester declaration, signed by pages of schoolmasters and managers, showed that the Government scheme was unworkable, and asked for a scheme of national education founded upon the principle of undenominational and unsectarian religion. The Vice President said that was impossible; but the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) said the reverse. Whatever might be the logical objections to such a scheme, it was that which most people desired. They did not want secular and they did not want denominational teaching, but they wanted something that was neither the one nor the other; and they did not want to be placed in the position the Government were forcing them into, between denominationalism and secularism. They were told that this scheme could not be put into an Act of Parliament, but the Amendment of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) could be; but the right hon. Member said that, in his opinion, his Amendment would not exclude the creeds of the Church of England, because they were equally held by the Church of Rome and were not distinctive of any sect. What a protection for Nonconformists! The question was, whether a declaration in an Act of Parliament would be of any use. If the right hon. Baronet opposite were engaging a master for a school on his estate, he would say to him—"I wish you to teach religion, but not in a manner which shall be offensive to any." The right hon. Baronet would not write down the dogmas he wished to have taught, but his verbal instructions, without any definition, would be carried out; and if they were not, the parishioners would soon come to him to have the matter set right. Why could not the State, as the great patron of all National Schools, act in a similar manner? They did not require a definition or a Pope, for without setting himself up as a Pope the right hon. Baronet could see that the con-

    645
    sciences of his Dissenting tenants were not outraged. He would exercise common sense in a responsible position, and he could not see why Parliament and the English nation were not to do so. Was it in the least necessary to have nothing that could not be interpreted by a Court of Law? If a parish complained that a master was violating his obligations, an Inspector would be sent down, and if he found there was a good ground of complaint he would say to the master—"It won't do, and if you persist the Government Grant will be withdrawn from the school." They did not want to talk logically on this subject. He was adverting to an illogical solution that would satisfy the country; but the Government had adopted an illogical solution that would satisfy nobody. They declined to make a declaration that would be observed in 99 cases out of 100, and in the hundredth could be easily set right. Instead of doing that they adopted what he would call a "Whig" Amendment, by which he meant an Amendment which pretended to be liberal, but was not liberal at all; and which pretended to do something, but always ended in accomplishing nothing. Its authors were conscious that it would not work, so they wanted to see it in the Bill. The security it offered was not worth twopence. It really sanctioned denominationalism, and yet it was offered as a settlement of the question to those who disliked denominationalism. It could only have one result—to revive the religious difficulty in all its bitterness, and to make the school Boards the centres of strife and bitterness. There was something further. As a compensation to the other side of the House for their having to give up creeds, catechisms, and formularies, they were to receive a larger sum of money for their denominational schools; and the offer of the Government had been attended with the happiest effects, although he should have thought it strange that Gentlemen on the other side of the House should have been so willing to give up their religious convictions on the subject in return for a pecuniary compensation—that they should say, in effect—"We will let the rate-aided schools go where they like, on the condition that we have the sum of between £300,000 and £400,000 to spend as we like upon the existing schools."
    646
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, appeared to be very well satisfied with their bargain. The great difficulty they had to understand was why the offer was ever made. Nobody asked for it, and no one, he felt convinced, was more surprised at the offer being made at all than were hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were evidently contented with what, without intending any offence, he might call a species of political simony. He would, however, warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that they on that (the Liberal) side of the House were no parties to the arrangement. The Government might offer them this aggrandized grant out of the public funds for the denominational schools; but the Liberal party did not endorse the offer. The Government were not the authorized agents of the party in or out of that House to insure the perpetuity of such a grant. There was no clause in the Bill which referred to such an increased grant. It would, therefore, be the subject of an annual Vote; and he felt convinced, moreover, that it would be the subject of an annual wrangle. They had never concurred in the Privy Council Grants in favour of denominational education; but as they were in existence they had abstained from attacking them. If, however, the friends of those grants endeavoured to get another 50 per cent, that truce was at an end, and he would venture to say that no Government could be sufficiently powerful in this country—even adding the whole force of the Opposition—to carry year after year this aggrandized grant for denominational education out of the public funds. The question would be re-opened annually, for the contest would not be allowed to subside. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had stated that the Government proposed to transfer to the Educational Vote the grants to Roman Catholic schools in order to make them more certain. But did the Government think that certainty was attainable when the opinions of Members in that House on the subject of Catholic endowments was remembered? How could hon. Gentlemen go to the country and their constituents, and say that while they had abolished the Protestant Church in Ireland, they had also increased the endowments of Catholic schools by 50 per cent? He objected to the Government scheme, because it was founded upon de-

    647
    nominationalism, the tendency of which in religious matters was to separate Christians and to foster doctrines inimical to the welfare of Christian society and the interests of religious truth, while in educational matters its tendency was to multiply small schools instead of consolidating them into large ones, which were always better adapted for educational purposes than small ones. What, for instance, would be the effect if they had one set of schools established for red-haired boys and another for black-haired boys? Another objection he had to denominational schools was that they were apt to become the appanage of the rich, the dependencies of the great house and the parsonage, instead of becoming public property, in which all classes would unite to take an interest and a share in the management. On that ground he deplored the change which had taken place in the Government Bill; he had hoped to see these schools not the eleemosynary dependencies of some great house in the neighbourhood, but an institution in which the farmer, the grocer, the village apothecary, and men of all classes might take their part in the work of national education. And the last ground on which he objected to denominationalism was that it was incompatible with compulsion. They were to be separated from the local Boards; they were to be put as a charge upon the English Exchequer, with an additional 50 per cent for their maintenance; and, after all this extravagant preparation, if the guests did not come to the invitation, the Government refused to go into the highways and hedgeways and compel the outcasts there to come to the feast that was provided for them at the public expense. They were about to spend the public money extravagantly, and yet they would not take the proper measures for putting the schools so provided to their proper use, by compelling children to attend them. He confessed that he stood, with regard to this question, in a most embarrassing position. He could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), for it offended all his convictions; it was both secular and sectarian—it was secular as regarded the school itself, because it excluded all religious teaching; it was sectarian outside the school, because it left education exclusively to those whose
    648
    interest it was to convey religious instruction in the most dogmatic form. But he could not vote for the Bill, because he believed that it was impossible to build upon it any sound or satisfactory fabric of national education because it was founded upon the principle of pure and undiluted denominationalism.
    MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was based upon shadowy and theoretical notions of that which was unsectarian. The hon. and learned Gentleman made much of the differences in religious opinion and the difficulty they would produce in the work of teaching; but, in fact, these were unsubstantial fears. He, and those who acted with him, had never been able to find these difficulties. They had sought high and low; they had inquired of all the schoolmasters they could get at; they had sent inquiries to various schools on the subject—they had asked them how they managed to get over the religious difficulty; and the answer they invariably received was that there was nothing to get over—that they had never found any difficulty in the matter. The teaching that was suitable to elementary schools did not touch the disputed points of sectarian controversy, and the minds of the children were not capable of grasping them. The difficulty was theoretical and not real. But though the principle embodied in his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment was generally adopted by Liberals, he had not surmounted the difficulty of language. It was not that the word "sectarian" was unintelligible—they all knew what it meant; the difficulty arose from its having too many meanings, and hence it was incapable of being defined in legal language. Supposing it were enacted that a party man should not be a manager of the schools. Everybody would know what a party man meant; but no legal definition would exist of the breach of the enactment. With regard to his own Amendment, which had been accepted by the Government, he wished to say that it did not emanate from the Educational Union, nor was that Union composed entirely of Church people; on the contrary, it included men of all parties and denominations. But he did not propose his Amendment as the organ of the Union. He had had communications both with Churchmen and Noncon-

    649
    formists on the subject, and it appeared to him that it was an Amendment which would secure the object they all had in view—of excluding sectarianism, while it would not interfere with the freedom of the schoolmaster. It combined an important principle of the Union with an important principle of the League. The important principle of the Union was freedom of religious teaching. The important principle of the League was that the teaching should not be sectarian. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had an Amendment on the Paper which proposed that the schoolmaster should not inculcate the tenets of any religious sect. But unless the schoolmaster was a secularist, and had no religion, he must hold the tenets of some sect, and the adoption of this Amendment would fetter him in his giving explanations of a passage of Scripture which he might think unsectarian, but on which other people might be of a different opinion. If these words of the hon. Member were to be inserted in an Act of Parliament, they would prove a trap for the schoolmaster and a restriction on his freedom. But he did not apprehend any difficulty in construing the words of his Amendment, because it did not apply to a matter of opinion, but to a matter of fact. It would hardly ever become a matter of controversy whether a particular document had or had not a tendency to lead men more to one Church than to another. So far as he knew there were only three religious bodies that used catechisms in schools—the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, and the Wesleyans. The Apostles' Creed was not the property of any particular denomination, but belonged to all Christendom. Then it was said that there were people who would be coerced in their consciences if there was any teaching of religion. That implied that there was a sort of neutral condition, something which was neither secular nor religious. The question was whether or not there should be moral training in the schools founded by the State, or whether those schools were to be different and inferior in that respect to all existing schools. It would be impossible to enact that the children should not be instructed in the duty of obedience to the moral law, and in a sense of responsibility to their Maker. If there were to be no moral training
    650
    in the schools, how could they be justified in passing the compulsory provisions of the Bill, obliging parents to send their children to the schools, though they might want the earnings of those children for the purpose of clothing and feeding them, and forcing the ratepayers to contribute towards the expense of the schools out of their scanty incomes? If there was to be moral training, it must either be based upon the sanctions of the Divine law, or upon the dictates of self-interest. The latter was irreligious, for it rested conduct on a motive which Christianity was promulgated in the world to restrain. If no religious instruction were to be given, the parents who wanted it would be as much entitled to complain of violation of their conscience as the secularists, and they were entitled to the preference as being the majority. Besides, those who objected to have their children taught religion had the protection of the Conscience Clause; but if they reversed their proceedings and taught no religion, there would be no Conscience Clause for those who wished it. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said that all religious teaching ought to be given by Dissenting ministers and clergymen, and not by schoolmasters. He naturally quoted, in support of his views, that High Churchman, Dean Hook, for these two extremes met in a common repudiation of religious instruction by laymen. That was not the view of the Liberal party. It would be a very heavy blow to good education if it were to be held that the trained masters, educated in denominational training colleges, were not fit to be intrusted with the education of children under the Bill. No system of national education could be carried out unless the minority agreed to yield to the majority. National education must be complete. It must include moral training. Morality must be based on Christian motives, or on motives antagonistic to Christianity. Between these two the State must choose. There was no third alternative. If the rights of individual consciences were to be pushed forward to an exaggerated and illogical extent, there could be no common action, and it would not be possible for all parties to unite to establish a system of national education which should be accepted by persons of different religious opinions. He thought

    651
    the Leader of the House was quite justified in his assertion that payments from the public would be applied by the Bill only to secular instruction, and thus he had cut away the foundation for the most serious and important opposition which had been made to the Bill.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUretorted upon the hon. and learned Member for Oxford the charge he had made that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House "used formularies which they did not understand," saying that the speech of the hon. and learned Member, and especially the negative terms which he had so frequently used, were not understood by the House, and that the hon. and learned Member probably had himself no clear conception of their meaning. He desired, he said, a religious instruction which should be "undenominational" and "unsectarian." The hon. and learned Member's ardent desire for such a vague and foggy religion, reminded him of the German Rationalist, who confessed that he was a wild worshipper of dark negations. The hon. and learned Member also quoted, with approval, a passage from the recent work of Dr. Newman. He, too, had read, with the greatest interest, Dr. Newman's Grammar of Assent; and if he remembered rightly the context of the passage, Dr. Newman was trying to show that there was nothing positive in the religion of Englishmen; that, beyond a belief in "God's Providence," there was nothing in the Protestant religion but mist and negation. He did not desire to sit under such an imputation; he trusted that he might truly profess a better faith than that. The objection made to the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was that it was a State endowment of religion; for, said he, any payment out of the public funds which is wholly or in part appropriated to the teaching of religion, is a State endowment of religion. Well, then, the Poor Law was a State endowment of religion, for there were paid chaplains for workhouses. There were also paid ministers for prisons, so that the Vote for Law and Justice was a State endowment of religion. The Votes for the Army and those for the Navy were no better; for Episcopalian, Wesleyan, and Roman Catholic chaplains were thus paid by the State. It might be said, also, that the Civil List was a State endowment of religion;
    652
    for although the Crown voluntarily surrendered the management of the Crown Lands in exchange for a Civil List, yet the money was granted only on the condition that the Sovereign should profess and maintain the Protestant religion as by law established. If the hon. and learned Member was right in his definition of a State endowment of religion, and if his principle was that every such endowment should be abolished, he was prepared to run a tilt, in very Quixotic fashion, against both the religion and the Constitution of the country. The hon. Member for Bradford had charged the Government with having exercised a moral coercion over their followers below the Gangway. The truth was that those followers below the Gangway were attempting to coerce the Government. When the original measure was introduced on the 17th of February it was received with acclamation by hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the Government side of the House; or, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh University expressed it—"it was hailed as an important measure; but, somehow, it got on a political siding." For as soon as it was found out that the Conservatives, with the view of arriving at a settlement of the matter, had determined to lay aside their own opinions on the subject, and accept the measure as a compromise, then an agitation was commenced by the Radicals, meetings were called, and articles appeared in the newspapers denouncing the Bill and demanding concessions. Well, then the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council laid his Amendments upon the Table just before Whitsuntide; these contained great concessions to the Radicals, such as the Time Table Conscience Clause, the Ballot, and the abolition of the scale of voting in the Vestries. These concessions were, at first, deemed satisfactory by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. But again, directly it became known that the Conservative party would not oppose them, the same tactics were repeated, agitation again arose, more meetings were held, violent speeches were made, violent articles were written, and the Government were forced to introduce what was practically a new measure. Again the Conservative party determined not to oppose the compromise, but to accept it, much against their desire, so as to effect

    653
    a final settlement of the question. They made no difficulty, but determined to help the Government to pass their Bill; and that was why hon. Members below the Gangway now raised a storm of opposition against it. That was a simple history of what had occurred; the coercion had come, not from the Government, but from those sitting below the Gangway. The position of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government reminded him of the famous engraving by Retsch, the German artist, of a good man playing at chess with the Devil for his soul; and he trusted that in the present case the latter would not win the game. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had further stated that the Government had offered a bribe to the Conservative party to induce them to accept the measure. By such an expression the hon. and learned Member betrayed great contempt for the character of Members of Parliament. A bribe? How could that be a bribe which was given to both the parties? The 50 per cent which they were to receive would also be received by the other side; and, in fact, the income of the latter party would be more certain than that of the Conservative party, or rather the managers of the denominational schools. He would make this clear in a few words. According to the original Bill, there were to have been three kinds of schools:—rate-provided schools, rate - aided schools, and schools in connection, as at present, with the various religious bodies. According to the present Bill, the second class of schools would not be created, and there would be only two contending bodies—the system of rate-provided schools, and the system of denominational schools. Now, the Prime Minister had stated that it was a principle of "vital importance," that they should frankly accept on equal terms the system of denominational schools. He said, and the Vice President said the same at Bradford, that the Bill was to supplement, not to supersede the existing system; it was to fill up deficiencies, but not destroy. Now, were the two contending bodies equally weighted under the proposed arrangement? In one case the rates, and in the other case the subscriptions were to cover one-sixth of the school expenses; but the rates were secure, and were levied by law; the subscriptions were doubtful, had to
    654
    be begged for, and were hard to obtain. Again, the subscribers to existing schools were also to be rated for the support of the new schools; thus imposing a double burden on those who consented to subscribe; moreover it was well known that rates always killed off voluntary gifts. Thirdly, the rates were borne equitably by all the inhabitants in a parish; while the subscriptions were shared by very few. The subscribers to denominational schools would, therefore, be much more heavily weighted. Again, the promised increase of 50 per cent in Parliamentary Grants—which was to be given to both classes of schools—was to depend on the passing of a new Code. This must, as was well known, be laid upon the Table of the House for 40 days, before it could become law; and it had been intimated that it was not to come into force until the beginning of the next financial year. But this Bill, which gave all the advantages to rate-provided schools, would come into force as soon as it was passed. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had intimated what would happen before the beginning of the next financial year; he had promised a great and long-continued agitation throughout the country against any increase of grants; the whole question would, therefore, be re-opened, in the next Session of Parliament, the opinion of the House might be changed by means of a pressure from without, the new Code might be modified or rejected, and thus the so-called bribe might not be obtained at all. The present denominational schools would in that case receive nothing but injury, while the new secular schools would obtain from the rates all that they wanted to cover their expenses. Again: the Code was at all times subject to change by the Privy Council; so that even if the promised advantages were obtained, they might be soon taken away. Moreover, the money payments made under the Code had to be voted year by year in Committee of Supply; so that a yearly contest would be invited, in Parliament, and the necessary supplies might, in any year, be curtailed or stopped. There would, therefore, be a double chance of starving out the denominational schools, while the new secular schools would always be secure of supplies from the rates. This was hardly the "kind of permanence" which, the Prime Minister had said that they had

    655
    the right to expect. Again, all building grants were to be stopped by the Bill; the building of new denominational schools would, therefore, be seriously discouraged; while the expenses of building secular schools would be covered by the rates. The two contending systems of schools were, therefore, by no means equally weighted; and the bribe was offered not to the Conservative party, but to the ultra-Liberals below the Gangway, who were now opposing the Government measure. He would now turn to the vital question on which the debate turned—he meant the religious difficulty. It was very clear that the country would not have a purely secular education. Could it have an undenominational education? Now, he asked, could there be an "unsectarian religion," a "neutral religion," a "common Christianity?" These terms sounded very well, but the thing did not exist. He did not believe in the existence of that mystical "common Christianity" which was so lovingly dwelt upon by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. The phrase "undenominational religion" described an impossibility. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had said—"An eclectic religion, which excludes what is unacceptable, is impossible." If every religion were partly true and partly false, and if it were possible to separate the false from the true, then such a thing might be; but then it became an imperative duty on those who had this power of sifting, to perform that operation at once; so that they might have one religion for the whole land, which should be wholly true and authoritative, and so that they might all worship together in the same churches on Sunday. Then also would there be an end to the many questions which disturbed the political atmosphere and divided opinions in the House; the Irish Church question, and the English Church question, and the Free Church question; the Prison Ministers Bill, the Tests Bill, the Burials Bill, and other kindred measures would never more be heard of if there were but one religion in the land. But it was sheer nonsense to talk of a "common Christianity." His opinion was, that if religion was worth anything, it was a positive and precise assertion of truths—a dogmatic assertion of truths, if hon. Members preferred the term—more positive than the assertion
    656
    of truths by any science, and far more important. It became, therefore, a matter of the highest importance for every man to inquire anxiously, studiously, honestly, and unflinchingly, and to decide which religion could be accepted as such. But whether there could be an unsectarian religion or not, yet, as the Prime Minister had said, it was impossible to prescribe such a religion by Act of Parliament. To do so, Parliament must either lay down a complete system of Canons and Articles of Faith, it must guarantee this neutral religion and embody it with authority in State school-books—which would be the proper work of an Œcumenical Council—or else Parliament must set up a living authority—an infallible Pope—to decide in each case which tenet was unsectarian and which was not. Yet this latter was the very thing which the Prime Minister proposed to do, although he had told them just before that it was impossible. By excluding formulas and catechisms, he, in fact, set up the school teachers as "living authorities" in matters of faith; and this was what his right hon. Friend next him (Mr. Disraeli) had meant by saying that the Prime Minister proposed to make of the teachers "a new sacerdotal class." He would explain his meaning by an example:—The Apostles' Creed would be excluded because it was a formula, and because it was not accepted by Deists, Jews, Unitarians, Baptists, and others. But the teacher would not be precluded from teaching the truths which were contained in the Creed, although he was forbidden to use the words of the Creed. Not only the truths of the Creed, but any other truths or falsehoods might then be slipped into the doctrinal teaching of the master. He would be forbidden to say "Born of the Virgin Mary;" but he might teach this truth while adding to it the words "who was immaculately conceived," or "who was born without original sin." For a formula is a check upon doctrinal teaching; it is a restraint upon individual caprice and theological opinion. The hon. Member for Cambridge University had yesterday asked, What is a formulary? But, like Pilate, when he asked, What is Truth? he turned away and did not wait for an answer. A formulary was a form of sound words which wise men, acquainted with the

    657
    subject, had considered the best means for conveying certain truths; and a catechism was a formulary adapted especially for instilling certain truths into the minds of the young. Now, if truths were to be taught, they must be conveyed either in a formulary, or else in a form of expression which was not so well adapted to the purpose. There could, therefore, be no objection to a formulary in itself, but only to the truths which it conveyed. Moreover, by forbidding the use of religious formularies, the teaching would not be rendered undenominational; the only result would be to render the teaching less effective for conveying religious truths to the mind. If any religious teaching was given, it must necessarily be denominational. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had expressed such contempt for logic, that he, perhaps, would attach no weight to the old rule—posito genere, ponitur species—that if a thing belonged to agenus, it belonged to someone species, and was an individual of that species; and if a teaching was religious, it belonged to some one denomination of religion. The only question, therefore, was, whether religious truth should be taught at all. But if the master had religious feelings, it was impossible to prevent him from instilling his religious principles into the minds of his pupils. He might do so insensibly and unobserved, or openly and obtrusively; but he was sure to do it. If a boy told a lie, for instance, was it to be supposed that the master would not mention the high and true ground for abhorring falsehood, and would seek for some low and base motive for telling the truth? But if he appealed to religious motives, he must mention the Redemption and the Divinity of Christ and other doctrines. As long as masters received a religious education—as long as your present training Colleges existed—as long as the masters were not professed Atheists, so long would you have religious teaching in the schools. Was it not better then that this teaching should be given with the check and restraint of a formulary, than with the caprice and whim of individual opinion? Was it not better that it should be open and above-board, and that all should know what denomination of religion was being inculcated by the master? The following conclusion had therefore been arrived at:—If religious truth was to be taught at all, the teaching
    658
    must be denominational; and it was better that it should be conveyed by formularies than without them. Those who desired that no religious instruction should be given—that is to say, the secularists—were very few in number, and might be put out of consideration; at least, not one of those who had spoken as yet had dared to avow as much. What, then, was the principle which lay at the foundation of the opposition which was now offered to the Bill? There was, indeed, a principle which he was prepared to grant, not because he thought it absolutely true, but because it was what lawyers called "very arguable," and he would grant it for argument's sake. The principle was, that it was unjust to take a man's money to teach that to which he conscientiously objected. This, according to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, was "the principle at the very foundation of religious liberty." It must be observed that it applied to any taxation for promoting secular teaching, as much as to taxation for inculcating religious knowledge. There was also a principle on the other side—namely, that religious education per se was good; religious education, apart from all accidental considerations, was to be desired. This opposing principle, which lay at the foundation of the policy of the Conservative party, had also been acknowledged by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, for he said—"Religion is by far the most important element of all, in education;" and he said that he desired "the most positive and distinctive religious teaching." The question before the House was, therefore, whether these two opposing principles could be reconciled. Now, the present system of Privy Council Grants, together with a Conscience Clause, seemed fully to reconcile these principles; it retained a religious education, while it did not infringe the principle of making no man pay for teaching that of which he disapproved. Every man subscribed his money to a school of that denomination which he liked best; and the State paid only for secular results, and neither taught nor examined in religion. It was true that the Archbishop had requested that when an Inspector examined a Church school in secular matters for the State, he might at the same time examine in religious matters for the Bishop of the diocese; and this request was granted;

    659
    but there was no teaching of religion or examination into it on the part of the State. The State, however, took a security for the inculcation of religion, by requiring that every school, by means of its trust deed, should be irrevocably in connection with some religious body. The present system seemed, therefore, to reconcile the two principles. Why, then, was it not maintained? Because the Prime Minister had said that there was a destitution of the means of education in some places; that there were gaps, here and there, in the system. The present system, it was well known, left the initiative to the energy and goodwill of the locality, on the old principle of local self-government; while the educationalists of the present day desired to place all the power and the initiative in the hands of the central Government, so as to override local varieties and force a crop of schools in every place. In the first place, he denied that the educational destitution was very great. Moreover, it was yearly decreasing very rapidly. Nearly 1,000 new school departments were annually brought under the system, and 136,000 more scholars every year. The present yearly supply of masters was scarcely enough to meet this ever increasing demand; and if schools were to be rapidly forced in every place, they would have to be carried on without trained masters. Nevertheless he would, for argument's sake, grant this position also; and yet he asserted that it was possible to maintain the two opposing principles, even in a system for providing schools out of the rates. Let it be remembered that the fundamental principle of religious liberty required two things; if a man's money might not be made instrumental in teaching that to which he conscientiously objected, then, in the first place, the schools in which various persons had invested their money, might not be made instruments in teaching that to which they objected; and secondly, individuals might not be rated for the support of an education to which they objected. The former proposition forbad them to starve the present schools, and to force them to transfer themselves to the school Boards; and the latter allowed every person to determine the appropriation of the money which he gave for the support of a school, so that he should not feel aggrieved by paying to the support of error; or so that, if he were a Congre-
    660
    gationalist, he would be at liberty to give voluntarily, instead of being rated to the support of education. He would make these principles more clear by examples. With regard to the former, it might be supposed that in some district, a Roman Catholic school Board was elected; the schools provided by them would, therefore, be Catholic, although the use of formularies was forbidden. Would it, then, be just to starve out all the Protestant schools in the district, until they were driven into transferring themselves to the school Board, and becoming Roman Catholic schools? In the rural districts there would be school Boards composed of members of the Established Church, and their schools would be Church schools, although no formularies would be used. Would it be fair to allow them to starve out all the Baptist, and Catholic, and Dissenting schools in the district? In many towns the school Boards would be composed of Dissenters, who, because of the varieties of their religious views, would agree to establish secular schools. Would it be just to allow all the religious schools in the district to be starved out? With regard to the second proposition, he would take the example of a parish where all the schools had been provided by the school Board, or had been transferred to the school Board, and were, therefore, all of one character—whether secular, or Roman Catholic, or Church. But suppose that a few parents conscientiously objected to that character of school, should they not be at liberty to pay to the support of a master of the character which they preferred? These propositions seemed but reasonable. For if a minority were to be free to withdraw their children from the religious teaching in a religious school, the majority should be free to give a religious teaching in a religious school. If the consciences of some were wounded by teaching the religion of one sect to the children of another sect, then the consciences of others were wounded by teaching the unreligion of one sect to the children of the rest of the nation. If some persons said that it was unjust to take their money to teach a religion of which they disapproved, others said it was unjust to take their money to teach the unreligion to which they objected. He might mention, in passing, that he had put on the Paper an Amendment

    661
    to the 47th clause, to carry out these views. It was taken from the Canadian School Act, which had been passed in 1848. That Amendment would unfortunately not suit the measure as it now stood after committal. He came now to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. The effect of that Amendment would be to starve out all religious schools, thus violating the fundamental principle of religious liberty, on which it was supposed that the Amendment had been framed. But, he would say, why might they not starve out the denominational schools? In the first place, he answered, because it was directly contrary to their fundamental principle; and, in the second place, because it would be a gross injustice to do so. Those schools were all private schools. They had been built by the activity and liberality of the religious denominations, who had borne the burden and heat of the day, and had fought the battle of the State against ignorance and obstructions, for more than 35 years. They surely had a tenant-right more than all those misguided persons of Ulster whom the Prime Minister had taken under his special protection. Moreover, these religious bodies had received a guarantee from Government; they rested on trust deeds which were framed on the Government draft, and under the eye of the State; the Government were, in all honour, parties to a contract with these religious bodies, for the permanence and support of their schools. Were these religious bodies to be asked to give up all their rights, and do that which they conscientiously abhorred, under penalty of a gradual but sure starvation? And this was to be done under the sacred name of religious liberty! If these guarantees were broken, if these trust deeds were swept away by Parliamentary enactment, if these contracts were ignored, if the plighted faith and honour of the State were set at nought, then would all those persons who despised authority, and plotted to overturn all government, have a warrant and excuse for their nefarious conduct. That he had not been overstating the case would appear from the following quotation from the Report of the Duke of Newcastle's Commission (p. 309):—
    "During the last 20 years several thousand schools have been established in connection with the system in different parts of the country. These schools are private property, and the founders of
    662
    many of them are still living. They are connected with particular religious denominations, and the tact of that connection formed the chief inducement of the subscribers to contribute towards their foundation. The foundation-deeds were drawn up, in a great measure, under the direction of the Government. The managers would, in our opinion, be very harshly treated if the assistance at present given to them were transferred to schools founded on a different principle without any proof that they had failed to render the services for which the grants were paid, or if they were refused further contributions, except upon the terms of altering the constitution which they were so lately compelled by public authority to accept, and upon the faith of which such contributions were made."
    Let the House, in the next place, consider the effect of this injustice on the cause of education. An immense force had been required to plant these 15,000 denominational schools. It was religious zeal, so hard to quench, which had covered the country with the means of education; it was the flywheel of our educational machine. All this would be enlisted against them; those injured religious bodies would struggle against them and against their secular system. What had they to oppose to this great power? Secularism could not supply such force, nor awaken such zeal and fervour. Secularism was cold, and had no enthusiasm. Then why should they turn an old ally against them, who had fought their battle till now? The religious bodies would still seek to exert a spiritual influence over the young in spite of your secular system; they would still have schools as nurseries of their congregations, to strengthen a sect, or to aggrandize a Church. In America the secular system was now crumbling away and denominational schools were springing up on every side. In New York large sums were voted every year for the support of Roman Catholic schools. In that country, when the secular system was established by law, the religious bodies were weak because they were widely scattered; yet the denominational schools were gradually conquering the territory from the secular schools, and seeking to remedy the evil moral influence of secularism, and to redeem the degradation of the populace. ["No!"] If hon. Members doubted his assertion let them consult a book published in Philadelphia, called The Common School System in the United States. It used language far stronger than any which, he had ventured to employ. That was the result in. America where the reli-

    663
    gious bodies were scattered and weak. What would be the result in England, where the religious bodies were strong and united, and had been in possession of the territory long before our school system had been established? Or let them consider the example of every other free country of the world. In no country of Europe were children compelled to go to secular schools. Mr. Matthew Arnold said, in his Schools and Universities of the Continent—Preface. 1868—
    "Most English Liberals seem persuaded that our elementary schools should be undenominational, and their teaching secular, and that with a public elementary school it cannot well be otherwise. Let them clearly understand, however, that on the Continent generally, everywhere except in Holland, the public elementary school is denominational, and its teaching religious as well as secular."
    With regard to Prussia, the Bishop of Manchester (Dr. Fraser) in a recent address, called it "intensely denominational;" and the Report of the Duke of Newcastle's Commission contained these words—
    "The clergyman of the parish is ex officio local inspector, and, as such, has the management of the school as well as the duty of visiting it. He is also personally charged with the religious instruction, which is minute and laborious. … Almost all the schools in Prussia are denominational. Mr. Pattison says, 'In poor and remote villages a few mixed schools may still remain in the Rhine Province, but they are only kept so by the poverty of the people, and are yearly disappearing before the advance of wealth and population.'"
    With regard to Canada, the Bishop of Manchester said, speaking of the Canadian School Act (12 Vict. c. 50, s. 18)—
    "Whenever in any municipality the regulations and arrangements made by the Commissioners of any school are not agreeable to any number whatever of the inhabitants professing a religious faith different from that of the majority of the inhabitants of such municipality, the inhabitants so dissentient may collectively signify, in writing, such dissent to the Chairman of the Commissioners and give in the names of three trustees chosen by them—for three years, one retiring each year—which trustees shall have all the powers and be subject to all the duties of School Commissioners, for the purpose of establishing and managing dissentient schools. They become a corporation, may constitute their own school districts, have the sole right of fixing and collecting the assessments to be levied on the dissentient inhabitants, are entitled to receive out of the general school fund appropriated to the municipality a share bearing the same proportion to the whole sum allotted that the number of children attending such dissentient schools bears to the entire number of children attending school at the same time in the
    664
    municipality, and a similar share of the building fund."
    With the example of these great free countries before their eyes, he asked them not to repress religious liberty while pretending to unfetter consciences.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Privy Council that a grave responsibility rested upon those who interposed needless obstacles to the passing of the Bill. But he could not help thinking that a still graver responsibility attached to those who, in their anxiety—their laudable anxiety—to pass an Education Bill at any price, were endeavouring to force the Bill through Committee in the delusive hope that if the Bill were passed the religious difficulty would settle itself. Now, the right hon. Gentleman told them pretty plainly that, in his opinion, the religious difficulty was an imaginary difficulty—a difficulty of their own creating. If that be so, all he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) could say was that the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had shown a wonderful disposition to run away from shadows, for they had twice remodelled their Bill in deference to what they now called an imaginary difficulty. But, be that as it might, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would at once own that like every other speaker who had addressed the House—except the right hon. Gentleman himself—he believed that there was a religious difficulty, and what was more, he believed that that difficulty would be aggravated instead of being removed if the Bill were allowed to pass. And believing that—and believing too with his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall)—that they were now at a critical turning-point in that question, and that if they took the wrong turn, if they got into the wrong groove, they would have to retrace their steps with infinite labour and at infinite cost, he did entreat the House to pause before it irrevocably committed itself to what he believed to be a step in a wrong—nay, in a retrograde direction. Let him go back for a moment or two. They embarked upon this discussion with three distinct proposals before them for remedying what he presumed the Government itself now admitted to have been a defect in their original Bill—namely, the unlimited power vested in the school Boards of prescribing the religious in-

    665
    struction to be given in the rate-created schools—a question upon which, as far as those schools were concerned, the religious difficulty really hinged. One of those propositions had been absorbed into the Government Bill. The second had disappeared nobody knew where; and the third was that which was embodied in the last part of the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), which was really no more than the proposal enunciated 25 years ago by that excellent man and orthodox Churchman Dr. Hook, that the State should confine itself to the teaching of secular knowledge, leaving religious instruction to the free unfettered action of the different religious denominations. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had always held—and he was fortified in his opinion by the high authority of the Prime Minister—that this was the only logical solution of the difficulty; but what he had heard in the course of that debate convinced him that it was not only the only logical, but the only possible solution of that difficulty. Let him say a word about the other two proposals. First, there was that of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple)—which was now the Government Amendment—to exclude religious catechisms and formularies from rate-created schools. Well, unfortunately, that proposal satisfied nobody, except his right hon. Friend himself, who felt a very natural regard for his own offspring. The noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Robert Montagu) would not have it at any price. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Hope) regarded it as an abomination, and certainty it did not satisfy them. And why not? Because it promised a great deal and did nothing. It cavilled at the form, but accepted the substance. It strained, at the gnat, but swallowed the camel. Why, without bringing himself under the ban of the Amendment, he would undertake to teach the most sectarian dogma in the world. Without trenching upon it, a Roman Catholic schoolmaster might teach the doctrine of transubstantiation; a High Churchman might teach the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration; a Calvinist might teach the doctrine of election and predestination; a Mahomedan might teach "that there was but one God, and Mahomet was his prophet." As
    666
    had been already remarked, the provisions would only apply to three Churches—the Church of England, the Wesleyans, and the Church of Rome; and so far as it had any application to those bodies, its operation would be limited to transferring the religious teaching from the Church to the individual teacher—a result which he should have thought nobody could have approved. Then it would incidentally weaken the operation of the Conscience Clause, for if the religious teaching be less explicit, it was obvious that the protection of that clause would be more uncertain. And now he came to the second proposal, to confine religious teaching in the rate-created schools to what was called "unsectarian" teaching. Now, he admitted that for a long time he cherished the hope that some compromise of that kind might be arrived at. But there was this difficulty in the way of such a solution. No human being had, as yet, been able to give anything like a satisfactory definition of what he meant by "unsectarian" teaching. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), whose courage and ingenuity were equal to most things, had attempted it. He said—"The words come from somewhere, therefore they must mean something." And when he was pressed for a definition, he said—"By unsectarian teaching I mean undenominational teaching." Well, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) supposed if he asked him what he meant by "undenominational" teaching, he would answer "unsectarian teaching;" and so they would go round in a circle and never get any further. Well now, to take the simplest form of religious teaching—Biblical instruction. Was it not obvious that the moment they entrusted that duty to the teacher they really put a margin by the side of the sacred page on which the teacher wrote his own gloss, and what the child learnt was not the Bible only, but the teacher's gloss; in other words, he got his religious instruction coloured by the mind of the teacher. Then they had the other alternative, which he could not help thinking was seized upon as a last resource, that the Bible should be read "without note or comment." Why, did anyone really believe that a child of six or eight, or even ten years old, reading the Bible for the first time, without any sort of explanation whatsoever, would really

    667
    understand it? But even were it otherwise, they had yet to define what they meant by the Bible; for, remember that, without speaking of the Jews, who, of course, would not admit the New Testament as part of the Bible, they had to deal with Roman Catholics, who consired what they regarded as the sacred version to be a class book of heresy. Now, if, as he thought, he had shown the Government proposal to be valueless; if the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford was so indefinite that nobody would even undertake to define it; if the reading of the Bible without note or comment be really no religious teaching at all, he asked what remained but the proposal of his hon. Friend? And he rejoiced to see that in dealing with that proposal every speaker as yet had done justice to the spirit which actuated his hon. Friend in bringing it forward. Nobody who knew his hon. Friend—himself a minister of religion, reflecting as he did, as faithfully as any man in that House, the convictions of the deeply-religious community which he represented—would suspect him of underrating the value of religious teaching. Speaking for himself, he could truly say that he regarded religious teaching as the backbone of a people, and that he hoped to see the day when every little child in this country would be taught the Bible as soon as he was able to understand it. But the question still remained how and by whom would this instruction best be given? Would the plant flourish best when it was left to grow up on its own soil, or when it was taken up and forced in a State hothouse? Now, he could not help thinking that there was nothing so unreasonable as the panic which came over Englishmen when it was proposed, as they called it, to "divorce" religious instruction from State teaching; for his own experience told him that the strength and the depth of the religious convictions of people were just in inverse proportion to the pains which the State took to enforce religious teaching. He would not cross the Atlantic and cite the United States as an example, for he observed that when any hon. Member of that House referred to anything which took place in that Republic, somebody else rose up and asserted exactly the contrary, and it frequently ended in both being right, and still more frequently in
    668
    both being wrong. He would take the case of a country which he knew well—the Principality of Wales. The British Schools in Wales—which were really national schools, for what were called the National Schools were so only in name—were, if not secular, at least undenominational. ["No, no!"] Well, he would not quarrel about words. Of this he was sure, that the Welsh children, speaking generally, learnt their religion not in the British Schools or the National Schools, but in the Sunday schools and in the chapels. And what was the result? Did the Welsh boys and girls grow up "young heathens," "little intellectual devils," as he thought one hon. Member predicted it would be the fate of children who were not taught religion by the State to become? So far from that being the case, there was no part of the kingdom where the Bible was so much taught and so intelligently read—in which the Sabbath day was so strictly observed, in which places of religious worship were so much attended as in that same Principality of Wales. And now let him show them another picture. In Prussia, and generally in North Germany, religious teaching was enforced as a matter of State discipline. The Prussian boy was drilled in religion as he was in soldiering—he was literally "dragooned" into it. As a condition of entering upon any trade, of being apprenticed to any trade, he was obliged to produce a certificate that he had been "confirmed"—and "confirmation" in Protestant Germany implied something very like a degree in divinity. It necessitated a course of doctrinal instruction over two years, and a public examination at the end of it, after which the successful candidate for confirmation was often as good a divine as many a clergyman of the Church of England. But did all this examining and drilling make the Prussian people religious? The answer to that question was given in a very interesting letter to The Times last autumn, in which it was stated that in Berlin, out of a population of 500,000, only 30,000 ever went to church, and five-sixths of those were women and children. In Dresden, where the same system prevailed, out of a population of 150,000, only 7,000 ever went to any place of worship. If they asked a Prussian for an explanation, he would tell them—"Oh, we had enough of that

    669
    when we were at school." And the reason was obvious enough. In religion men, and children too, must be led and not driven, and the business of the schoolmaster was to drive, as the business of the minister was to lead. They said they had no machinery adequate for the purpose; but they had in this country 50,000 ministers of religion, and an army of 300,000 Sunday school teachers devoted to this labour of love. They paid many millions annually for the support of a State clergy. He did not underrate the great efforts they had made, and the great sacrifices to which they had submitted in the cause of religious education. But was it not a very poor acknowledgment of those efforts and those sacrifices to take away from them that which ought to be their highest duty and their greatest glory, and to hand it over to those whom the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), with as much truth as wit, termed a now "sacerdotal caste;" and that, too, at a time when they were told that the supply of that very class was about to fail them altogether? Before he quitted that branch of the subject, let him quote a passage which bore upon it from that very speech of Mr. Cobden to which the Prime Minister referred last Thursday. Speaking of a proposal that in all schools religious education should be given at the expense of the community, he said—
    "That involves one or two difficulties and objections which I think are insuperable. In the first place, what a reflection it is upon the office of religious teachers! They (the clergy) say he will make schoolmasters the teachers of religion."
    Did they propose that schoolmasters should graduate in a course of divinity in order to be qualified for that instruction? Why, how they discounted and degraded their own profession in making a schoolmaster, who never taught divinity at all, on an equality with clergymen, and calling upon him to give religious instruction! And, he must add, that nothing had surprised him more in that debate than to have the great name of Cobden appealed to in support of the principles of that Bill. It was Mr. Cobden who, in 1851, supported Mr. Fox's Motion, which was in substance identical with that of his hon. Friend. It was Mr. Cobden who pointed out the absurdity of making "everybody pay for the teaching of everybody else's religion." But was not that just what they did by that Bill? It was
    670
    the old story of church rates over again, with the difference that the church rate was levied for the benefit of one denomination, and the school rate might be levied for the benefit of 20—a system of concurrent endowment with a vengeance. Now, he did say that it was a little disheartening to those who had spent the best part of their lives in trying to get rid of that obnoxious impost, to have the same yoke fastened on their necks in a different shape by a Liberal Government, supported by a Conservative Opposition. He did not blame hon. Gentlemen opposite for their support of that Bill. They knew well enough that its effect in the rural districts of England, about which they were most concerned, would be to place the education of the country in the hands of those in whose hands they naturally wished to place it, in the hands of the squire and the parson. But what would be its effect in the large towns, where parties were more evenly balanced? He did not hesitate to say that in those places every election of school Boards under it would be a sort of borough election on a small scale. There would be the same passions created and the same party cries. He did not know whether they would take the form of "Robinson and the Thirty-nine Articles," and "Jones and down with everything." It was useless to say that those explosions did not occur now. The fallacy which run through such reasoning was this—that they were now, for the first time, introducing an entirely new system, under which education was to be not only common to all, but supported by all. They had, therefore, not to consider only the children, or even the parents. They had to think of a third party, who was likely to prove a very troublesome and cantankerous element in the case, and who would have a voice in the application of the money which they took out of his pocket—the British ratepayer. Therefore, an entirely difficult set of considerations arose; but, even under the present system, there were not wanting symptoms that things did not work quite so harmoniously as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford would have them to think, when he told them that nothing was more common, even in Wales, than for Dissenting parents, and even Dissenting Ministers, to send their children to Church schools. Mr. Bow-

    671
    stead, in Ms Report to the Privy Council last year, p. 280, gives a very different picture. He speaks of the sacrifices made by working men—especially in Wales—to secure for their children an education consonant to their own views of religion, and says that though education on the principles of the Established Church have been freely offered, nine-tenths of them are Nonconformists, and, instead of accepting those offers, they struggle at whatever cost to establish unsectarian schools of their own. He says—
    "It is a common practice in South Wales for masters of works to form a school fund by deducting a small poundage from every workman's wages, whether the workmen have children or not, and by means of this fund to give a free education to all the children of the people employed. It is much to the credit of a great majority of the employers that they consult the wishes of the working population in the class of schools which they establish, and whenever this is the case the system produces admirable results. … But there is another class of works in which the employers use the fund collected by a deduction from the men's wages to establish Church schools, and to bring up in Church principles a set of children whose parents are generally Dissenters in the proportion of at least 9 to 1. In some cases of this kind, which have come under my notice, I find great discontent prevailing among the people employed. In several of them the workmen submit, as they are obliged to do, to the deduction of the poundage, but send their children to other schools, and pay the usual school fees for them there; thus they pay twice over for the education of their families."
    He thought that the House would agree that those were not very promising materials out of which to construct a "school Board." Human nature was pretty much the same at bottom everywhere, and if they in that House who lived in what was supposed to be, metaphorically at least, a cooler atmosphere, found themselves engaged in interminable squabbles the moment a theological question was mooted—if they wrangled 10 times as long over a Bill relating to religion as they did over a Bill relating to anything else, what result might they report when the same explosive element, that "religious nitro-glycerine," as an hon. Member called it, came to be handled by excited and half-educated men, by small farmers and small tradesmen, led on by the parson on the one side and by the deputy minister on the other? Before he sat down he would wish to say one word about the other part of his hon. Friend's Resolution, that which related
    672
    to the proffered increase of the grant to existing denominational schools—the Bill, be it observed, recognized two distinct systems of schools. The existing schools, which were, of course, voluntary, and for the most part purely denominational, and the new schools, which were to be founded on the rates. When they had two opposite systems of education, or, indeed, of anything else running side by side with each other, the probability, nay, the certainty, was, that in the long run the one would outrun and in time destroy the other. He freely admitted that when he first saw the Bill he cherished the hope that the rate-created schools, with the assistance of the clauses of the Bill now struck at, would gradually absorb the denominational ones. But what would be the effect of these last Amendments? By the increase of the grant to 50 per cent they would be giving a new lease of life to the old denominational schools, and strengthened as they would be by that grant, and possessing the advantage which they would have in the innate dislike of every Englishman to pay rates, they would gradually swallow up and absorb the rate-supported schools; so that instead of the lean kine eating up the fat kine, it would be the fat kine which would eat up the lean! Now, he asked, was that the sort of Education Bill, charged as it was with denominationalism, which they had a right to expect from a Liberal Government? But, before he answered that question, let him ask another; what would be said if he were to propose what would be in words, at least, a very small alteration in the Bill? If he were to move in the 2nd clause to omit the words—"This Act shall not apply to Ireland." But the turn of Ireland must come next year, and they could not, in a matter of Imperial importance like this, legislate on one principle for England and on another for Ireland. And yet they knew very well that the same system which, when applied to England, would hand over the education of the country to the squire and the parson, would, when applied to Ireland, hand over the education of the country to Cardinal Cullen. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite bear that in mind; and let them take warning by the fate of M. Guillotin, the French physician, who invented a most ingenious machine for cutting off other people's heads, but ended by having Ms own head

    673
    cut off by his own machine. But they told him, and it was really the only answer to their arguments—The country had pronounced against the severance of religious and secular teaching, and, therefore, it was useless to urge it. Nothing was easier than to say that the country had pronounced against a thing; but he could not help thinking that the feeling of the country had undergone some change on that subject even in the last six months, and he believed it would undergo a still greater change in the course of the next six months, for time was always on the side of logic and reason. But be that as it might—be the opinion of the country what they would—their duty, the duty that was of those who, like his hon. Friend and himself, held it radically wrong to tax one man to pay for the teaching of another man's religion—was perfectly clear; and, while they held themselves ready hereafter to accept the best compromise they could get, they would be guilty of something more than inconsistency—they would be guilty of sheer cowardice, if they did not at that stage of the Bill protest, feebly it might be, ineffectually he feared it would be, but still protest, honestly and earnestly protest, against the extension and perpetuation of principles which, in their hearts and consciences, they condemned.
    MR. M'ARTHURsaid, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on this question. He could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard), which he was sorry had been so drawn up as to embrace three questions, each of which was distinct, but all of which no doubt bore on the main issue. It would have been better if the Amendment had been confined to one, or at most two, of those subjects. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend in his opposition to the increase which the Government proposed to make in the grant to denominational schools; nor could he think otherwise than that the Government had made a mistake in adopting this policy. As the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) very properly said, nobody called for it from either side of the House, and it was most unfortunate that the Government should have introduced the subject. He hoped when this Bill was introduced that the great question of national education would be settled this Session, both
    674
    sides of the House desiring a settlement and manifesting a spirit of compromise. The general feeling among all classes was that denominational schools proper should not be disturbed, and this compromise was entered into by Gentlemen on that (the Liberal) side of the House. There was another class of schools called rate-aided schools, which the Government proposed to assist by grants from local rates. That was also accepted. But the Government had completely altered its first plan, and proposed to incorporate the second class of schools with the first, and had increased the grant to 50 per cent. Now, this would be objected to by the Nonconformists to a man; and there was another class who were also Nonconformists, though not known by that name, the Wesleyan Methodists, who would not support such a proposal. They had appointed three large committees to take this question into consideration, and these committees having met yesterday passed unanimously a resolution which he held in his hand, and which ran as follows:—
    "That the compromise by which the Government has proposed to settle the existing differences by the exclusion of voluntary schools from local rates, and the provision of increased aid to them from Parliamentary Grants is strongly condemned by this committee, and that in the judgment of the committee Clauses 22 and 23 should S be restored to the Bill, with the addition of the Amendment already accepted by the Government, that in all rate-aided schools denominational formularies should be excluded."
    He agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) on the question of compulsion, for he was convinced that it was impossible to meet the requirements of the country and get at the lower depths of I crime and poverty unless the compulsory system were adopted. But with the latter part of the Amendment he could not agree, and he was convinced it was opposed to the almost unanimous feeling of the country. The hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House had expressed an opposite opinion; but had he visited the manufacturing districts, or had he been present at a meeting which was held last week in Exeter Hall, of the working classes, he would have found that the almost unanimous feeling of that class of the population was opposed to a mere secular system. What they said at that meeting was—"We want increased facilities for education, we want compulsion, but on no ac-

    675
    count do we wish, to have the Bible excluded from the schools." He listened with great interest to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt), and was under the strong impression that he made out a very good case. He (Mr. M'Arthur) could not understand how persons could fight about mere sects and parties, and contend that there could be no common Christianity about which we could all agree. Now, he believed there was a Christianity apart from creeds and sects, one wide enough to embrace all, in which Christians of all denominations might agree, and a common ground on which all differences might disappear. They had a meeting in Westminster Hotel, at which they had all the masters of the different schools in the metropolis, and they were, as well as the committees, opposed to the Government proposals, which he had condemned. No one could go into a school and interest the children by examining them on dogmas; but, if he explained to them the simple facts of Bible history, he would attract their attention. The last report of the British and Foreign Bible Society testified to the success of the system of undenominational instruction. He would ask the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil what influence would be exercised over the minds of the children if they banished the Bible from the school, and how would it be possible to impress them with the ideas of right and wrong? He defied them to teach morality without the Bible, and contended that, if the House did not allow the Bible to be taught, teachers would be deprived of an immense power for good. As a teacher of long experience had remarked, without the Bible they would be weakened and disarmed. He believed the feeling of the country generally was, that to banish the Bible from schools would not only be a great mistake, but would also be a national sin; and he reminded hon. Members that there were many subjects that could be taught from the Bible on which all denominations were agreed. The Bible had done more than anything else for the common school system of America, while with regard to Ireland nothing could be more perfect than the national system which was established by the late Lord Derby. It was said that next year a Bill would be introduced to deal with
    676
    education in Ireland; but no greater injury could be done to that country than to interfere with the present system, and he hoped the Government would not attempt to do anything of the kind.
    MR. DIXON MR. DIXON moved the adjournment of the debate.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord OTHO FITZGERALD)brought up Her Majesty's Answer to the Address [30th May], as follows:—
  I have received your Address representing that you have considered the Five Statutes for determining and establishing the constitution of the new Governing Bodies of Shrewsbury, Winchester, Harrow, Charterhouse, and Rugby Schools, and expressing your desire that, as since the passing of the Public Schools Act, 1868, the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, has passed, I will be pleased to refer back those statutes to the Special Commissioners appointed under the Public Schools Act, in order that they may have the opportunity of reconsidering certain parts of the said Statutes with reference to the principles applied in the Endowed Schools Act to other Endowed Schools:
  And I shall give directions in accordance with your Address.

LORDS SPIRITUAL BILL.—LEAVE.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONT, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to relieve Lords Spiritual (hereafter consecrated) from attendance in Parliament, said, that he had adopted this form of procedure rather than that of a Motion, because in 1837, when a similar proposal was made, Sir Robert Peel had objected to it not so much on account of its substance as of its form. If it were possible for him to suppose that such a reform as this would ever be proposed in the other House, he would not have come forward on the present occasion; but that man must be of a sanguine disposition indeed who could believe that the Bishops would ever bring in a Bill to relieve themselves of their Parliamentary duties. The Prime Minister had spoken of the Bishops as great public officers, and the House was justified in dealing with them in that capacity. It was unnecessary for him to

677
enter into any long historical disquisition on that occasion. He had only to submit a plain and simple question, whether—however much the Bishops might have contributed to the wisdom of Parliament in former times—in the year 1870 it recommended itself to the; common sense of the House and the country that in times like the present, when they were the representatives of a Church that hardly—if indeed it did—own the allegiance of the majority of the nation, that they should have the exclusive right of sitting in Parliament? He would attempt to show that this Motion was both reasonable and opportune. He believed that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords was advantageous neither to the Church nor to the State. How could it be advantageous to the Church? Did the Bishops speak on any ecclesiastical question, or upon any question whatever, with more weight and authority than any other Member of the other House would do? He ventured to say that, if the Church were in danger, or if ecclesiastical questions of importance were under discussion, many noble Lords whom he could name, lay Peers, could speak with far greater authority, and would create far less suspicion and distrust, than these right rev. Prelates. He contended that their presence in the other House was not advantageous to the Church, because it was recognized on all sides, by the friends of the Church, that a reform more required than any other was an increase of the Episcopate; and when measures had been submitted either to this or the other House, with the object of increasing the Episcopate, they had been shipwrecked mainly for this single reason—that the Bishops did not wish to see a new order of Prelates who would not have seats in that House. He believed that on almost all sides the attempt was given up to show that the Church benefited by the presence of the Bishops in Parliament; for, in a remarkable pamphlet by Dean Stanley on the connection between Church and State, important as the writer deemed the maintenance of that union, he dwelt but lightly on the seats of the Bishops in the House of Lords, which, he said, were important not so much in giving them additional dignity, as in bringing them into free and equal intercourse with the laity, and under the direct control of
678
public opinion and of public questioning. Now, he would appeal to any hon. Member whether the Bishops had shown that they were under the influence of public opinion and public questioning? But, if their presence was not useful to the Church, he denied that it was useful to the State. As far back as the year 1833 the ancestor of his hon. Friend who was to second his Motion that night said, in that House, that the Bishops were accustomed in the House of Lords to use all their influence against reform. That was the sentiment expressed by Lord King; and when, in 1837, a Motion of that kind was before the House of Commons, what did Mr. Charles Buller—no fanatic, but a man whose name was still mentioned with respect in that House—say on the subject? He said—
"Let them look through the annals of the House of Lords, and they would find that the Bishops did not possess one legislative claim on the gratitude of the people; that on the gratitude of Governments they had many claims, but none on the gratitude of the people; that, on the contrary, whenever any question was brought forward which agitated and interested all England, the Bishops were always found banded together as one man to defy the wishes of the people."
The House knew how they voted last year on the University Tests Bill; and it would have an opportunity of knowing how they would vote on an Education Bill. He desired it to be understood that he spoke of the Bishops simply in their political, and not at all in their personal capacity. Had the Bishops acquired a claim on the gratitude of the people since the days of Mr. Charles Buller? There was no one in the present day who would justify the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords on account of their support of popular measures. The only persons among whom that delusion seemed to exist were themselves; for, if his memory served him rightly, one of the right rev. Prelates justified their presence in the House of Lords on the ground of their representing the "democratic element." Either a Bishop's notion of democracy must be very curious, or else his own was very erroneous. In 1865 the present Bishop of Winchester said, in the House of Lords, "that order," meaning the Episcopate, "existed only for the benefit of the mass of the people." Ungrateful people! That reminded him of his Latin Grammar, and he was tempted to exclaim—

679
"O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona nôrint,
Agricolas!"
He believed that there was a growing feeling in favour of this Motion among the clergy themselves; and he had received a letter from a vicar in Yorkshire, whose name he was not at liberty to state, in which the writer said—
"I wish you every success in your proposed Motion respecting the Bishops in the House of Lords. It may be interesting to you to know that the clergy in the North of England to a man are in favour of your measure. I have been at a ruridecanal meeting last week, in which nearly all present spoke in favour of the Motion. As the Bishops are of no use to the Church in the House of Lords, we think they had better descend to their respective dioceses, where their presence might be of incalculable use."
He wrote to his correspondent to say that if such was the feeling of the clergy in that part of the country he should be glad if they forwarded a Petition on the subject. This was the answer he received—
"I beg to state that while the clergy's sympathies and opinions are as I state, they would hesitate publicly to declare their sentiments. The reason is manifest. The Bishops are patrons of nine out of ten of the clergy, and their only hope of preferment, therefore, is the Bishops. They dare not offend the only men they know who can be their friends. Again, some of them may hope hereafter to effect an exchange with some other clergy. The Bishop in each diocese can put his veto upon such removal, however desirable it may be to the clergy concerned."
The opinion of Mr. Ryle, a clergyman who represented a large body in the Church, was that the Bishops would be much more usefully employed in their own dioceses—that it would take away their attention from politics, and would relieve the Prime Minister from the necessity of appointing them from political considerations. At an important meeting of the Church Institution, held under the auspices of hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the 25th of May last, and at which the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), and the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton) were present, the hon. Member for Cheshire said that to the two Archbishops and the three superior Prelates of London, Winchester, and Durham, he would give seats in Parliament, so that here was a proposal emanating from an hon. Gentleman on the other side well known for his attachment to the Church, which recommended limiting the number of Bishops in the other House. It was true that
680
one of those at the meeting described the meeting as revolutionary and much to be deprecated; but that was always the case when anything new was brought forward. The fact was, that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords did not recommend itself to the common sense either of the laity or the clergy. An hon. Friend of his had sent round a circular showing the shortcomings of the Bishops for the last three centuries. He did not, however, propose to touch on the historical ground, for he held that the Bishops were not to blame for being in Parliament, but Parliament was to blame for keeping them there. In that position they had acted as any other class would have acted—neither better nor worse. In 1837, Sidney Smith, writing to Archdeacon Singleton, spoke of them in these terms—
"What is called taking care of the Church is taking care of the Bishops; and all Bills for the management of the clergy are referred to the concoction of men, who very naturally believe that they are improving the Church when they are increasing their own power."
He maintained that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords was advantageous neither to the Church nor to themselves. One might say that Episcopal legislation was in a chaotic state. He would not refer at length to the various Bills brought into the other House with a view to increase the Episcopate. A Bill to increase the Episcopate was brought forward as lately as 1867, which, although supported by the high authority of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), yet had, despite his advocacy, to be withdrawn. But, besides that, other measures had been adopted to supply the want of more Bishops. The first of these—the Bishops' Resignation Bill—was passed only last year, and its operation was obliged to be limited to two years. Of that measure the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had said that it was thoroughly inefficient and incomplete, and that it could not, as a permanent scheme, be defended for a moment. The Prime Minister himself seemed to be conscious of its provisional character, and he expressed his desire that the question should be openly and broadly raised. That he had endeavoured to do on the present occasion. But the Bill passed, and hon. Members were aware of the difficulties to which it had given rise. It did not meet the wants of the

681
increase of the Episcopacy, and the Government had accordingly felt themselves obliged to avail themselves of an Act of Parliament which had been passed some 300 years ago—the Prime Minister being driven almost to make excuses for having recourse to so old a measure. He had now endeavoured to prove that the presence of Bishops in "another place" was of advantage neither to Church nor State, and that his Motion was opportune. He did not propose by this Bill to impose penalties against Bishops for sitting in the House of Lords. He only wished to abolish a privilege which he maintained was inexpedient, unjust, and unreasonable; and he would remind hon. Members that it would always remain within the high discretion of the Grown, even if the Bill which he asked leave to introduce should become law, to call up, if it should think fit, eminent Prelates to the House of Lords, just as was now done in the case of eminent lawyers and soldiers. He did not know how the Government proposed to meet his Motion. He trusted, however, that the Prime Minister would not object to it on the ground of its vagueness, or say that in making such a Motion he was aiming at the disestablishment of Church and State. He would be frank with the House. He did not pretend to have made up his mind on all questions, and he had not made it up on the question whether the connection between Church and State was or was not desirable. But he felt certain that if the Government refused to entertain reasonable proposals for reforms in the Church, which were on all sides acknowledged to be urgent, he and many others might hereafter be driven to support Motions which might be brought forward for the disestablishment of Church and State. He would, however, appeal to the Prime Minister, who was doing so much to command the sympathies of his supporters, not to refuse to entertain the present Motion—a Motion which, he thought, commended itself to the common sense of the laity, of the clergy, and which, he ventured to predict, would recommend itself ultimately to the common sense of that House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. It would, in his opinion, be scarcely
682
creditable to a House of Commons elected as the present had been so much more in accordance with the real feelings of the people, if such a proposal as that made by his hon. Friend were not submitted to its notice. The subject was by no means a new one. It was one which had been brought before Parliament very soon after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, when times were very different from those in which we were living. The promoters of the Reform Bill were rather alarmed at the noise they had made, and there was a wish with some that very little fruit should be reaped early in the day from the passing of that Bill. Times had changed, and many hon. Members were lovers of change. The changes made by hon. Gentlemen opposite had led to a great deal of change, and the Prime Minister had shown a disposition to believe in change, provided it was founded on justice and reason, and could be proved to be beneficial to the country. He considered the present time most opportune for the introduction of such a measure, for these were days of great and extensive measures of Church reform. Not long since they had a very large measure of Church reform. They had only just seen a Church disestablished, and a whole Bench of Bishops removed, not receiving a lifelong interest in the House of Lords, but having only one year of grace allowed them. They were removed because they had too little to do, whereas they now sought to relieve the present Bishops of their duties and responsibilities in the House of Lords because they had a great deal too much to do. They were told they required suffragan Bishops, because their labours were too much for them. An obsolete statute had been dug up, passed in very different times and. for a very different purpose. He did not wish to dig up an obsolete statute; but to bring to light a statute passed many years ago, that was repealed in perhaps the most corrupt time of our history. The Preamble of the statute, repealed by that profligate Monarch Charles II., in the most irreligious period of our history, recited that—
"Whereas Bishops and other persons in Holy Orders ought not to be entangled with secular jurisdiction, the office of the minister being of such great importance that it will take up the whole man, and for that it is found by long experience that their intermeddling with secular jurisdiction has occasioned great mischief and scandal

683
both in Church and State, His Majesty, out of his religious care of the Church and souls of his people, is graciously pleased that it be enacted, &c."
That was the Act which he desired to re-establish, and although he did not admire the Monarch who passed it, yet, as compared with Charles II., he was a virtuous and pious Sovereign. Some years ago it was thought desirable to increase the Episcopate, and one Bishop in turn was always left without a seat in the House of Lords. He wished to know whether the dioceses—for all but four had been in the position of having a Bishop without a seat in the House of Lords—had ever complained on that account? Had they complained of these Bishops being too much in their dioceses. After all, the great question was, was their presence desirable in the House of Lords or not? Did they strengthen our political institutions or not? Did they strengthen the Church of England itself or not? He did not wish to detract from the great oratorical powers possessed by the Bishops, from their smartness of repartee in debate, and other eminent qualities; but he must say he always looked on a debating Bishop as a Bishop out of his place. He regarded him as a great actor, a great orator, and generally came away after hearing him in that great Assembly, with a wish that he belonged to some other profession than the Church. In Catholic countries the law did not allow them to sit by right. In Protestant countries the law did not allow them to sit at all. But in this country there was a kind of mysterious arrangement, which was made more absurd by placing the Bishops in a particular corner of the House of Lords, dressed in a particular dress, and he wished to call attention to the fact that when they attended religious meetings they went in an ordinary dress; but when they appeared in the House of Lords they might be described as resembling sacrificing priests at the altar. They appeared there in a most remarkable costume. They mingled in the strife of political life, giving and receiving in turn very hard knocks. There was a time when it was said the Press was severe on the Bishops; but the hardest blows ever inflicted had been given and taken by the Bishops themselves. He was once present in the House of Lords when a Bishop stated what he had no right to state, for
684
it was not founded on fact. He (Mr. Locke King) was speaking moderately when he made that remark. The Bishop was followed by a very experienced debater, who had been a Cabinet Minister, who said—
"This had been slanderously stated: if anybody but a Prelate had said it, he should have said it was false, for false it was: whilst that which was consistent with the facts was sneered and laughed at, and that which was not only inconsistent with truth, but the very reverse of truth, if it were told as truth, was imputed against the conduct of a fellow-labourer with himself—he was entitled to say he was a slanderer who thus attacked, and that the slanderer was foul and calumnious. … … The right rev. Prelate, acting on the most approved maxims of dealers in slander—not that he imputed to his right rev. Friend any malignant feeling, for he sincerely believed that he was led away by that which caused many a spiteful thins to be said in debate without any such thing being meant—namely, the love of an epigram, combined with the love of a cheer."
[Cries of "Name!"] He would rather not name the Bishop; but the speaker whose words he had quoted was Lord Brougham. He (Mr. Locke King) felt that if the Bill now submitted to the House had passed long ago that unfortunate Bishop would have been spared the dressing which he received on that occasion. The Bishops, for many years, had been inimical to whatever was considered calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the people. In 1831 the Reform Bill was rejected by the House of Lords, and 21 Bishops gained the majority against it. The Archbishop said it was dangerous and mischievous, and he would cheerfully bear his share of any calamity that might arise from the state of the popular feeling. If wiser counsels had not prevailed he would probably have been one of the first sufferers. Then there was a Bill introduced several times by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) to repeal the statutes with regard to tests, declared by the late Lord Derby to be not worth the paper on which it was printed, and 21 Bishops were found voting against it. There was something mysterious in this number of 21, for when the Irish Church Suspensory Bill 1868 was sent up to the House of Lords the same number of 21 also voted against it. He thought he had shown sufficient reason why Bishops were not of much use as politicians. He would now ask whether they were of any use as a support of the Church of Eng-

685
land. In these times of danger to her he did not find that the Bishops brought in any measure to protect or assist that Church. There were doctrines and forms and ceremonies, and processions and genuflexions, which had of late been introduced into that Church, and which were distressing to the feelings of the people, and which created amusement even among Roman Catholics, and yet no Bill had been introduced into the House of Lords to protect the Protestant interest from the attacks they allowed to be made upon it. By their silence the Bishops seemed rather to have encouraged these doctrines, and had been toying and flirting with these practices, while they did nothing whatever to put them down. There was no other profession of any kind that was represented in the House of Lords, and why should the Church alone be represented there? By far the greater number of the Peers were members of the Church of England, and they were well able to look after the interests of that Church. The Church of Scotland was not represented there, nor would the disestablished Church of Ireland be, nor were the Nonconformists, and yet the Bishops were entitled to vote on matters relating to all these denominations. Another objection to the Bishops being in the House of Lords was that, being like other men, they had their temptations and might be led astray by their desire for promotion—though it was not now to be obtained so easily as in former times—to vote against their consciences. What John Locke said of the clergy was equally applicable to the Bishops. He said—
"In the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, how easily and smoothly the clergy changed their decrees, their Articles of Faith, their forms of worship, everything according to the inclination of those Kings and Queens. Yet were those Kings and Queens of such different minds in points of religion, and enjoined thereupon such different things, that no man in his wits—I had almost said none but an Atheist—will presume to say that any sincere and upright worshipper of God could, with a safe conscience, obey their several decrees."
They had seen something of this kind in their own days, in the case of one Prelate in particular. There was a great question introduced some time ago, and the right rev. Prelate to whom he referred declared his opinion in a particular direction. Soon after there was a change of Ministry, and the right
686
rev. Prelate, after having emphatically advocated one set of opinions, changed them with the change of Ministers. He was afterwards promoted, or, in ecclesiastical language, "translated," and he afterwards declared that he never desired promotion, but that he was under the guidance of a higher power. He begged to second the Motion of his hon. Friend, which he believed would conduce to the interests of religion and the true interests of the Church of England.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to relieve Lords Spiritual (hereafter consecrated) from attendance in Parliament."—(Mr. Somerset Beaumont.)
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he did not thoroughly approve the Bill, because, in his opinion, it ought to go further, and apply to the present Bench of Bishops. The supporters of this Motion stood in a peculiar position towards the Government on this question, for less than two years ago they went to the country with a cry of religious equality; and if it could have been foreseen then that within so short a period the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would have opposed the bringing in of a Bill which was based on that principle, the ardour of his supporters would have been somewhat damped. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that, in future, every institution would have to show cause why it existed, and the hon. Member for Wakefield by this Motion was calling on the Bishops to show cause why they should retain their seats in the House of Lords. He submitted it did not follow that because a man was a good theologian he should also be a good legislator, and one of the organs of the Bishops, The Churchman, had described them thus—
"They have a sensitive, almost nervous dread of the power of the Press, especially of The Times newspaper. They have the caution, not to say the timidity of old age. They have the ideas and prejudices, in many cases, of a state of things now obsolete, or of a party which has had its day. Their policy is always Fabian. They shrink from taking the lead. They are often ignorant of the law, and most especially of the law of the Church."
There was, he admitted, more reason why eminent theologians, who were selected by the Premier, should be legislators than other men who had merely an hereditary title, for in support of them

687
there was no argument based on common sense. ["Question!"] It was hardly possible for Bishops, while engaged in their spiritual duties in their dioceses, to do their duty in the House of Lords, and Mr. C. Buller summed up; the matter very well when he said that the system made them both bad Bishops and bad Peers, for they could not fulfil both functions. He regarded it as a hardship for the dioceses to be deprived of their Bishops for half the year, for everybody knew that the people who formed country society felt safer when a Bishop was among them. It was hard, too, upon Bishops to remove them from their dioceses, and put them in a gorgeous chamber, where, clad in purple and fine linen, they were called upon to attend to "the pomps and vanities of this wicked world." The demand for suffragans was another reason why Bishops should be relieved of their present duties in the House of Lords, where they (the Bishops) almost universally opposed every wise, just, and humane measure. ["No, no!"] He did not know what line the Government would take in opposing this measure; but he remembered that last time when it was before the House, both the front Benches opposed the proposition. Lord Russell had opposed this measure on the ground that it involved an essential change in the British Constitution. Lord Russell was the only man who cared two straws for the British Constitution who remained in this country. The question they ought to consider was not whether the proposal was constitutional; but whether it was right and just, and would be of benefit to the nation. Another argument of Earl Russell was; that the proposal was the thin end of the wedge of disestablishment. Now, he was not sure that to remove the Bishops from the House of Lords would not impart strength to the Established Church; but even should it lead to the disestablishment of that Church, there were some hon. Gentleman who would not object to it on that ground. On a recent occasion the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said that if he attempted to disestablish the Welsh Church he would find himself without artillery. He believed if the right hon. Gentleman wished to disestablish the Church he might possibly be supplied with artillery after another General Election, and he thought he (Mr. Gladstone)
688
was the man to use the guns when he got them. Sir Robert Peel had also opposed, in strong terms, a proposition for depriving the Bishops of their seats in the House of Lords, saying "That he did not wish to deprive the Church of its fair share of political influence." On a recent occasion it was argued that politics were too degrading an occupation for women. If so, why should the most rev. and right rev. Prelates be asked to have anything to do with them? Last year one of the Bishops said that if the House of Lords passed the Irish Church Bill it would be only pretending to guide the destinies of the nation, it would be only playing with legislation, and it would make itself utterly contemptible. Well, as the House of Lords had passed that Bill he did not wish to humiliate the Bishops by leaving them in such a place. He desired to relieve them from an anomalous and painful position, to relieve their flocks from the loss of their services, and to relieve the nation from the grievous burden inflicted upon it by their well-intended, but mischievous legislation. That being his desire, he cordially supported the Motion.
MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend who has just sat down, has in a very good-humoured manner, impeached the consistency of the Government. He said, that if the Government opposed this Motion, he must think we were not faithful to the pledges on which we went to the country. Now, I do not myself remember that we went to the country. I think we were sent to the country. But my hon. Friend also said that, if the constituencies had understood that we would resist a Motion of this kind, the result might have been very disastrous or very inconvenient to us at the elections. Let each man speak in accordance with his experience. This I must say, that when I was engaged in an active though unsuccessful canvass in South-west Lancashire, and when in that canvass I had occasion to speak about the Irish Church, my friends said—"Take care you make it quite clear that you don't intend to attack the Church of England." Well, Sir, my hon. Friend is apprehensive that this Bill may, on the present occasion, be defeated by the union of the two front Benches. [Laughter.] The last few minutes have so largely increased the population of the opposite front

689
Bench, by raising it from one to three that my hon Friend may now entertain fears of a formidable proposition for that union; but when the hon. Member spoke there was only one respected Gentleman opposite, one who is well known for his constant attendance in this House (Mr. Noel), and he alone dignified that particular portion of the House, and then it did not appear to me that the coalition apprehended by my hon. Friend could be very considerable. But with respect to the Bill which my hon. Friend proposes to introduce, he is perfectly right if he supposes that it is the intention of the Government to oppose it. And that, in fact, requires no formal declaration from me, because it is perfectly plain that if the Government were prepared to vote for such a Bill they ought not to leave it to any independent Member, however able and competent—and those who have undertaken the advocacy of the measure to-night have shown themselves to be both able and competent—they ought not, I say, to leave it to any independent Member to undertake the responsibility. They ought to bring in such a Bill on their own responsibility. But though the anticipation of my hon. Friends are perfectly correct, it is not the less my duty to state to the House the reasons why we consider that we are justified in resisting, and, in fact, are called on to resist, the Motion they have made. My hon. Friend (Mr. S. Beaumont) submitted that Motion in a peculiar form. In his speech, and that of my hon. Friend the Seconder, no notice whatever was taken of that peculiar form; but as it is not an unimportant feature of the case, perhaps I may be permitted to call attention to it. The Motion is—
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to relieve Lords Spiritual (hereafter consecrated) from attendance in Parliament."
My hon. Friend wishes to condemn as Peers the order of Bishops; but, while the severity of his public principles thus compels him to pass sentence on them as an order, the tenderness of his own heart and disposition leads him, on the other hand, to extend mercy to the individuals who at present, as Bishops, occupy seats in the other House of Parliament. Now let us consider the effect of this tenderness of my hon. Friend. It is creditable in the highest degree to his feelings as a man; but I am not quite
690
so satisfied that it is consistent with his forethought as a legislator. He entirely departs from the precedent of last year. At that time Parliament had the question fully before it. We were then engaged in disestablishing a Church. My hon. Friend said that we were engaged in disestablishing a Church and State. As regards a State, we hardly contemplated anything of that kind. We were engaged in disestablishing a Church, and that naturally raised the question whether the Prelates, who, in consequence of their position in that Church, occupied seats in the House of Lords, should continue to hold those seats after that Church was disestablished. I am not ashamed to say that I should have been very glad if those Prelates could have continued to occupy those seats; but an intelligent judgment completely warranted the conclusion of Parliament, and we came to the conclusion that if the Church were to be disestablished it was not expedient to create a vested interest in its Prelates, though they had hitherto occupied seats in Parliament. Now my hon. Friends propose to create a vested interest in the 25 or 26 Bishops of the Church of England who at present hold seats in the House of Lords. It so happens that a very considerable number of those Prelates have been appointed within the last two years, and it is in the probability of life that it will take 30 or 40 years to extinguish that race. The Bill of my hon. Friend would, in distinct terms, give a new title to all those Prelates to sit in the House of Lords. If he calls upon Parliament to reconsider this question, and to pronounce that no future Bishop shall take his seat in the House of Lords, he does by that reconsider and stamp afresh the title of the present Bishops to their seats. Is he prepared to give a lease of equal length to the Established Church of England? Does he intend that for so long the Church of England shall continue to be an Established Church? It is perfectly possible that it may continue for that, and for a much longer time; but is my hon. Friend so very liberal that he would give to the Church of England, as established, a lease at any rate considerably longer than that lease which was the subject of some discussion in this House on a recent measure in reference to land? My hon. Friend's Motion, we may truly say, ought to be

691
considered in its substance as well as in its particulars, only I think that even those who are disposed to support him will feel that this is not a convenient method of dealing with the question. I agree with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in thinking that if you are prepared to deal with the Bishops as Peers it is unwise to give to the present Bishops a new vested interest totally unknown to the law up to this time, and which hereafter will leave some of them in the position of the last man in Campbell's ballad, partly exciting pity, and partly inspiring fear. I am bound not to limit myself to the form of the Motion, however legitimate, and I must ask what ought we to say on the general principle on which my hon. Friend proposes to proceed? He desires that we shall condemn the order of Bishops in the House of Lords. Now, that is a matter which must be considered in two points of view—with respect to the Church and also with respect to the State. My hon. Friend says there is no longer anyone who cares for the British Constitution except Lord Russell. Many of those who are members of the present Cabinet have served in the Government with Lord Russell; and I do believe, and I am ready to confess the weaknesss, that a large portion of them, to a considerable extent, are infected with that weakness which possessed that noble Lord, and that they do think it is a point material to consider, when they discuss the merits of a question, how far they are called upon to alter any material or important part of the British Constitution. Well, this venerable Constitution, as I have said, is a Constitution in Church and State; and, without in the slightest degree saying that my hon. Friend has made a proposition which he is not entitled to bring under our consideration, let me, in a strictly practical point of view, descend from the high ground I recently described of reference to the British Constitution, to the wisdom of our ancestors, and to all those elevating and ennobling considerations connected therewith—let me endeavour to take a view of the question which may, perhaps, be called by some utilitarian, but by which I might have the greatest amount of hope of access to the minds of the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, and those who are disposed to sup-
692
port them. Now, as respects the Church, my hon. Friend says that the Bishops are so busy in their dioceses that it is a monstrous thing to detain them in London, and also that it has been found necessary to relieve them by means of the appointment of suffragan Bishops. Well, there are 27 Bishops altogether in England and Wales, and of that number two only have obtained suffragans, so that there are 25, at any rate, who do not strengthen the argument of my hon. Friend by the allegation he has made about the appointment of suffragans. With regard to the interference of their political with their spiritual duties, it is but fair to say—although it may be open to attack from another point of view—that all those who are conversant, whether with the habits of the Bishops or with the proceedings of the House of Lords, well know that now for many years past the Prelates of the Church have ceased to reside habitually in London during the Session, and that whatever may be said of their seats in that House, it cannot be said that those seats, or the duties attaching to them, are allowed sensibly to interfere with the performance of their duties in their dioceses. They are, as a body, very rarely present in London—of course excepting the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Winchester, and those who may in one sense be called the metropolitan Bishops, and not only so, but their occasional presence in London for purposes of union and communication is absolutely necessary for the general advantage of their dioceses. There is, therefore, no case in regard to interference with their spiritual duties. What shall I say, then? If we remove the Bishops from the House of Lords we detract, undoubtedly, in some sense, from their dignity; but far be it from me to say that is a loss such as they would be unable to endure, because not only does the influence, but the dignity also of a Bishop in these times, and more and more in the times that are to come, depend not so much on the title which may by usage be attached to his office, as on the diligence and efficiency with which he performs the high duties of his trust; and if he makes himself strong in the hearts and affections of his people, he will be able, I may say, almost to laugh at the Legislature as to any measure it may pass

693
affecting his temporal dignity. I should not, therefore, dwell on any injury or supposed injury to be inflicted on those learned and venerable persons by the Bill of my hon. Friend. But there is another point of view in which I think he ought to consider, and in which I am quite certain many Members of this House will consider, the operations of such a Bill. Dismissing the Bishops from the House of Lords, you very greatly weaken the influence of the State over the Church. A passage was quoted, I think, by my hon. Friend, speaking of the manner in which the possession of seats in the House of Lords brings the influence of opinion to bear on Episcopal administration. If it were necessary it would not be difficult to cite cases in which Bishops have been directly called on to account for the administration of their dioceses before the House of Lords. Any aggrieved clergyman, any aggrieved layman, directly, if that layman be a Peer—indirectly and through any Member of the House of Lords if not a Peer—has always the means of calling to account for acts of injustice, acts of oppression, acts of bigotry, acts of misconduct or misjudgment, or whatever they may be, of the Bishops of this country. Do not let my hon. Friend withhold from his own view what I take to be an undeniable fact, that however he may seek in other respects to vindicate the operation of this Motion, it must be regarded as a Motion which will greatly diminish, not the influence of the State only, but the influence of the external world, the influence of society, the influence of opinion, the influence of that which is called modern civilization outside of the Episcopal sphere over the Episcopal body; and my impression is that there is no inconsiderable portion of this House, as well on this as on that side of the House, who would but very reluctantly bring about such a consummation. My hon. Friend is, of course, entitled to admit or deny, just as he pleases, that this is a Motion for the disestablishment of the Church. If it were a Motion for the disestablishment of the Church, and were avowedly such, I should argue against it on that ground. But I do not think my hon. Friend has presented it to us in that view, because he desires to reserve his judgment on that subject; and if he is desirous to establish a state
694
of things in which we shall have a Church, national by law, but in which the Prelates of that Church are to be removed from the House of Lords, I must say there appears to me to be a great harmony between the arrangements by which they have a place as Peers in the House of Lords and the Establishment of the Church; and I greatly doubt whether Parliament will seriously and practically entertain the question presented to us by my hon. Friend until it is on the very eve of entertaining the much larger question which he does not at present think fit to present to us. But there is another question of more importance than this with reference to the immediate issue, because I admit that, as respects religious interests, this proposal, though an important one, cannot be said vitally to determine those interests one way or the other. You may weaken the Church in one way, you may strengthen it in another, by removing the Bishops from, the House of Lords. A great authority, whom we speak of very freely to-night, and who is respected by everyone who knows him, though most of us may differ much from his opinion—Archdeacon Denison, one of the stoutest Tories in the country—once published a pamphlet, recommending that the Bishops should not have seats in the House of Lords; and if my hon. Friend has not read that pamphlet, I would advise him to procure it, for it is a repertory of arguments that he would find useful on this question. But weaken the Church or strengthen it as it may be, no one would suppose that the existence of the Church of England, as a religious institution, is essentially bound up with that question; while, as a national institution, I cannot too strongly or too candidly state my conviction that the influence to be exercised upon the Church—that moral control over the Church which has been ever regarded as an essential element of a national Establishment, would be seriously weakened by the adoption of the proposal of my hon. Friend. But now, as respects the State. My hon. Friend strongly urges that the State—by that mainly I mean the House of Lords—will be all the better for the removal of the Bishops from that Assembly. And certainly, the career of the Bishops, if I may so speak, has been subjected to a criticism so unsparing that I think, in his

695
good-humoured enthusiasm, my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion almost advanced against the Bishops contradictory charges; because we were told, on the one hand, that the Bishops had been a subservient body, devoid of a spirit of independence; and, on the other hand, that they had been an obstinate, reactionary body, ever arrayed against the privileges of the people. I am not here to defend, at any rate in any sweeping manner, the Episcopal body. I have often had occasion, in the measures in which I have taken an interest—and so have all my Friends near me in the measures in which they have taken an interest—to regret that we were not so fortunate as to obtain Episcopal favour as we could have wished, and, so far, we may be said to be performing a disinterested office and function when we resist the Motion of my hon. Friend. But this I must say. It is a little hard, with historical facts in our face, to charge the Bishops historically with a want of independence. We have had reference to the 16th century. Far be it from me to defend all the Bishops of that or any other century; but as my hon. Friend says the opinions of the Bishops have varied with the opinions of the Sovereigns, I would ask—Did not the people vary with the opinions of the Sovereigns? "What were the people under Henry VIII., what were they under Edward VI., what under Mary, and what, again, under Elizabeth? Why, a few Bishops or a few clergymen were almost the only persons who resisted. And what happened at the accession of Elizabeth? Every Bishop but one—Bishop Kitchen, of Llandaff—retired from his position, and even he would not take part in the coronation of the Queen. I think they were extremely wrong; but do not let us, in our eagerness to support this Motion, bring charges against the Episcopal body which are contradictory and not in keeping with the facts of history. Take, again, the time of Charles I. You may lament, and so do I, that the Bishops were so much mixed up with the politics of the day. But the whole tendency of the Reformation in the Church of England was to make the Bishops political, by the close connection which it had established between the Bishops and the Crown. Well, in Charles's time did they conform to the ruling powers? When
696
those who made the rebellion gained the upper hand, Archbishop Laud went gallantly to the scaffold, and no man, I believe, ever behaved better upon it; and every other Bishop, without exception, took contentedly "the spoiling of his goods," and in that respect, at all events, proved himself entitled to be accounted a successor of the Apostles. What happened in the reign of James II., when the Bishops made themselves leaders of the people on behalf of liberty and law? And what happened, again, in the reign of William III., when a large number of the Bishops—perfectly wrong, I grant you, but in a spirit of independence and disinterestedness which cannot be too highly appreciated, because of the scruple they entertained as to the title of the King to the Crown—abandoned their temporal advantages and descended into obscurity if not beggary? Let us do justice in this matter. The Bishops of the Church of England may have their faults—no doubt they have, like every other body of men—but they have been eminently a body distinguished by independence and regard for character. Not only was this so in former times, but even in the latest chapter of our history it was so. It is said, they are a subservient body. How does that apply to the history of the last 40 years? For 40 years, with short intervals, we have had Liberal Governments, and yet the complaint of my hon. Friend is—and I am sorry to say the complaint was too largely justified by the facts—that the Bishops appointed by those Liberal Governments have been always opposed to them. Let us give everybody their due. Now, in my opinion—and I think in the opinion of my Colleagues—the main and governing reason which, without eclipsing every other, leads us to resist this Motion is the character which in our view it bears with respect to the position of the House of Lords. It has been said that the removal of the Bishops would not weaken or injure the House of Lords. That is the issue upon which we are perfectly willing that this question should be tried. It may be that my hon. Friend—I know it not, and I do not allege it—with or without other Gentlemen in this House, aware that the House of Commons is the Chamber I in which, in the main, the great work of national legislation must be conducted and the business of the country done,

697
thinks that by means of a single instead of a double Chamber we should simplify the work of our Constitution, and more speedily and satisfactorily settle great public questions. Sir, that would be a very grave conclusion to adopt. I do not think it is the belief of the majority of this House on the one side or the other; and I am perfectly convinced it is not the belief of the country. All that has been said—and said with some truth—by my hon. Friends of the legislative tendencies of the Bishops—that they are behind the views of this House, that they more or less counteract the intentions and decisions of this House by the exercise of their co-ordinate jurisdiction—is likewise true of the House of Lords as a body. Not of all Members of the House of Lords. I am happy to think how large a portion of that Assembly, especially if from it we separate the elective Peers, stand in near correspondence with the tendencies of the people as usually represented in this House. But, speaking of the House of Lords as a body, I think my hon. Friend will not challenge my proposition when I say that the House of Lords is in general in harmony with the political leanings of the Episcopal Bench; and, consequently, it is a very grave and serious matter for us to consider whether, in the subject proposed to us by my hon. Friend, we do not discern the features of a larger question. I will not attempt to overrule, by urging my own opinion, the opinion of any other man in this House, who may consider that there ought to be but a single Legislative Chamber; but this I will say with confidence—and for the acceptance of this proposition I will appeal to my hon. Friend himself—if there is to be a House of Lords in this country, as there ever has been, it is well that that House of Lords should be as strong as possible. Now, will my hon. Friend say—because I confess the Government, at any rate, do not think so—that the removal of the Bishops from that House would tend to strengthen that body? Let us endeavour to try that question for a few moments. What is the strength, and what the weakness of the House of Lords? The House of Lords is strong in its traditions; but it has lived into times when it must depend not upon traditions alone, but mainly on the essential elements of character, ability, intelligence, weight,
698
moral influence which it possesses, if it is to take any efficient share in conducting the legislation of this country. The House of Lords, as a hereditary Assembly, has this disadvantage, that it must necessarily, at all times, have to bear the burden and the shame of the misconduct of its unworthy Members; and those numerous Members of that Assembly, who set a pattern to society and to every class by the faithful discharge of their duty, in addition to their other responsibilities have to make up for the defects or vices of those who, belonging to that body, are unworthy of their station. Well, it is desirable that in that Assembly we should see collected all the elements of strength; and, among those elements, I know none so important as diversity. The greatest weakness of the House of Lords is the difficulty of supplying it with sufficient diversity. No man can look at the House of Lords, as the twin sister of the House of Commons in conducting the business of the country, without seeing that, if it has a special fault, it is the fault of too much tending to represent one particular class—not only the particular class connected with property, because this is a class so large and diversified that the application of the word is scarcely legitimate; but one of its dangers is this—that from its nature it tends too exclusively to represent the interests, and even possibly the prejudices, connected with the possession of land. It is to be hoped that it will use—as I trust and believe it will—a great opportunity which is presented to it of showing that it has emancipated itself from these prejudices. But that tendency I affirm to be one of the main difficulties of constituting and maintaining an efficient House of Lords. Now, in that view, I ask, is it not most important that those other elements which belong to the composition of the House of Lords—those elements which represent the professions, which bring within the walls of that Chamber other elements of power than that of inherited traditional power, should be maintained in vigour? It is well that from time to time distinguished commanders, it is well that habitually the chiefs of the law and the men who have most attained to eminence in that profession, should be found upon the Benches of the House of Lords. But you cannot very well, in a heredi-

699
tary House of Lords, afford to part with the elements of weight and power which, I am not ashamed to say, that Chamber derives from the presence of the Bishops. Is it nothing to this country, and this age, that there should be an abundance of men qualified to keep the discussions of the House of Lords fully upon a level with the debates in this House; and what candid men sitting on these Benches will doubt, or hesitate for a moment to admit, that during many years—during all the years that the present age remembers—the Bench of Bishops has contributed to the intellectual force of discussions in the House of Lords in a proportion infinitely transcending the numbers by which that body is represented there? To say that the Bishops represent the democratic element in the House of Lords is something to which I am not prepared to assent; at the same time, it is true that, to some extent, they represent the popular element in that Assembly. Survey the Bench of Bishops, and you will hardly find a man upon it who has not been put there on account of his merits; and you will find but a moderate proportion of those men who have not raised themselves from stations comparatively humble. Granting fully to my hon. Friend the independence of the Bishops as an order—which in one sense I think highly inconvenient to us—and admitting that we do not get from them as much support and sympathy as I should like, yet I must say that the very fact of such a number of men being there by means so unexceptional—by their merits, by their character, by their services, not by subserviency, not by base compliance—does constitute in no ignoble sense the presence of a popular element in the House of Lords. It is an element which, at any rate, comes from the deep and broad strata of the community, and which contributes vigour to that Assembly, as everything contributes vigour which tends to keep it occasionally in contact with its mother earth. It is a great change that my hon. Friend proposes in the Constitution. I do not think the House of Lords is too strong at the present moment, though I might wish—and I frankly own that I do wish—that upon certain occasions it used its strength in a manner somewhat different. But if we sometimes have occasion to lament the direction of that strength, I do not
700
think that its quantity is too great. I doubt whether even my hon. Friend will say it is too great if the functions of a Second Chamber are to be well and adequately performed. If that strength be not at the present moment excessive, I am satisfied it is the conviction of the great mass of the House that we cannot afford to weaken it, and also that it would be weakened if the plan of my hon. Friend were adopted Now, Sir, I hope that in dealing with my hon. Friend's Motion I have not offensively ascribed to him anything of which, as a legislator, a patriot, or a Member of Parliament, he has any occasion to be ashamed. This, as has been already said, is not a new question. For years after the first Reform Bill this question was accustomed to be brought up and formed a standing subject of discussion, and many is the vote I have given upon it. But it is fair to observe that after a considerable period all such discussion, often animated enough and often with minorities not inconsiderable, formed to support proposals for removing the Bishops from the House of Lords, yet has the movement, as by a spontaneous process, died away. I will not presume to say that that will again take place. We have now passed again through another critical period in the history of the Constitution; another great impulse has been given to popular feeling and opinion by a profound change in the constitution of this House, and the elements from which it is derived. It may be that my hon. Friend is now the harbinger of a movement which may grow and grow until it reaches the consummation he desires. I cannot penetrate the veil of the future sufficiently to say whether it will be so or not. But if the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) are to determine it then we know what that consummation is. [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] But it may also be that this agitation, as in the years that followed the Reform Act of 1832, in which there was a desire for the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords vividly expressed, will decline from year to year. I so far agree with my hon. Friend that I think that which would most contribute to check the movement would be—and I do not abandon the hope of seeing it—that more and more, from year to year, without any forfeiture of its independence, we may see the Episcopal body

701
coming into closer harmony with the general sentiments of the country. I will not abandon the hope—I will not say that I look forward to a great change; but to what is much better than a violent change—a steady, quiet, constant progress, always in the right direction. And if my hon. Friend shall be finally disappointed in his views, and shall find that in spite of his energies there is not wind enough to fill his sails after the attempt of to-night, or after attempts that may follow during the next few years, I am sure it will be a consolation to him if he finds that his supporters are becoming less anxious for his measure, because they see a constant growing sympathy between the persons who fill the Episcopal office and the general convictions of the people of England.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONT, in reply, said, that the Prime Minister told them that if the Government had had any intention of supporting this Motion they would not have left it to an independent Member; but, even in his experience, he could remember many questions brought forward by independent Members which were used—to adopt the phrase of the Prime Minister—to fill the sails of the Treasury Bench, and which it had been found expedient to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman said the Motion, if adopted, would stamp with fresh authority the present Bishops. He admired, as much as anybody, the impulsive and eager spirit of his right hon. Friend, and if it was his wish to bring in a Bill which would apply to the present Bishops, he (Mr. Somerset Beaumont) would have no objection. They had been told that the Bishops were valuable in the House of Lords, because it brought public opinion to bear on them. But it seemed to him that the Bishops did not take warning by the pressure. He had said nothing about the part the Bishops played in the 16th century—the only question he put was, whether it was in harmony with the altered circumstances of the country that the Church of England should remain thus privileged? When he was returned to that House to support the Prime Minister he did not promise him his support, nor could he now, without also remembering the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and he would like to remind the Prime Minister of language, which he hesitated to repeat
702
in the House, in which Mr. Bright condemned the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords "that creature of a monstrous and adultrous birth." He, in common with many Members of the House, had had frequent reasons to regret the absence of this distinguished Leader. He regretted it as much this week as at any other time, and he would now content himself with leaving the matter to the judgment of the House.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 158: Majority 56.

AYES.

Allen, W. S.

Lea, T.

Anderson, G.

Leatham, E. A.

Armitstead, G.

Lush, Dr.

Aytoun, R. S.

M'Clean, J. R.

Backhouse, E.

M'Clure, T.

Bass, M. T.

Macfie, R. A.

Beaumont, Capt. F.

M'Laren, D.

Beaumont, H. F.

Melly, G.

Bright, J. (Manchester)

Miall, E.

Brinckman, Captain

Miller, J.

Brogden, A.

Morgan, G. O.

Brown, A. H.

Morley, S.

Callan, P.

Mundella, A. J.

Campbell, H.

Muntz, P. H.

Candlish, J.

Nicol, J. D.

Carter, Mr. Alderman

Norwood, C. M.

Chadwick, D.

Parry, L. Jones-

Cholmeley, Captain

Pease, J. W.

Clay, J.

Philips, R. N.

Cowen, J.

Platt, J.

Dalglish, R.

Plimsoll, S.

Davies, R.

Potter, E.

Davison, J. R.

Rathbone, W.

Dent, J. D.

Reed, C.

Dilke, Sir C. W.

Richard, H.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Richards, E. M.

Dixon, G.

Roden, W. S.

Dodds, J.

Russell, H.

Edwardes, hon. Col. W,

Rylands, P.

Edwards, H.

Samuelson, H. B.

Ellice, E.

Seely, C. (Lincoln)

Erskine, Admiral J. E.

Seely, C. (Nottingham)

Ewing, H. E. C.

Shaw, R.

Fawcett, H.

Sherriff, A. C.

Finnie, W.

Smith, E.

Fletcher, I.

Stevenson, J. C.

Fordyce, W. D.

Taylor, P. A.

Fothergill, R.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Fowler, W.

Vivian, H. W.

Gilpin, C.

Wedderburn, Sir D.

Graham, W.

West, H. W.

Grieve, J. J.

Whalley, G. H.

Herbert, hon. A. E. W.

White, J.

Holland, S.

Williams, W.

Holms, J.

Williamson, Sir H.

Horsman, right hon. E.

Willyams, E. W. B.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Wingfield, Sir C.

Hurst, R. H.

Winterbotham, H. S. P.

Illingworth, A.

Young, A. W.

Jardine, R.

King, hon. P. J. L.

TELLERS.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Beaumont, S. A.

Lawson, Sir W.

Hadfield, G.

703

NOES.

Adderley,rt.hn. Sir C.B.

Guest, A. E.

Allen, Major

Gurney, right hon. R.

Amphlett, R. P.

Hambro, C.

Annesley, hon. Col. H.

Hamilton, I. T.

Anson, hon. A. H. A.

Hardy, J.

Antrobus, Sir E.

Hartington, Marquess of

Arkwright, A. P.

Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

Bagge, Sir W.

Hermon, E.

Baker, R. B. W.

Hervey, Lord A. H. C.

Baring, T.

Hesketh, Sir T. G.

Barnett, H.

Heygate, W. U.

Beach, W. W. B.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Birley, H.

Hodgson, W. N.

Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

Hutton, J.

Brewer, Dr.

Jackson, R. W.

Brise, Colonel R.

Johnston, W.

Bristowe, S. B.

Kavanagh, A. Mac M.

Broadley, W. H. H.

Kay-Shuttleworth, U.J.

Brodrick, hon. W.

Kennaway, J. H.

Bruce, Lord C.

Keown, W.

Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

Kingscote, Colonel

Buckley, Sir E.

Kirk, W.

Buxton, C.

Knatchbull-Hugessen, E. H.

Cadogan, hon. F. W.

Cameron, D.

Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

Cardwell, right hon. E.

Lambert, N. G.

Cartwright, F.

Lancaster, J.

Cavendish, Lord F. C.

Laslett, W.

Chambers, M.

Lefevre, G. J. S.

Clive, Colonel E.

Legh, W. J.

Collins, T.

Lindsay, hon. Colonel C.

Colthurst, Sir G. C.

Lindsay, Colonel R. L.

Corbett, Colonel

Lopes, Sir M.

Cross, R. A.

Lowther, J.

Cubitt, G.

Lowther, W.

Dalrymple, C.

Lubbock, Sir J.

Dalway, M. R.

Mackintosh, E. W.

Damer, Capt. Dawson-

Magniac, C.

Dickinson, S. S.

Mahon, Viscount

Dimsdale, R.

Maitland,Sir A.C. R.G.

Dowse, R.

Martin, P. W.

Duff, M. E. G.

Matthews, H.

Dyke, W. H.

Maxwell, W. H.

Eaton, H. W.

Milles, hon. G. W.

Enfield, Viscount

Milton, Viscount

Ewing, A. O.

Monk, C. J.

Feilden, H. M.

Monsell, rt. hon. W.

Fellowes, E.

Montgomery, Sir G. G.

Figgins, J.

Newdegate, C. N.

Finch, G. H.

Newport, Viscount

Floyer, J.

Nicholson, W.

Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Fowler, R. N.

North, Colonel

Galway, Viscount

Otway, A. J.

Gladstone, rt.hn.W.E.

Parker, C. S.

Gladstone, W. H.

Parker, Lt.-Colonel W.

Goldney, G.

Peek, H. W.

Gordon, E. S.

Peel, A. W.

Gore, J. R. O.

Pemberton, E. L.

Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

Phipps, C. P.

Grant, Colonel hon. J.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

Graves, S. R.

Powell, W.

Gray, Lieut.-Colonel

Robertson, D.

Greene, E.

Samuda, J. D'A.

Gregory, G. B.

Sandon, Viscount

Greville - Nugent, hon. G. F.

Scott, Lord H. J. M. D.

Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

Grey, right hon. Sir G.

Grosvenor, hon. N.

Smith, A.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Smith, F. C.

704

Smith, R.

Walpole, hon. F.

Smith, W. H.

Walsh, hon. A.

Stapleton, J.

Wethered, T. O.

Starkie, J. P. C.

Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

Stronge, Sir J. M.

Wilmot, H.

Talbot, J. G.

Winn, R.

Thynne, Lord H. F.

Wynn, C. W. W.

Tracy, hon. C. R. D Hanbury-

Young, G.

Turner, C.

TELLERS.

Verner, E. W.

Glyn, hon. G. G.

Vivian,Capt. hn. J.C.W.

Greville, Captain

Walker, Major G. G.

PARLIAMENT—SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
MR. GILPIN, in rising to call attention to the unusually late Sittings of the House during the present Session, and to the necessity of imposing some check upon, proceeding with Opposed Business after 12 o'clock, said, it was a subject really interesting to them all, and in which great issues were involved. He believed, when they came to think of it, the length of time the House had sat after midnight during the present Session would surprise even those who were most regular in their attendance. The Motion with which he should conclude was this—
"That it is undesirable, for the efficient discharge of Public Business, that Opposed Business should be brought on after Twelve o'clock at night."
He limited himself to Opposed Business. He did not propose to say, as on Wednesday, whenever the hand of the clock was at a certain figure, discussion should necessarily stop or a Division be prevented being taken; but he did say it was incompatible with their health and strength that they should be called on to discuss disputed Bills, and to transact business after the small hours of the morning. In March, 1867, the House sat 10 hours 45 minutes after midnight; in April of the same year the House sat 10 hours 45 minutes after midnight; and in May 19 hours 15 minutes. In March, 1868, the House sat 10 hours and a quarter; in April 9 hours and three quarters; and in May 16 hours. In March, 1869, they sat 12 hours and 45 minutes after midnight; in April, 20 hours 45 minutes; and in May, 12 hours; while in March of the present year they sat 17 hours; in April, 17 hours 15 minutes after midnight; and in May, 1870, 32 hours and 30 minutes. In the three months of 1867 the House sat 40 hours

705
45 minutes after midnight; in 1868, 36 hours after midnight; in 1869, 45 hours 30 minutes after midnight; and in 1870, during the same three months, the House sat 66 hours 45 minutes after midnight. He asked them to consider within their own knowledge what had been the effect of these late sittings on the health of public men. The absence of one right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) had been alluded to that evening; and the cause of that absence was in no small degree attributable to the late hours of the House. Another right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) was absent from the Treasury Bench through illness, brought on, he believed, in the same way. On May 2–3 the House sat till 2 o'clock; on the 3rd till 1; on the 5th-6th till 2; on the 6th-7th two hours after midnight; on the 9th-10th two hours after midnight; on the 10th, till 1 45; on the 12th-13th, till 2 o'clock; on the 13th-14th, till 1 45; on the 16th-17th, till 1 45; on the 20th-21st, till 3; on the 23rd-24th, till 1 15; on the 24th-25th, till 2; on the 26th-27th, till a quarter to 2; on the 27th-28th, till 2 o'clock; on the 30th-31st, till 2 45, meeting again at 12; and on the 31st, the House sat till 1 15. They all owed a deep debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman who generally presided over their deliberations—the first Commoner in England, and they ought not to put a pressure upon his health, his time, and his energies, which, in his (Mr. Gilpin's) opinion, was wholly unnecessary and, therefore, wholly unjustifiable. In addition to the right hon. Gentleman, there were the clerks at the Table and the Sergeant-at-Arms and Deputy, whose attendance at this time of the Session was frequently required both morning and night. He had intended to call the attention of the House to several suggested modes of economizing time; but if what he had said did not recommend itself to the judgment of hon. Members, he could not suggest anything that was likely to enforce that for which he argued. As a rule, the business that was done after 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock in the morning was badly done, and he could say from personal experience that attendance at those late hours was very detrimental to health; for, having been 14 years in the House, he could not now remain until the small hours of the morning, or, if need be, "go home with
706
the milk in the morning," in order that some hon. Members might divide over and over again as they did on Saturday. Looking back over the Divisions which had been taken after midnight he found that, as a rule, only 60 or 70 Members were then present, and that number, he contended, was not sufficient to despatch the public business of a country which returned 650 representatives. He put this matter to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, who had it in his power to do much, for the Government were to some extent responsible for the extreme pressure caused by too much being put within the compass of a comparatively short time. Having sat some years upon the Treasury Bench he knew what it was to come there to "make a House and to cheer the Minister." He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consent to accept this Motion so far as he possibly could in order to bring about such a state of affairs as would enable hon. Members to transact Public Business at a right time, and in a proper way, having due regard to the health of those who guided the destinies of this country, and who were not returned to Parliament to lose their lives by premature decay. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he ventured to second the Motion as one who had sat in the House formerly, who saw what was going on, and who had heard their proceedings after midnight and during the early hours of the morning severely censured and even stigmatized as a disgrace to the country. He could not help concurring in that observation. It was, in his opinion, most improper and embarrassing to see so many Motions and Orders of the Day placed on the Paper for consideration on any one day or night. Private Members who were opposed to any of them were unable to ascertain whether or when such questions would be brought on. That sort of contrivance had been frequently resorted to, in order to pass a measure in a thin or exhausted House, so that when both the public and absent Members rose next morning they were astonished to hear what had occurred. The real question was, whether the House should sit from 4 o'clock in the afternoon until any time the following morning, in order to meet the caprice, the fancy, or the disposition,

707
or encourage the efforts of official or private Members, who might be desirous of slipping a Bill through the House of Commons, to its reproach and discredit, for it too frequently happened that hon. Members were obliged to confess to their constituents—who were criticizing their proceedings—that they did not know what measures had thus been sanctioned. In the time of Lord Palmerston or other Prime Ministers it was generally understood that, as a rule, no Opposed Business should be brought on after 12 o'clock. Mr. Brotherton was the first Gentleman who suggested that arrangement, and although he was laughed at at the outset, he was ultimately treated with that respect which he deserved. He could recollect when it was the general rule of the able and leading men to accept invitations to dinner only on the two leisure evenings—"Wednesdays and Saturdays. ["Divide!"] It was, no doubt, unpalatable to modern Members of Parliament to hear those truths, because the course now adopted was to accept an invitation to dinner for any day; and, consequently, common courtesy did not allow them to leave the dinner table before 10 and 11 o'clock, and the remark had been rather disrespectfully made, that many who arrived at those late hours appeared to have come down to the House simply "to make a night of it," and for this working Members of the House had to suffer. He asked the House to look through the names of the last Parliament and this, and to see how many estimable and able men had died or become unable to continue the work. Patriotic representatives had been heard to declare that rather than neglect their duties, or desert their post, they would perish on the floor of the House; but those heroic days had passed.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is undesirable, for the efficient discharge of Public Business, that Opposed Business should be brought on after Twelve o'clock at night."—(Mr. Gilpin.)
MR. COLLINSproposed, as an Amendment, that no Opposed Business should be taken after 1 o'clock; and his reason for moving the Amendment was, that discussions on great questions were adjourned at 12 o'clock; and after then a number of unopposed Motions might be rattled off in an hour, and business be
708
thereby advanced a stage without detriment to hon. Members' health.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Twelve" and insert the word "One,"—(Mr. Collins,)—instead thereof.
MR. NEWDEGATEpointed out that one great inconvenience of protracting the debates to a very late hour was that the newspapers were necessarily unable to give full reports of the proceedings. He wished to repeat the suggestion he made to the Prime Minister a day or two ago, that when it was intended to have a Morning Sitting, from 2 o'clock till 7, notice thereof should be given at half-past 4 on the previous afternoon. Members would then be able to post their letters and make arrangements for the following day.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought it would be imprudent for the House to pass a positive Resolution on this subject, for by doing so the House might impede business instead of facilitating it. Such a Resolution would be an instrument of delay in the hands of Members who wished to arrest the progress of a measure. The real source of the difficulty which was so universally felt was the enormous pressure of Public Business. Indeed, he believed there was no Representative Assembly in the world which got through so large an amount of work as the House of Commons. Hon. Members, it was true, occasionally grumbled at the inconvenient pressure of business; but they were incessantly urging the Government to introduce measures on various subjects. As a partial remedy for a difficulty which was to a certain extent unavoidable, he would recommend the appointment of a Committee to consider whether the business could not be in some way divided, and in particular, he would suggest the advantage of an arrangement similar to that adopted in the French Legislative Chamber for referring certain Bills to sectional committees, instead of requiring them to be dealt with in detail by a Committee of the Whole House. To prohibit business during the small hours would practically be tantamount to stopping the greater part of the business altogether. The House of Commons had two separate functions. The early part of the night was devoted to debating subjects of the vastest importance; but the great bulk of the business

709
was transacted at a later hour, when a large number of Members who took an interest only in subjects of paramount importance had retired. He would here remark that a House consisting of 650 Members would be a most unmanageable body for discussing the details of ordinary business, which could be far better considered by a House of 100 or 150 Members. The amount of work got through in the course of a Session by a limited number of Members during the small hours of the morning was really surprising, and though it might sometimes appear to be hurried through in a higgledy-piggledy fashion it was, on the whole, performed with marvellous skill and accuracy. This was due, in great part, to the attention and laborious industry of the officers of the House—not only the gentlemen who sat at the Table, but also those employed in the offices outside, who took care that no great mistakes were made. All these matters might well be considered by a Select Committee; but he entreated the House not to tie their hands by passing a Resolution which might be productive of great inconvenience.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, as one of the private Members who on more than one occasion had met with great indulgence at the hands of the House, regarded with some concern a proposal which, if carried out, would destroy their power of taking a share in the legislation of the country. If an hour were fixed for stopping the further progress of business, a faction might resort to the practice of talking out any measure they disapproved.
MR. M. T. BASSsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) was perfectly justified in saying that the House could not abandon its present mode of proceeding without considerable inconvenience. The best mitigation of the evil with which they had to deal was to be found in the exercise of good sense and forbearance on the part of hon. Members. Protracted sittings to late hours were, no doubt, deleterious to the health of hon. Members, and injurious to the efficient discharge of the Public Business, and he believed more business was scamped in the early hours of the morning than was at all creditable to the reputation of the House of Commons. The House would, however, in his opi-
710
nion, exercise a wise discretion if they were to leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was sorry to say that he was more sensible of the difficulties of the question than acquainted with any mode of solving them which would bear the test of rigid inquiry. It was only by the exercise of forbearance that he thought any satisfactory understanding or course of action could be arrived at. There was, in his opinion, much weight in what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and the blame lay not with any Member or any class of Members that the House had frequently to sit so late, but was rather attributable to the mass of business which had to be discharged. Of course, portions of the time of the House were often occupied unnecessarily, and he himself was, perhaps, one of the greatest offenders in that respect; but freedom of speech was a thing which the House very jealously cherished. It was, however, desirable, if possible, to impose some check on late sittings; but there would be great inconvenience in passing a Resolution with that object. Even had the Resolution of his hon. Friend been worded more stringently, to the effect that no business should be proceeded with after a certain hour, the first thing the House might do on the very night after its passing, might be to break through it. If, on the other hand, a Resolution, not absolutely binding in its terms by being converted into a Standing Order, were agreed to, it would amount to nothing more than a mere understanding. That being so, he thought hon. Members would be disposed to come to the conclusion that such an understanding was the best mode of dealing with the difficulty to which it could have recourse. In contributing towards carrying out that view he would, so far as the Government was concerned, be prepared to suggest that Opposed Business should not be proceeded with after half-past 12 o'clock, except under special circumstances. A little difference ought, however, he thought, to be made in the case of private Members. They ought to have a little more latitude, and they might very fairly be allowed to exercise the privilege of proceeding with their business up to 1 o'clock. Such a proposal would, he believed, meet, in the view of

711
the highest authority in the House, the reason and justice of the case. In reply to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he might observe that he looked upon his suggestion, that notice should be given of the meetings at 2 o'clock, as necessary when these meetings were only occasional, and not regular, as at present, for the discussion of the Education Bill. Should there be an intermission and renewal of those sittings during the present Session, he should take care that notice should be given.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested that when the month of June arrived in each Session, the Bills of private Members which had received a second reading, and might have been referred to a Select Committee, should be taken before the Notices of Motion on Tuesdays, so that they might go up in good time to the House of Lords.
MR. GREENEpointed out that the difficulties of the case might be met if hon. Members would only make short speeches. For his own part, he never made a long speech. It would be well, too, he contended, if the Government would use their influence to stop over-legislation, for as things went on at present it would seem as if nothing which existed was right. There should, in his opinion, be more real and less sham legislation. As to the late hours to which the House sat, he would only say that his own habits when at home led him to go to bed at 10 o'clock every night. Owing, however, to the different system which he was obliged to adopt during the Session, it was only from the 1st of August to the middle of February he got the amount of sleep which he required. It was all very well for single men like the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) not to care about staying up late because they had no attractions at home; but he was entirely opposed to the system, and he therefore hoped his hon. Friend would press his Motion.
MAJOR WALKERsaid, he was afraid hon. Members must make up their minds to have either long sittings or a long Session. He was for working hard in order to shorten the Session; and, therefore, he should oppose both the Motion and the Amendment.
MR. GILPINsaid, he wished to get a further declaration from the Government that they would use the consider-
712
able influence they possessed to induce private Members not to bring forward Opposed Business after 1 o'clock. [Cries of "12."] He would say 1 o'clock, rather than not carry his Motion. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had hardly dealt fairly with him, for he never proposed that an important discussion should be cut short; but what he proposed was that new and Opposed Business should not be brought forward. Unless he could have a fuller declaration from the Government he would divide the House. He had designedly put the Resolution in such a shape that it might become the duty of the Government to form a Resolution upon it, and he did not mean to bind their hands beyond a certain point. He regretted the absence of three of the leading Members of the Opposition, who had expressed to him very strong opinions on the subject. With the leave of the House he would adopt the Amendment and say 1 o'clock. ["No, no!"] Well, as his supporters were disposed to try to get 12 o'clock, he would abide by his first proposal.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he did not think, as Mr. Brotherton's efforts to close debates at 12 o'clock never succeeded, that such a proposal was likely to succeed now. After what had been said on the part of the Government he must vote against the Motion.
Question put, "That the word 'Twelve' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 104: Majority 21.
On Question, "That the word 'One' stand part of the Motion,"
MR. GOLDNEYobjected to drawing a hard and fast line on this question, which would only end, as often on a Wednesday evening, by having a measure talked out.
MR. R. N. EOWLERsaid, that as one of the Tellers in the last Division he would also object to a hard and fast line.
MR. COLLINSobjected that there was no analogy between his Motion and that of a Wednesday evening, for it was now proposed, not to stop a discussion at once, but not to take up a new subject after that hour.
MR. RATHBONEreminded the hon. Member that it was quite possible to talk out a measure by keeping up a discussion on the previous subject.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had suggested that the time should be half-past 12 o'clock, after which no opposed Government Business should be commenced, and now the hon. Member kindly proposed to make the Government a present of an additional half-hour; but he could not support the proposition, as he felt the inconvenience of the House binding itself by a Resolution on the subject.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the House ought to be satisfied with the promise of the right hon. Gentleman not to take opposed Government Business after half-past 12 o'clock, except in a case of great urgency.
Question put, "That the word 'One' be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 94: Majority 18.
THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. DODSON)then called attention to the fact that the House had struck the word "twelve" out of the Resolution, and now refused to insert the word "one" for the purpose of filling up the blank. The Motion had, consequently, become a mutilated Motion.
Original Question, as amended, proposed.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Viscount Galway.)
MR. GILPINsaid, he thought that in the present state of the question the most proper thing for him to do was to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.

PARLIAMENT—SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to the Municipal Franchise in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTON and Mr. M'CLURE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 176.]

  MAGISTRATES, &C. ELECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend the Laws for the Election of the Magistrates and Councillors of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 177.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Salmon Acts Amendment * (147); Stamp Duty on Leases * (148); Sale of Poisons (Ireland) * (149); Local Government Supplemental * (150); Contagious Diseases Prevention (Metropolis) * (151).
Second Reading—Married Women's Property (125).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (110); Felony * (90).
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental * (57).
Third Reading—Appellate Jurisdiction * (144), and passed.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Thomas O'Hagan, Chancellor of that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, having been created Baron O'Hagan of Tullahogue in the county of Tyrone—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
(The Lord Cairns.)
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.

  (NO. 125.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD CAIRNS, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that though the Bill necessarily dealt generally with the whole subject of the property of married women, its main object was to meet the case of married women in the humbler classes of life, especially those who were in the habit of working for wages, or acquiring earnings for the support of themselves and their families. It had been established by evidence of the clearest kind—the heart-rending details of which it was happily unnecessary to enter into, that in most of the manufacturing districts, especially in the North of England, there were abundant instances in which poor and industrious women, who had exerted themselves to maintain their families, or to the assistance of their maintenance—after working very hardly for very small wages—had been exposed to the evil of having their small earnings pounced upon from time to time by intemperate, idle, or dissolute husbands, and expended on purposes entirely foreign to the support of the family.

  601
  The reason that such a state of things was possible was that marriage, as all their Lordships knew, vested in the husband all the personal property of the wife. Such was the common law; but, at the same time, the rule had proved so inconvenient in practice, that wherever there was any amount of property sufficient to justify it, the common law was set aside by settlements by which a separate provision was secured to the wife. The Court of Chancery, moreover, had very extensively and beneficially modified the doctrine of the common law, even where there was no settlement, where the amount of property justified its interference, and where that interference could be invoked. Its temper had always been to insist that wherever property devolved upon the husband in right of the wife, an adequate portion of such property should be settled on the wife and children, in derogation of the otherwise absolute right of the husband. The evil with which the Bill sought to deal was a very great one. Now, according to the last Census the entire number of married women in England was somewhere about 3,000,000, of whom he believed he had grounds for saying that about 800,000 earned wages in some shape; so that the class to be dealt with was a very considerable one. There was a marked difference in this matter between the upper and the lower classes of society. While the upper classes were protected against the absolute rule of common law by means of settlements and by the resort which they had to the interposition of the Court of Chancery, the humbler classes had no protection except that show of it which was provided at the instance of Lord St. Leonards in the Divorce Act, which empowered a magistrate to grant an order to a wife deserted by her husband, protecting her future earnings against his interference. This was obviously insufficient, for the hardest cases were those where the husband did not desert his wife, but clung to her for the sole purpose of plundering her from time to time of her earnings. Our law differed in this respect from that of most other countries. In all Continental countries, to a greater or less extent, laws had been adopted more favourable to married women: and if we look to those great communities across the Atlantic that had sprung from ourselves—the United States and
  602
  Canada—it would be found that they had abrogated our common law in this matter, and had adopted legislation similar to, or in the direction of, the present Bill. Three remedies had been proposed for the evil. The first was an extension of the system of protection orders; but these, at present, did not reach the worst cases—those where there was no desertion; and it was unwise to require a poor working woman, as a condition of protection, to present herself in a police court for the purpose, as it were, of effecting a separation of interests, and of suggesting a complaint against her husband, thereby provoking that want of domestic harmony which it should be their object to avoid. The second remedy was a statutable form of settlement, applying to all cases where the parties did not themselves enter into a settlement. The women of the lower classes did not want a settlement, which was quite unsuitable to small sums, which came in from time to time, and were not worthy of being invested for the purpose of income: they did not want the capital preserved, but they wished to be allowed to spend the money in the support of their families. The third, and only remaining course, was that proposed by the Bill—namely, to alter the general rule of law; to leave settlements to be made where advisable, but in other cases to make the property of the married woman her own until she chose to part with it. If she pleased she might make a gift of it to her husband. Thus the Bill would do for the poor what the Court of Equity did for the rich, by putting the married woman as to property in the same position as the unmarried. Some of its provisions would require consideration, and he himself should propose some Amendments; but after the best consideration his opinion was that the principle of the Bill was the true one. It had passed the House of Commons two or three times, and was there investigated by a Select Committee, when evidence was taken, and he believed there was in that House a strong preponderance of opinion in its favour. It was last year read a second time in this House, on the understanding that it should not then proceed further. He now asked their Lordships to read the Bill a second time. He should offer no objection to its being referred to a Select Committee, where some of the niceties

  603
  of law which it involved might possibly be better considered, and where, owing to its moderate compass, it would occupy but a short time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Cairns.)
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, that having moved the second reading last Session, he would confirm his noble and learned Friend's statement of the history of the measure. The evil which it was avowedly intended to meet was one the existence of which could not be doubted, and which was of considerable magnitude. He need not enlarge on the number of married women of whose industry their husbands took advantage by living on the produce of their labours. He must, however, repeat what he said last year, that the Bill went far beyond the necessities of the case which it affected to meet. The provisions of the body of the Bill affected all the married women of England; it would subvert the principle on which the marriage relation had hitherto stood, and its tendency would be to cause increased discord and separation. Their Lordships were legislating not only for the upper classes—who protected themselves by settlements, but for the mass of the middle class, among whom settlements were by no means common. He held it very desirable that before any considerable change was made, the Bill should be submitted to very careful consideration; and that it should be specially applicable to that class whose grievances it was designed to remedy. The Bill would give a married woman the same rights of possessing and dealing with property, and of contracting obligations with third persons, that an unmarried woman enjoyed; while it nevertheless left untouched her status as a married woman. It left untouched her right to be maintained by her husband; she would be able to spend her property any how she liked, without any obligation of contributing to the expenses of the household; and when it was dissipated she would be entitled to the support of her husband and to pledge his credit for necessaries. As a question of abstract justice this position could not be maintained. The Bill also provided in the most sweeping manner that a married woman might sue and be sued precisely in the same manner as a feme sole—so
  604
  that there was nothing to prevent her bringing an action even against her husband, founded upon any matter of contract which she might choose to allege. Litigation under any circumstances was thought to have sufficient asperity about it to make people uncomfortable enough; but it was difficult to conceive the relations of a man and wife, plaintiff and defendant in an action, sitting down to breakfast together, passing the day together, consulting their respective attorneys, and then dining together. A married woman, moreover, being at full liberty to contract with the outer world, might carry on any trade she pleased without her husband's consent, so that a man might be startled by the information that his wife had determined to set up a rival shop in his neighbourhood—which at present was prevented by her inability to contract; and, since she would be quite competent to take a partner, he might be still more startled at hearing that she had entered into partnership with her cousin, who need not be a woman. A husband who expected his wife to keep his home and attend to the children might find her opening a Berlin wool shop with her cousin John as a partner. Surely this was an unnecessary corollary to the protection of women's earnings from idle and dissolute husbands? The common law, broken in upon in the case of settlements, provided that the wife having no personal property of her own, the husband should have the regulation of the common purse. Now, was it desirable to set up in a household two holders of the purse, two powers, co-equal at first and likely to become adverse in the end? He had, unfortunately, had special experience in these matters, which had shown him that there was no commoner cause of violence and cruelty on the part of the husband leading to a separation, than the possession of some small sum by the wife which she was in some way able to retain; the result being that the husband first teased and afterwards ill-treated her in order to get hold of it. The Bill involved the question whether the husband should rule in his own household; for if the wife had co-equal power over the property she would obviously have a considerable share in the management. He denied the assertion that the upper classes evaded the rule of the common law as to the control by the

  605
  husband of the common fund by means of settlements. No doubt the property of a woman about to marry was settled—but settled as much to protect it from being spent by her as by the husband—on the children, and he was informed that in by far the larger number of cases a life interest in it was given to the husband, subject, of course, to the setting aside a sufficient sum as pin money for personal expenses; but the husband in the large majority of settlements retained the control of the income during the lives of both. France afforded a confirmation of this view; for, though the law gave the option of community or separation of property, the former was chosen in 99 cases out of a 100. This system gave the husband the entire regulation of the expenditure of the common fund, simply requiring an account from him as to his disposition of the wife's property; and where this community was put an end to, and where this step had become necessary on account of the husband's misconduct, the wife had to go before a Court of Justice and obtain a separation de biens. This was a system which met the necessities of the case. If the husband who primarily ought to be allowed the control of the common fund, neglected his obligations, lived on his wife's money, and did not work for the support of the family, what could be more reasonable than that she should resort to some Court to obtain a "separation of goods," which would allow her thenceforth to receive her earnings? He saw no difficulty in such a provision. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had urged that such an application to a magistrate would at once lead to a separation. But if the husband were of the character described this would not be so much to be deprecated; but he saw no reason for this result. Why should she not be able to appear before a County Court Judge, who, on sufficient proof that the husband was idle, dissolute, or disorderly, would set aside the community of goods affixed to marriage by the common law, thus leaving to her her own earnings? The protection orders provided by the Divorce Act were obtained with the utmost facility from any magistrate or from the Judge of the Divorce Court on a short affidavit, and they worked extremely well. Why, then, should they not be extended to
  606
  cases other than those of desertion? Exceptional cases—and, though numerous, the cases where husband and wife were on such terms were exceptional—would thus be deal with in an exceptional manner. He regretted that the promoters of the Bill, who undoubtedly had the benefit of these people at heart, had re-introduced the Bill in its former shape, notwithstanding the tone of the discussion in this House last Session, when all the speakers, though glad to remedy a grievance, repudiated the notion of altering the whole law relating to marriage. He thought the advocates of what were popularly called the "rights of women," whose opinions, if not their hands, might be traced in these provisions, would do well to recollect that great evil had, it was said, arisen from marriages being less frequent than they used or possibly ought to be, and that if the law were so altered that a man in taking a wife took a partner with separate interests, entitled to trade separately, and to spend her property how she chose, it was doubtful how far there would remain an inducement to the male portion of the community to enter into such a contract. He was sure, too, that if there was one race of people to whom it would be less agreeable than to another not to be masters in their own houses, it was the race represented by their Lordships.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, that a very small part of the Bill related to the main evil requiring redress, and in the remainder there were many extravagant enactments. Yet if they reduced it to a more sensible character, and sent it down to the other House in a more limited form, he feared, from the temper in which it had been sent up, that the Bill would not pass in its altered form; and thus all opportunity of remedying the evil complained of would be lost. Still it was impossible to pass the measure as it was now presented to their Lordships. Many of its defects had been exposed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), who, however sensible he might be to the objections to the measure, had treated them very tenderly. The Bill seemed to have sprung from the sensationalism of the day, which delighted in extravagancies, and sought to carry them even into the amendment of the law. The Bill was, in fact, an entire subversion of the system of domestic rule which

  607
  had prevailed in this country for more than 1,000 years. The objections to the Bill could only be fully noticed by a reference to its details. The first section proposed that a married woman should be capable of holding, acquiring, alienating, devising, and bequeathing real and personal estate. Now, he appealed to married men whether they would like this additional yoke; while as to the unmarried, it reminded him of Lord Brougham's remark on Lord Campbell, that he had succeeded in adding a new terror to death. Under this provision a woman might receive a legacy of £20,000, and her husband might imagine that she would employ it for the general maintenance and comfort of the establishment. "No, my dear," she would reply; "Lord Cairns has got rid of that, many thanks to him. He has spoken so delightfully and gracefully that the House of Lords has given me the absolute control of the money." The husband, perhaps, would suggest that the legacy should benefit the children; but she would answer—"At present I have set my heart on a beautiful diamond necklace." Thus the money would be wasted and consumed without the possibility of any check. The Bill also enabled her to contract, so that she might take a fancy to buying any number of bracelets. The effect of such legislation would be to upset the old rule of married life, which was based upon the theory that a man and his wife should be one soul and one spirit, and should devote their property entirely to the benefit of themselves and their children; but the Bill had quite an opposite tendency. The misery suffered by the wife of a brutal husband, who seized upon her earnings and spent them in drunkenness and dissipation, could not be put in too strong a bight; but the evil was most imperfectly remedied by this Bill. Not only her earnings but her wages should be protected. The Bill would enable a married woman to dispose of leasehold houses or railway shares in any manner she chose; and if there was some person for whom she had greater affection than for her legitimate lord, she might lavish the proceeds upon him. Could such an arrangement be desirable? Under the existing law a woman of the labouring class was frequently subjected to the temptation of buying expensive articles by pedlars and others. Her husband
  608
  was then summoned to the County Court for payment, and if he disobeyed the order of the Judge he was sentenced to imprisonment. Now, was it desirable to expose such a woman to a temptation to which she would certainly yield—as she had done from the beginning—and then under the new system allow her to be sent to prison? He feared that his noble and learned Friend would have a great deal of misery and unhappiness to answer for if this Bill were permitted to pass into law. He admitted that the law which gave the wife's entire real and personal property to the husband ought to be altered, and substituted by regulations similar to those which applied to the community of goods in France. The property might be invested, the husband having the management and administration of the income, and being controller of his household until he made a bad use of that power. As to property accruing after marriage, it should, if it exceeded a certain sum, be settled for the benefit of the wife and children—including also, if they pleased, the husband. As the Bill stood, the wife would be under no obligation of contributing to the maintenance of the establishment, her only liability being to pay the parish perhaps 5s. a week if her husband became chargeable to the parish, while his obligation to support her was left untouched. If their Lordships struck out those portions of the Bill which appeared to have been most favourably received in the other House, and sent back what was virtually a new Bill, he was persuaded that there would be no immediate legislation upon the question. His own belief was that the only real and effectual way of dealing with the property of married women would be to reject the present Bill altogether, and to substitute for it some reasonable provisions such as he had suggested. If that advice were followed, a Bill might be procured which would satisfy both Houses of Parliament. The passing of the present Bill was out of the question.
  LORD ROMILLYhoped their Lordships would at least not take the advice of the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken. Such a course would undoubtedly prevent legislation for this year at least. The noble and learned Lord had drawn an extraordinary picture of what would happen under the Bill if a woman came into possession of £20,000;

  609
  but all the noble and learned Lords present, including one whose presence among them was a subject for much gratification (Lord O'Hagan), were aware that this frequently happened under the present system. A man left his niece or daughter £20,000, coupled with conditions which made it entirely her own—giving nobody else power to touch a penny of the income; and so far from there being the mischievous result described by the noble and learned Lord, it rather seemed to tighten the bonds of affection. As to settlements, with which he had had some experience, some portion of the property was given to the husband by the Court of Chancery—especially if it approved the marriage; but, as a rule, it was settled wholly on the wife for her separate use, the husband having a life interest in it after her death, and it being then divided among the children. It was true that a lady having a separate fortune was under no obligation to contribute to the daily expenses of the household, but she almost invariably did so; and as long as they lived together the Court of Chancery regarded the money when paid at her desire to her husband as employed for the benefit of both. His belief was that if the Bill were sent to a Select Committee, it might be very much improved. It need not interfere with the settlements and contracts of the wealthier classes; but, if judiciously amended, it would afford very wholesome protection to the lower classes, to whom settlements were wholly inapplicable. He therefore trusted their Lordships would read the Bill a second time, and refer it to a Select Committee; and if it were there carefully reformed he believed that the House of Commons would cheerfully accept it, as knowing that it had been carefully considered by noble and learned Lords who were well acquainted with the subject.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he confessed he regarded this Bill with very great apprehension. He looked upon this not as merely a legal, but as a social question of the highest importance; and the various efforts which were being made for a great relaxation of the marriage laws, and for facilitating separation and divorce, made it necessary that the Bill which proposed to give such increased facilities to women should be seriously considered, in all its bearings, before any conclusion was ar-
  610
  rived at. He was not prepared to say that the Bill was not a good one; but he did say that it ought to be very maturely deliberated. The Bill might properly be divided into two parts—that which affected the rich, and that which affected the poorer class. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had dwelt with proper emphasis on the second part of the I Bill, which related to the earnings of women of the working classes; but he had said little on the first part, which, viewed in connection with the wealthier class, gave cause for serious apprehensions. There could be no doubt that for the working classes, a measure of this kind was of immense importance; and even if it involved the violation of some sort of principle, this would be better than the continuance of the present evil. The property in question might be divided into two classes—fixed property, which was the subject of arrangement, by deed, and that which was the result of mental or manual labour. He did not know whether the term "occupation" would include, as ought to be the case, the right of property in literary efforts, but the claims of literary ladies ought to be considered. Two-thirds of our tracts, and nearly all our most interesting and effective stories were written by women; and these ladies, who were very numerous, had, at present, no protection whatever for their works, against the greed or rapacity of their husbands. He recollected a lady of considerable talent who lived entirely by her writings, and who was obliged to write under a feigned name, and to shift from one publisher to another, lest her husband should discover what the proceeds of her writings were, and lay violent hands upon them. As regarded the upper classes, the provisions of the Bill went far beyond what was necessary, and struck at the root of domestic happiness, introducing insubordination, equality, and something more. They would allow a married woman to hold and deal with property like a feme sole, and yet would allow her to plead coverture, and insist on the husband being answerable for her debts. [Lord CAIRNS dissented.] He should be glad to be corrected, if mistaken; but the 6th clause provided that the husband should not be answerable for debts contracted by her before marriage—implying that he would be answerable for debts con-

  611
  tracted after marriage. Would the wife be answerable for her own debts? If the noble Lord could assure him that, under his Bill, the husband never would be answerable for the wife's debts, as long as she had any property of her own, that would, in a great measure, remove his objection. Under this Bill the wife would be capable of holding property. Would she hold it with all the usual rights, privileges, and profits? For instance, could she quarrel with her husband and eject him, or refuse him admission to her house; and, while keeping him out of it, might she admit every one else? If she could act in that manner, he wanted to know how the conjugal rights of the husband were to be asserted—except by application to a magistrate, who, probably, would not like to act in the matter, with this Bill, as an Act of Parliament, staring him in the face? Then, the wife might acquire property; but what was to be the rule, if the husband thought it necessary to forbid her accepting presents from persons with whom he did not wish her to be on terms of intimacy? She might sue in Courts of Law or Equity: would the husband be liable to the costs? He had no doubt that such a law as would be in force under this Bill was much better suited to the state of things which prevailed in America; because, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the country, it there worked well. The evidence taken in 1868 was very strong and very decided, as to the favourable operation of the law in America: it was stated that no mischief had resulted from it in that country. Eminent men were examined, whose testimony was to that effect. Previously to 1840, the law, regarding the property of married women, was the same in the United States as in England; but, at that date, it was changed. Mr. Cyrus Martin Fisher, a member of the Bar of Vermont, to the question—
  "Should a wife having property contribute towards the family expenses?" replied—"It is contrary to the American idea (and so says Mr. Cyrus Field) that any part of the wife's fortune should be used to contribute towards the support of the family. A man ought to be, and is, considered clever enough to be at least able to support his family without calling upon his wife."
  Again, Question 536,
  "You have said that the responsibility of the payment of household debts lies chiefly on the husband. Suppose the wife, instead of contribut-
  612
  ing to the establishment, squandered all her money away, would the whole of the responsibility in such a case rest on the husband?"—"Certainly, to the extent of all his property. She might squander her fortune just as quickly as she saw fit." Q.—"She could have no responsibility whatever?" A.—"Not the slightest, so long as his property was in existence." Q,.—"Suppose she chose to squander her money on some other individual, would that make any difference?" A.—"It might create certain unpleasantness in the family, and the tradesmen might require them, when they wanted anything, to pay for it at the time." Mr. Cyrus Field said the same—"Whatever the distress of the husband, the wife is not legally bound to relieve him."
  Now, was that a state of things which it was desirable to see introduced into England? There were three peculiarities in the relations between man and wife in America, as compared with those in England—first, complete equality of the wife with the husband—no subordination; secondly, greater facility of divorce. Drunkenness, or even desertion, was a cause for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, with leave to marry again. This facility of divorce enabled married persons to throw off when they liked disagreeable responsibilities. But in this country, where we regarded marriage as indissoluble, except for adultery, such a state of things would be intolerable. Again, in America the men like married women to retain, at least, a large portion of their fortune, in order that it might be available for the family in the case of evil results arising from the over-speculation to which too many of the men were addicted. What he had now stated was what had occurred to him in respect of the wealthy classes; but when he came to consider the case of the poorer classes the case was altogether changed. There were in this country 800,000 poor women whose earnings must be protected, because those earnings were the very existence of themselves and their children. The principal of the Co-operative Society of Rochdale spoke strongly of the thrift, skill, and industy of women of the class to which he was now referring; and Mr. Mundella, the hon. Member for Sheffield, who employed 2,000 women in his own works, and who was a man of intellect and experience, had given valuable evidence, showing the necessity of protecting the earnings of such women. The women of the working classes assumed a very different position as regarded the family from that occupied by women of the higher

  613
  classes. The women of the working classes discharged many more duties than were discharged by ladies. The, wife of a working man was the moving principle of the whole family. Everything relating to it was under her care, and she had no nurses or other servants to assist her. It was therefore of the utmost importance that everything should be done to protect her earnings for herself and children. The women of that class were much superior to the men in tact, sound judgment, and economy; and yet, melancholy to say, there were instances every day of the homes of such industrious women being swept away by the rapacity of bad husbands. Such women frequently got their families and homes into a state of comfort and good order by means of their industry, and when this had been achieved the bad husband returned and made away with all the fruits of a woman's hard earnings. It was absolutely necessary to have fresh legislation for the protection of these women. The protection order system was insufficient. Protection orders were only granted after desertion; but it often happened that everything the woman had was carried off before the desertion. Again, magistrates did not think an absence of a month or two months constituted desertion; and yet bad husbands were in the habit of going off for such periods, and returning to seize and carry away with them what their wives had put together by means of their own industry. Another fact that made the protection order system ineffective was that in numerous cases women could not be got to go before the magistrates. It was marvellous to see with what readiness women overlooked and forgave the bad treatment of husbands at the least word of kindness from those men. Mr. Mansfield, one of the metropolitan magistrates, stated that he looked upon protection orders as of little or no benefit. In his district, with a population of 300,000, only 14 such orders had been granted, while the rejections of applications for them only amounted to the same number. He would read to their Lordships a letter from a woman a Manchester. She wrote thus—
  "It is scarcely possible to calculate the disappointment felt last year when the Bill did not pass. … In this large city so numerous are the cases where the woman, though the breadwinner, has no chance of protecting her earnings, that it is useless to select isolated cases. …
  614
  Our first men of business, our teachers of religion, and our working classes, are unanimous in their desire for something to be done. … The amount of money earned by women in England is almost incredible. … It is sad to reflect that while the question is delayed thousands of hard-working, struggling women are reduced to the brink of ruin, and with their children are often found in a state of the deepest destitution."
  She went on to say, and he could corroborate the truth of it, that—
  "It is a great wonder to find a steady, industrious workman opposed to the measure. All our mechanics are eager to sign our Petitions, and express the most anxious interest in the coming discussion. Even the wilder among them frequently wish to sign, because they say the protection of their wife's earnings is a safeguard for their families."
  Now he believed that the mere declaration by law that the earnings of the wife were not the property of the husband, but were the wife's own lawful property, would of itself have a great effect. At present when the husband wished to lay his hand on his wife's earnings she knew that the law sanctioned his claim, and she yielded to it; but if it was known that the law was on her side she would insist more firmly and successfully on retaining her property, and the husband himself would often be induced to respect her legal right. At any rate, if the husband desired to get hold of her property he would try to do so by wheedling and coaxing rather than by violence—and he was afraid that in many instances they would still give up their property to worthless husbands. In conclusion, he felt convinced that if such a measure were passed, although it might not achieve all the results that were desirable, it would do much for the protection of a most meritorious and defenceless class of women.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, feeling as he did the great necessity which existed for protecting the class to which the noble Earl had so feelingly referred, he could not resist supporting the second reading of the Bill. He was most thankful that the Bill had fallen into the hands of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), who proposed to refer it to a Select Committee, and by whose aid and suggestions he was confident that an effective measure might be produced, free from many of the objections to which the one before their Lordships was now open. It was a great mistake in the Bill not to distinguish the difference

  615
  between the two classes. With regard to the rich, the wife at present had considerable—he did not gay in every case adequate—protection from the ordinary form of settlement adopted at the time of marriage. The "common form" settlement gave the woman a life interest for her separate use; to that was added a restraint against her being able to anticipate her income; then a life interest was usually given to the husband in the event of his surviving her; then it provided for the children, if there were any; and if there were none it gave the wife the power of disposing of her property generally by will. First, the separate use was a creation of the Court of Equity, it being thought right that a married woman should be protected from the severity of the common law, which handed over the whole of her property to her husband. But, instead of effecting its object, it was found that the separate use, without more, subjected the wife to the great difficulty of resisting her husband's importunity; therefore, a new protection for her was devised in the shape of the restraint upon anticipation. In the case of a man, if he had any property at all, he must have all the power over it—he could dispose of it or alienate it as he pleased; but, in regard to a woman, the Court of Chancery had invented a means of protecting her against her own weakness by saying that, as long as she was married, but no longer, she should be fettered against anticipating her property. That system was found to have some inconveniences; there were occasions when it was desirable to advance the children in life and provide them with an outfit and the like; and although there should be powers for that purpose in a well-drawn settlement, yet it was often overlooked; and a scheme might be devised for improving those settlements, and still taking care that the woman should be no loser thereby. In France and other countries, under the Code Napoléon, there were two modes of protecting the wife's property; there was the "separation of goods," where the wife had the absolute possession and administration of it; or the "community of goods," where the husband had the administration of the joint property, but subject to account for the wife's share—and not only that, but if there was the least intimation on the part of the wife to the proper
  616
  authorities that he was about to expend it wastefully, they interposed for its protection on her behalf. With respect to the case of the poor in this country, their position was different in this matter from that of the rich. By the common law the whole of the wife's property became the husband's. The whole of England, indeed, had not adopted that part of the common law. The City of London, for example, wise in its generation—and it had at different times shown many tokens of its wisdom, adopting in various respects the law of a higher civilization—allowed by its customs married women to carry on shops or business independently of their husbands, with their own means and for their own benefit: and it would have been well if that had been a general custom throughout the country. Undoubtedly, the hardship to married women of the poorer classes had been very great. He had known instances of industrious women, in the position of servants and housekeepers, who had saved a little money, and married men who afterwards turned out to be good for nothing. They then set up a business with their small accumulation of capital; the business began to thrive, when immediately the husbands pounced upon them, swept away all they had got, and reduced them to beggary. Those cases were by no means uncommon, and urgently required a remedy; and, so far as this part of the Bill was concerned, he hoped to see it carried this Session. Some parts of the Bill, however, seemed to him open to objection. The 1st clause gave to a married women the same power of acquiring and holding property, and of contracting, as if she were unmarried. He was afraid this provision would not be of very great effect; for he feared the result, in many cases, would be that, if she had the full control of her money, it might all find its way during the honeymoon, or soon afterwards, into the hands of her husband. He had seen a statement made in support of the Bill that many a woman was wiser and stronger than her husband. If so, the woman certainly did not show her wisdom in marrying a man inferior to her in mind, but rather yielded to her affections. Again, it was urged that the husband was not always in the right; but yet that he had the power of stopping the supplies on all occasions. No doubt, it was monstrous to say the

  617
  husband must be always in the right; but, on the other hand, somebody must regulate the affairs of the family; and if the husband said they must go to Italy to live, and the wife replied that she would far rather remain in England, he held, for himself, to the old-fashioned notion that the head of the family must be the husband. He thought the trainers of the Bill had had some misgivings as to the wife's real property; for that part of the Bill did not appear to be so philosophically carried out as the other parts, or as they might have expected. The proviso of the 1st clause did not permit a married woman to dispose of her real property as completely as her personal property, but restrained her from doing so otherwise than by will. This was inconsistent with the philosophic completeness of other parts of the measure. By the Bill the husband remained liable for all his wife's debts except two kinds—namely, debts which she had contracted before marriage; and he was not to be liable in damages for his wife's torts. The inference was that he was to be left responsible in all other respects for her debts. He would not pursue the details of the measure, which he could assure the noble and learned Lord he had no desire to treat in a carping or captious spirit; and he believed that the 10th section of the Bill might, under the noble and learned Lord's management, be made to work out all that was desirable. The 10th clause said where any property was in dispute between the husband and wife either party might, by an inexpensive process, have recourse either to the Court of Chancery or to the County Court in which the parties resided, where such an order might be made as appeared right. If that power were expanded, and if every woman were enabled, when she came into possession of property not disposed of by previous contract on her marriage, to go to an authority who would say what was right and proper to be done, a great deal of good might be effected.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he desired to point out the position in which their Lordships were placed by the manner in which the Bill had been submitted to their consideration. Towards the end of last Session—not later in the year than the present time—this Bill came up from the House of Commons, and was introduced to their Lordships' notice by
  618
  his noble and learned Friend beside him (Lord Penzance). But when his noble and learned Friend came to move the second reading, he was so overwhelmed by the arguments urged against the measure that he declined to proceed with it. One of the chief opponents of the measure was the noble and learned Lord who had charge of this Bill. [Lord CAIRNS: No!] The noble and learned Lord made a speech in which he said he disapproved most of the details. [Lord CAIRNS dissented.] However that might be, the House was aware, knowing, as they did, the greatness of the noble and learned Lord's powers, that he had now made but a very meagre statement with regard to this measure, and he (Lord Lyveden) had come to the conclusion that if the noble and learned Lord's acuteness of argument could find so little to say in favour of the Bill it could not be worth much. At all events throughout this discussion all the arguments had been against the Bill, except with respect to one point—namely, that a profligate husband ought to be prevented from throwing away the property of his wife. To all the other provisions of the Bill exception had been taken. In the position in which the House was placed it was absolutely essential that they should come to some conclusion as to the course they should adopt. If the Bill were to be referred to a Select Committee, their Lordships might be induced to consent to the second reading; but unless that was so done he should be prepared to vote with his noble and learned Friend near him against the second reading. If that portion of the Bill to which objection was taken were to be struck out by their Lordships the measure was certain to be repudiated when it went back to the House of Commons. He must own that the description which had been given of the Bill, that it would revolutionize the whole Law of Marriage, appeared to be just, and he quite agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that they ought to touch very tenderly everything connected with that subject. For his own part, he should be decidedly in favour of rejecting the Bill altogether unless the noble and learned Lord, when he replied, should explain what were the clauses that he proposed to alter. All were agreed as to the necessity of providing that the earnings of poor women

  619
  should be secured to them; but he feared that if the Bill passed in its present shape it would introduce discord and bitterness into every house in the country.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, the very able and emphatic speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) ought to have made such an impression on their Lordships that the Bill, if passed at all, should be very considerably modified; and, therefore, if it were read a second time, he hoped it would be on the express understanding that it should be sent to a Select Committee. Everyone felt that there was a great evil to be redressed, and that when the property of a woman was placed in jeopardy by the misconduct of her husband protection ought to be afforded. There was therefore no question raised that it was desirable to legislate in the direction of the first part of the Bill; but the greater portion of the Bill would entirely subvert the principles of the law heretofore existing with respect to marriage. Objections of such force had been urged to the Bill that it would be hardly just to the community at large to pass it, seeing that evilas of great magnitude were likely to arise from its operation. The question, however, which they had to consider now was how they were to deal with the Bill. He had been struck, as the noble Lord (Lord Westbury) had been, by the very tender manner in which the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) had touched upon some of the points involved. No doubt the noble and learned Lord dealt in a very particular manner with that portion of the Bill about which there was no difficulty in dealing; but the other portions of the measure he treated after a very different fashion. The question their Lordships had to ask themselves was this—If the Bill were sent to a Select Committee and came back so altered and amended as to be brought into harmony with the views entertained by almost all who had spoken on the subject, would it stand any chance at this period of the Session of being accepted by the other House of Parliament? In his opinion it would be better for their Lordships to confine themselves to those parts of the Bill which referred to the protection of the earnings of married women, because the evil with which it dealt was admitted by all, and it would not be well that this Session should be
  620
  allowed to lapse without endeavouring to apply a remedy. But if their Lordships were to alter, as he believed they would, a great part of the measure, it was very doubtful whether the other House of Parliament would accept it. A Select Committee might so alter it that it would be no longer the same measure; but, on the whole, he thought the best chance of legislation at this period of the Session would be if they confined themselves to the first portion of the Bill.
  LORD CAIRNSdesired, in reply to the remarks of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance), to point out that the noble and learned Lord had himself moved the second reading of a similar Bill last year, and that he had expressed a hope that their Lordships would show their readiness to consider the question by agreeing to the Motion, so that the re-introduction of the Bill in the present Session might be facilitated. He could not help thinking, therefore, that his noble and learned Friend was open to the charge of inconsistency in taking the course he had taken that evening.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, that when he moved the second reading of the Bill last year, he had expressly stated his disapproval of all those provisions of which he had expressed his disapproval on that present occasion.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, said, that if his noble and learned Friend had made that evening such a speech as he had made last year, it would be utterly impossible for him to suppose that he was not in favour of the Bill. Both his noble and learned Friends opposite, indeed, had with great ingenuity conjured up spectres to frighten their Lordships with respect to the measure. They contended that one of its results would be that husband and wife would be able to sue one another—as if that were not a thing which happened every day the sun rose in cases in which property was concerned. He might also remind his noble and learned Friend who spoke second (Lord Westbury) that every woman in England who had property to her separate use might make contracts, might accept Bills of Exchange, or buy racehorses, if she had a mind to do so, and that those contracts would be valid. What objection in principle then could there be in making the law applicable to married women generally? It would

  621
  only do universally by law what was now clone in particular cases by contract. Then the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who made a speech of great interest, pointed out that if a married woman were to get a house to herself she might, under the provisions of the Bill, if she so pleased, preclude her husband from entering. That was, however, a right which any woman might at the present moment exercise with respect to a house which was her property. Again, as the law now stood, any woman might purchase jewellery with her settled income, and it would be her own separate property. She might keep it for her own use, or give it away in presents if she thought proper; and there was nothing to prevent her from accepting presents of jewellery for her own separate use—so that there was little or no force in the objection urged by the noble Earl on that point. It was further stated in opposition to the Bill that it contained no provision rendering it obligatory on the wife having property of her own to contribute to the support of her children. But a wife under the Bill would be subject to the same obligations in that respect as now. He apprehended that if the children were starving, and the wife had the means, she would be liable equally with the husband. [Lord WESTBURY: Only under the Poor Law.] Just so, and that was the only way he knew of in which a father could under the existing law be made liable for the support of his children in the last resort. He was not a promoter of the Bill, he only had charge of it. Nor was he responsible for many of its provisions. He must, however, say, in reply to the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland), that the Bill could in no sense be said to have passed sub silentio in the other House of Parliament. It had, in fact, attracted considerable attention there. In a previous Session it had been referred to a Select Committee, which comprehended some of the most eminent Members of the House of Commons, and they not only considered the Bill clause by clause, but took evidence upon it. During the present Session there was a rival Bill, and upon a Division this Bill was preferred. He had not taken charge of the Bill from any desire to set up abstract theories of philosophical principles with regard to the rights of married
  622
  women; nor dad he desire to alter the practice of this country in reference to settlements, or to the proceedings relating to property at the Court of Chancery. He considered the main principle of the measure to be that wherever money and property had been acquired by a married woman by virtue of her own industry, whether bodily or mental, she was entitled to the property so acquired for her separate use, just as much as if it was actually settled upon her, and with that principle he entirely agreed.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, he was quite content with the assurance of his noble I and learned Friend with regard to the principle of the Bill. It was, he understood, limited to the settlement of property acquired by the woman's own labour, mental and bodily.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on July 4, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  D. Buckingham and Chandos.

  L. Dinevor.

  L. Stanley of Alderley.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  E. Airlie.

  L. Clandeboye.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Westbury.

  E. Morley.

  L. Romilly.

  E. Lichfield.

  L. Cairns.

  L. Bp. Gloucester and Bristol.

  L. Penzance.

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL—(No. 110.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL—(No. 110.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, said, he desired to make one or two observations in reply to what had been stated on a previous evening by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. With reference to the dissatisfaction said to prevail in certain quarters, he rather supposed that it it originated with some Parliamentary agents who naturally found fault with a system which tended very materially to abridge the business before Select Committees of both Houses. For himself, he did not think that a second inquiry by the Board of Trade was necessary, inasmuch as a previous inquiry took place by the Admiralty. He had referred to the number of Provisional Orders granted by the Board of Trade

  623
  between 1862 and the present time, and he found that nearly the whole of them had been confirmed by Parliament with out the necessity of parties going before a Select Committee. He did not think Parliament had any reason to view with jealousy the system of Provisional Orders; but he did not at all complain of the noble Lord watching narrowly the action of the Board of Trade. The noble Earl concluded by paying a marked tribute to the admirable manner in which the business of the Board had been conducted in the much-to-be-regretted absence of his chief, by the Vice President, (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he should be sorry if it could be supposed that any observations he had made on a former occasion arose from any idea that there was want of ability and energy on the part of the Vice President of the Board of Trade. On the contrary, he believed that Mr. Shaw Lefevre had proved himself a most zealous and efficient officer, and there could be no doubt that at the present time the Board was very much overworked. Complaints had been made to him of cases in which the parties said they had found the transaction of business with the Board of Trade extremely unsatisfactory, in consequence of so much of that Department being conducted by subordinate officers; and he thought that under present circumstances that must necessarily be the case. To say that it was not so would be to say that the Office of President of the Board of Trade was a useless one. He did think it was a just cause of complaint that during a considerable portion of the last half-year the Board of Trade had been without any head whatever. In the present Session a Committee was appointed on the Tramways Bill, of which Committee the Vice President of the Board of Trade was Chairman. It sat for 10 or 11 days, during which time the Board of Trade Office must have been without either President or Vice President. With regard to the case of Ilfracombe, which came within the Bill, there ought to have been a new inquiry. Formerly steamboat owners appeared in the case, and the Admiralty sent down an officer, whose Report was adverse to what would now be done by the Board of Trade. The steamboat owners having withdrawn from the opposition there was no one now before Parliament to prevent
  624
  the carrying out of what that officer had said ought not to be done.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that officers of great experience were associated with the Board of Trade. It did not follow that because an officer of the Admiralty had reported adversely last year, the Board of Trade were bound by their decision under altered circumstances.
  House in Committee; Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PREVENTION (METROPOLIS) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for the better prevention of contagious Diseases in the City of London and within the Metropolitan Police District—Was presented by The Marquess TOWNSHEND; read 1a. (No. 151.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.