Sitting of 23 April 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Leave—Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment, negatived.
Ordered—Monastic and Conventual Institutions Commission.
Ordered—First Reading—Cashel Rock* [128].
Second Reading—Building Societies * [66]; Municipal Franchise (Ireland)* [100]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation * [125].
Committee—Report—Pensions * [113].
Report—Metropolis (Kilburn and Harrow) Roads* [57–127].
Considered as amended—Pacific Islanders Protection* [45]; West Indies (Incumbered Estates)* [110].
Third Reading—Party Processions (Ireland) Act Repeal* [112], and passed.

IRELAND—ROYAL RESIDENCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state what decision the Government have come to with respect to the establishment of a Royal residence in Ireland; or, if not, when he will be prepared to state their views?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I readily acknowledge the zeal of my hon. Friend upon this question; and if there were any risk of the Government forgetting its duty, I am sensible that by his agitation we should be reminded of it. Notwithstanding, I have no decision to announce to my hon. Friend at the present time. I will repeat the assurance I gave him on a former day that, when the Government is prepared to announce its decision on this subject, I will not wait for the opportunity afforded by a Question for the purpose of making it known. I will venture to remind my hon. Friend that this is not like an administrative question lying within the province of a department, but is one that involves large considerations; and events of importance have happened within the last six or eight months which have thrown difficulties in the way of securing for it that consideration which it was otherwise our intention to have given it.
  MR. STACPOOLE: I beg to give Notice that on an early day I shall bring forward this question.

  POST OFFICE CLERKS—BANK HOLIDAYS ACT.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the Clerks in the Post Office Savings Bank in St. Paul's Churchyard were obliged to attend to business on the 26th December and on Easter Monday last; and whether he considers such requirements to be in accordance with the provisions of the Bank Holidays Act, 1871?
  MR. MONSELL: It is true, Sir, that on the 26th of December and on Easter Monday last, the clerks in the Post-office Savings Bank, and, indeed, in other departments of the Post Office, attended to business as on other days; and in my opinion they were not exempted from the obligation of so attending by the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, the provisions of which, I am advised, do not apply to Her Majesty's Civil Establishments. At the same time, I have felt that there is something incongruous in the Post Office remaining open when all other establishments in the City are closed, and it is my intention to give directions that for the future the two days named by the hon. Member, as well as Whit Monday, shall, as far as can be done without any inconvenience to the public, be observed as holidays at the General Post Office.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

  THE INDIRECT CLAIMS. THE CORRESPONDENCE.—QUESTION.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: My right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has requested me in his absence to put the Question which stands in his name—namely, to inquire, Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give the House an assurance that further proceedings in the Arbitration at Geneva will be suspended unless the Claims, termed the Indirect Claims, are abandoned or withdrawn by the Government of the United States?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot feel, Sir, any surprise, or express any complaint, that this Question has been put; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I state that I must adhere to the declaration I made about 10 days ago—I think it was on
  1680
  the 12th of April—inasmuch as the consideration by which that declaration was dictated is still in full force. In that declaration I stated that we do not think it advisable to announce any decision as to the course it may be our duty to take with regard to proceeding further with the Arbitration at Geneva until we know in what manner the Government of the United States intends to deal with the Note addressed by my noble Friend (Earl Granville) to General Schenck on the 20th of March. The answer to that Note we understand to be on its way to this country. I will simply add a few words to the declaration I made some days ago. We have no doubt we shall receive the support of Parliament in maintaining the position we have held as to the scope and intention of the reference made to the Tribunal at Geneva; but we believe that any Parliamentary declaration at this stage of the diplomatic correspondence would tend not to strengthen but to weaken the position of the Government. When I say "at this stage of the diplomatic correspondence," I mean the stage which it continues now to hold, and which it must hold, until we receive that reply of the American Government to which I have already alluded.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Perhaps I may be permitted to give Notice, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that he will take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to this subject, and of asking its opinion upon it.
  MR. BOUVERIE: The right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government says he understands the reply of the American Government is on its way to this country. May I ask him when he expects it will be received?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend will, of course, not hold me responsible for my answer in the same way as if the document in question were under our own control; but I may say that the information we possess leads us to believe that the reply was despatched by the American Government on the Wednesday of last week, and that, in the usual course it will, about Monday next, be in the hands of the American Minister in this country, who, no doubt, will take a very early opportunity of placing it in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

  EXTRADITION TREATIES—FRANCE AND BELGIUM—MARGUERITE DIXBLANCS.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in "The Times" of Monday 22nd instant, that the Belgian Government hesitates to give its consent to the extradition of Marguerite Dixblancs, on account of a difficulty as to where she should be tried; whether, under the Extradition Treaty between England and France (in which country the murderess was arrested and confessed the crime) the Belgian Government has any right to withhold its consent to the extradition of the murderess, or to make any difficulty as to where she should be tried; and, whether any material difference exists between the provisions of our Extradition Treaty with France or Belgium, or any other civilized European power, and the Treaty between England and the United States of America, under which Muller, a Prussian subject, who murdered Mr. Briggs in London, was at once given up to the English officers of justice by the United States Government?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Lord Lyons reports that the French Government had considered it necessary to communicate with the Government of Belgium before deciding the question of extradition. The French Minister for Foreign Affairs had explained that it was the invariable practice of the French Government, before deciding on a demand for the surrender of a criminal, to communicate with the Government of the country to which the criminal belonged. He was in communication with the Belgian Government on this subject; and presumed that the answer would be given at once, and that this necessary formality would only cause a short delay in the extradition. The Belgian Minister at Paris, to whom Lord Lyons had also spoken on the subject, had assured him that he had no doubt whatever that in the present case his Government would immediately, and as a matter of course, express their concurrence in this surrender. There is no Treaty of Extradition between this country and Belgium; but the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and France of February 13, 1843, makes no exception to surrender on the ground of the nationality of the person
  1682
  demanded; so far, therefore, as that Treaty was concerned, the French Government had no legal right to refuse the surrender of Marguerite Dixblancs, whether she were a Belgian or a French subject. Our Extradition Treaty with the United States (August 9, 1842) made no exception as to the surrender of native subjects or the subjects of a third Power.

IRELAND—QUALIFICATION FOR LORDS LIEUTENANT—COUNTY CLARE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If there be any qualification required for a Lord Lieutenant of an Irish county; and, if it is true that he has recommended to Her Majesty for the Lieutenancy of the county of Clare, a gentleman residing in England who is neither a Justice of the Peace, nor a Grand Juror of the county, and who at present has neither a residence nor a property in that county?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope, Sir, I shall be able to answer my hon. Friend's Question in a manner which will give some satisfaction to him. I am not aware that any legal qualification is required for a Lord Lieutenant of an Irish county. It is true that I have recommended to Her Majesty's Government for the Lieutenancy of the county of Clare my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tipperary (Colonel White). Whether he is a justice of the peace or a grand juror of the county, I am unable to say, because I have had no opportunity since Notice of the Question was given of speaking to my hon. and gallant Friend on the subject; but I quite agree with my hon. Friend in what I take to be the substance of his Question—namely, that although there were not any legal conditions, yet there were attached to the office substantial conditions which it was most desirable to secure, and, moreover, that next to the qualifications of character and competent ability are the qualifications of property and residence. I will, therefore, state how this matter stands. My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that although the hon. and gallant Member for Tipperary has not been down to the present time a landed proprietor in the county of Clare, his father, Lord Annaly, has hitherto been possessed of large estates in the county.

  1683
  Lord Annaly has determined to transfer forthwith to his son the absolute possession of those estates. That intention—and I hope it will not be thought a colourable qualification—having been announced to us spontaneously by Lord Annaly as a family arrangement—there still remains the question of residence. But we have also received an intimation that it is his (Colonel White's) intention to reside upon the estate. I believe there is residence for all purposes that are necessary; and consequently we do not hold it would be necessary to inquire as to qualification and into the amount of accommodation which the present residence affords, or whether my hon. and gallant Friend intends putting additions to it. I am not able to say whether the transfer of these estates in point of law has been absolutely completed; but substantially, both as to residence and property, my hon. Friend may consider the transfer as entirely and finally made.

  THE PACIFIC ISLANDS—H.M.S. "ROSARIO."—QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he has received any official Report of the late cruize of Her Majesty's ship "Rosario," among the islands of the Western Pacific, when several affrays with the inhabitants are said to have occurred; and, if so, if he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GOSCHENreplied that the Report had been received at the Admiralty, and that it should be laid upon the table of the House.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK—THE SHRUBBERY GROUNDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is intended to continue the ornamental shrubbery ground on the left of Rotten Row, between Albert Gate and Knightsbridge Barracks; and, if so, whether he will reconsider such intention as being one leading to a serious encroachment on a space long used as a public recreation and children's playground, which space has also already been curtailed by the additional riding-ground recently made in that locality?
  MR. AYRTON: I am happy to be able to assure the children who are in-
  1684
  terested in this matter that a "serious encroachment" upon their playground is not intended. They will, therefore, be able to continue as heretofore to enjoy the playground in common with the Heavy Cavalry and the Light Volunteers, by whom it is used for drill.

ESTATES OF BASTARDS—QUEEN'S PROCTOR'S CHARGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Hugh Dalrymple, deceased, in which the Crown made gift of his estate under deduction of the usual tenth; whether he is aware that the estate amounted to £62 9s. 4d., that only £4 1s. 0d. accrued to the Crown, and yet only £36 10 s. 5d. reached the donee, the remaining £21 17 s. 11 d., or one-third of the whole, being absorbed in expenses, of which £13 10 s. 6d. was for Queen's Proctor; and, whether he could not arrange for a more moderate scale of charges for business transacted by the Queen's Proctor?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, Hugh Dalrymple was illegitimate, intestate, unmarried, and a Scotchman. This made the winding-up of his personal estate more complicated than would otherwise have been the case. We were obliged to consult the Queen's Proctor as to what we ought to do, and he advised that letters of administration should be granted. Then, for the purpose of getting at the property, we were obliged to place ourselves in communication with the Queen's Remembrancer in Scotland. I very much regret, as everyone must, the enormous slice taken out of the property before it reached the deceased's father, who, I believe, is still living. The Queen's Proctor, however, is appointed by Royal Warrant, giving him the right to receive the usual salaries and charges, so that whether the charges are small or great, if usual, I have no power to interfere with them.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE ASHFORD MAGISTRATES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If after taking into consideration the decision of the Magistrates at the petty sessions of

  1685
  Ashford on the 3rd instant, and the committal of a person for two months to prison for an alleged assault on a young girl, he considers the said Justices fit persons to be intrusted with the administration of justice?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I am bound to say I think the justices committed a grave error in dealing summarily with the accused, instead of sending him for trial to one of the Superior Courts. Very shortly after their decision the Chairman called at the Home Office and informed the Under Secretary that evidence had come before him which satisfied him that the man was innocent, and thereupon he was immediately released. The question as to the fitness of any magistrates is one resting entirely with the Lord Chancellor, and it is not for me to anticipate any opinion which he may form in case any complaint is made to him as to the conduct of these justices.

UNIVERSITY TESTS (DUBLIN) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the hon. Member for Brighton, after what hour he will not proceed with this Bill?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would give the best reply he could. Had the Question been put to him last Friday, he should, considering the difficulty experienced by an independent Member in getting a night, have stated that he would proceed with the Bill any time before half-past 12. If, however, there was any truth in rumours which were industriously circulated, and which had received a certain amount of authority, the measure now occupied an entirely different position to what it then did, and to what he had ever supposed it would occupy. He felt that if the Motion of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland (the Marquess of Hartington) were to involve a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Ministry, he should not be dealing fairly with the House or the Government if he did not consult both of them as to the hour when they would like a debate on so important an issue to commence. He must, therefore, leave the decision of the question in a great degree with the House.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGappealed to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to say, after this answer, whether he could assist in
  1686
  any way in fixing an hour for the debate, either this evening or any other night.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have no power whatever in arranging when this debate should come on during the present evening, nor has any overture or request been made to me upon the subject of this Bill. If such a request should be made to me, it would, of course, be the duty of the Government to consider it with reference to the state of Public Business; but I could not undertake to give an answer, except after a few days.
  Afterwards—
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would proceed with the Order for going into Committee on the Bill on Thursday.

  POST OFFICE—REPORT ON SUNDAY LABOUR.—QUESTION.
  MR. C. REEDasked the Postmaster General, What action is intended to be taken upon the recommendations contained in the Report on Sunday Labour in the Post Office, presented on the 13th of February last; and in the event of any decision having been arrived at, whether the same may be communicated to the House?
  MR. MONSELLreplied that, with regard to the recommendations of the Report on this subject presented last February, the Postmaster General had a power of dispensing with the rule in cases where the public would suffer great inconvenience. Any decision on the subject he should be happy to communicate to the House.

  MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS.—LEAVE.
  MR. NEWDEGATE*: Mr. Speaker, I trust, from the feeling which appeared to prevail in the House yesterday, when, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), I explained that it was my intention to persevere upon this subject, that the House will acquit me of any presumption in venturing to submit the Notice which stands in my name. I would for one moment, before doing so, advert to some circumstances connected with this Motion. At the end of the month of February, the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) obtained the leave of the House to introduce a Bill, which proposes to exceed the recommendations of

  1687
  the Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions, appointed in 1870, with respect to some of these institutions for the Committee reported in 1871 upon the subject of property, as connected with these institutions, inasmuch as that Bill proposed to repeal the sections of the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which apply to the Monastic Orders of the Church of Rome. On the 5th of March I gave Notice that I would ask the House to appoint a Commission by Statute to inquire into the increase, character, property, discipline, and connection with each other of these institutions, and also whether it might not be expedient that this House should adopt some means for facilitating the emigration of women. Before I sit down I shall endeavour to explain to the House the connection between these subjects. At present I advert to them only to show the House that one of the largest, perhaps the most important part of the subject which I suggest for inquiry by the Commission I desire should be appointed by Statute has already been proposed to be dealt with absolutely by the hon. Member for Clare, supported by three other hon. Members, all of whom are Members for Irish constituencies, yet who propose to deal off-hand with the questions affecting monastic institutions in Great Britain; in short, throughout the United Kingdom. I will not trench upon the Rules of the House by discussing the merits of that Bill, the Religious Disabilities Abolition Bill. I only advert to it for this reason—I was present when the hon. and learned Member for Clare moved that this House do resolve itself into Committee for the purpose of enabling him to introduce that Bill; he did not vouchsafe to the House one word of explanation with regard to its contents; yet the House at once acquiesced, and allowed him to bring in the Bill. On the 5th of March, as I have stated, I gave Notice of the Motion which I now propose. And what, Sir, was the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Clare and of other hon. Members who agree with him in religion and in politics? I received an intimation, Sir, that leave to introduce the Bill now proposed by myself would be opposed. I applied, Sir, to one of the highest authorities, perhaps the highest authority in this House, to ascertain whether that course—that most unusual course—would be
  1688
  sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government, and I was given to understand that, under certain circumstances, it would have their support. I was, therefore, compelled to place this Notice upon the ordinary list, and I have ballotted some five or six times before I obtained an opportunity of bringing it fairly under the consideration of the House. Let the House consider this. Is there anything in my proposal which deserves to be treated as an outrage? Is there anything in it of the nature of sacrilege? Do I propose sacrilege or fraud? Do I propose to paralyze, or to forestall the discretion of the House in dealing with this subject? Sir, I propose nothing of the kind. I propose merely that the House should consider whether it is not due to the circumstances of the case that a Commission should be appointed by law; the whole powers to be intrusted to which will be decided in the course of the discussions on the Bill; while the powers of the Commission are only to be for inquiry as to whether the number, the circumstances, the character, and the connection of these 300 institutions with one another, and the property they are acquiring, are not such as to render necessary some revision of the law of mortmain as it exists in this country, and some such regulations with respect to the inmates of convents as have been found necessary in every country upon the Continent where convents have not been suppressed. I ask this House to commit no outrage. I know that this is a Protestant Parliament, and I ask this Protestant Parliament, inasmuch as there is in this country a considerable and an increasing Roman Catholic population, and a most unprecedentedly rapid increase of these monastic institutions, to inquire, by Statutory Commission, whether the time has not arrived when it is due to the Roman Catholic portion of the community itself, as well as to the Protestant community; whether it is not due to the inmates of these convents, that the same kind of precautions should be taken to guard against families being deprived of their inheritance by priestly influences, as have been found necessary abroad? because, wherever these institutions have grown up in large numbers, whether in Italy for example, or elsewhere, there it has been found that the system of prayers for the dead has enabled the priesthood so to work upon

  1689
  the feelings of the relatives of deceased Roman Catholics as induce them to deprive families of inheritances, their possession of which is essential to the welfare of the community and the State. This is one ground, and perhaps the strongest ground, upon which the Roman Catholic nation of Italy have found it necessary to suppress these monastic and conventual institutions, and in this they follow the example of our English ancestors in Roman Catholic times; because, as I have before reminded the House, as a Master of Arts, educated at Christ Church, Oxford, I cannot forget the origin of the foundation of that noble College. It originated in this—that such were the number, such were the abuses, and, I am obliged to add, such the immoralities practised in the small monastic houses in this country, that Cardinal Wolsey applied to the Pope of his day for power to suppress them. The Pope issued a Bull for the purpose; and Cardinal Wolsey, using this Bull with the sanction of his Sovereign, suppressed those houses, and applied the property which was placed at the disposal of the Crown, to the foundation of the College of Christ Church, Oxford. I live, Sir, in a house in Warwickshire, which was one of the Priories suppressed under that same Bull. Then let not Roman Catholic Members turn upon me as though it were only because I am a Protestant that I ask them to join me in adopting a measure much milder than those which have proved necessary among their coreligionists abroad. Yet, Sir, such is the feeling among the Ultramontane Roman Catholics of this country, stimulated I believe by the hierarchy, that hon. Members have come to me and told me that if I venture to make this proposal to the House they would adopt a practice, which was rarely exercised 20 years ago, and which has since then scarcely ever, if ever, been resorted to, in consequence of the feeling of courtesy and respect entertained by the great body of the House towards its Members. I was unwilling to believe that they would adopt the discourteous proceeding of refusing to grant me permission to introduce this Bill. But I found that such really was their intention, and that they had used their influence with the Government to obtain their support for an unwonted departure from what has become almost if not quite the unvaried practice of
  1690
  the House. I have more recently received private information from those hon. Members that, perhaps, they might allow me to introduce the Bill; but on what condition was I to be allowed to do it? Why, that I should abstain from saying one word in explanation of the measure which I suggest for the acceptance of the House. Sir, in the exclusiveness of their spirit, those hon. Members would have had me act in a manner that would have been most direspectful to the body of the House; but by what I am now saying it will be perceived that I decline to adopt a course which I think would be wanting in respect to the great body of the Members of this House. I think the House has a right to expect that when I, or any independent Member, propose the adoption of a measure like this, such explanations as I may imagine the House will deem necessary, and I am capable of giving, should be offered, and I now beg to express my hope that the House will protect me against a treatment which is unwonted, and which the subject-matter of my proposal does not deserve. I would call the attention of the House to another circumstance. I have presented a large number of Petitions in favour of my Motion, yet of late, I am sorry to say, the Protestant societies have been so peculiarly slack that I feared they would almost all collapse. During the winter I went down to Glasgow, by invitation of a large number of its citizens; and there I met 4,000 persons in the City Hall, not only citizens of Glasgow, but eminent persons, men of great intelligence, from various districts of Scotland, and they unanimously desired that I should ask this House to consider this subject. I was afterwards invited to Sheffield to attend a meeting in the Cutlers' Hall—unfortunately, I was unavoidably prevented doing so. I was detained by my engagements here in London; but in my absence that meeting was equally unanimous with the grand meeting at Glasgow in requesting that this House would take this subject into its consideration. I speak upon this question, not in my own name, nor only as the Representative of the great constituency who have done me the honour of returning me to this House for so many years: I speak on behalf of thousands; aye, I might multiply the thousands by tens, throughout this country,

  1691
  who feel uneasy at the rapid increase of these institutions, and, let me say, uneasy also at the temper which they are generating among the Roman Catholic portion of the population. On behalf of thousands and tens of thousands of the inhabitants of Great Britain, I ask the House to consider whether some Commission ought not, by statute, to be appointed to investigate such portions of the subject I suggest as to the wisdom of this House may seem meet—the Commission to be furnished with such powers as shall first have the sanction of this House, and afterwards obtain the approval of the other House of Parliament. Once again, I ask, is my proposal one that deserves to be treated as though I desired to outrage any body of my fellow-subjects? All I ask is this—that you will not defeat the benevolent feelings I represent, and which it would be both unkind and imprudent on the part of the Roman Catholic Members of the House to resist. I will now advert for a few moments to what the House has already done on the subject. In the year 1870 the House once positively and twice virtually affirmed that there ought to be an inquiry by a Committee into the number, increase, and character of those monastic and conventual institutions, of which, according to the evidence of the Roman Catholic solicitors who appeared before the Committee of 1870, one as the representative of 215 in England and Scotland—I believe the total number to be about 233; but I am not sure that there are not more—at any rate, we have it on the evidence of the solicitor chosen to represent these 215 convents, that there are that number of convents already existing in England and Scotland. I believe, Sir, that the monastic houses number somewhere about 60; but I know this—that the Committee failed to hear some of them, because they are described as colleges and not as monasteries. The evidence of another Roman Catholic solicitor, Mr. Cuddon, is this—that there are 30 monasteries, and perhaps, he added, there are 121 what he called "parochial residences" held by the regular orders of the Church of Rome—that is, by the monastic orders of the Church of Rome. There was this great peculiarity in the evidence of these gentlemen—that they would give us the gross numbers of the institutions which they represented, they
  1692
  would say there are about 215 convents; there are 30 monasteries existing in Great Britain; but when the Committee asked, "where are these institutions?" they answered, "we are instructed to refuse that information." Then they stated that there is so much property belonging to these 215 convents in the aggregate, these 30 monasteries, and these 121 parochial residences, or belonging to inmates thereof; so much property real, and so much property personal, belonging to these groups of institutions; but when the Committee asked them, "Where is this property?" they immediately replied, "It is beyond our instructions to give you that information." Now, I ask the House whether that can be considered a satisfactory solution of the allegation which I make, that there is not only a great increase of these establishments, but that the property devoted to them is increasing rapidly also? The Committee asked those gentlemen—"Will you give us the names of those institutions?" but this, too, they refused—"No, it is beyond our instructions to give you the names." The majority of the Committee considered that these solicitors, who were the principal witnesses called by the Roman Catholic Members of the Committee, acted within their privilege in thus refusing to inform the House; and I am sorry to say that, although the Committee permitted me to produce some very conclusive evidence with respect to the institutions in Glasgow, and also some evidence with respect to the Oratory at Brompton, when I attempted, as a Member of the Committee, to supply the deficiency in the evidence as given by those Roman Catholic solicitors, who pleaded their instructions not to inform the Committee, the Committee turned round upon me, and, on divisions, rejected the evidence I offered to adduce. I sought, by the aid of the rate-book and the Roman Catholic Directory, to trace some of these 215 convents and their localities. I endeavoured to ascertain what property they held; but the moment I began the investigation, as it related to London beyond the Oratory, the Committee stopped the inquiry. Can the House, Sir, be satisfied with this lack of information—this lack of information as to details? For remember this—I asked the Rev. Mr. Johnson, a Roman Catholic priest, who is the

  1693
  editor of the Roman Catholic Directory, "Can we rely upon the accuracy of this catalogue, which you have edited for several years? this list of institutions?" and he declared that the document which he so edited was not to be trusted on this point. Will the House, then, be satisfied, after having decided that it would have positive information as to the property held by and for those institutions, with the bare gross totals furnished by these solicitors who were instructed to give no information respecting the details? So much with reference to the property. But in 1870 this House had sanctioned a far wider inquiry. Three times over the House decided that there should be an inquiry into the increase and character of these institutions; but the First Lord of the Treasury subsequently persuaded the House to forego that portion of the inquiry, and to be satisfied with an inquiry into the property held by and for those institutions, and into the state of the law affecting them in respect of property. Thereupon the House rescinded its previous Resolution, and complied with the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman. But I think I have shown the House—and that every hon. Member who reads the Report of the Committee will see—how imperfect is the information tendered to this House by that Committee upon the subject directly committed its investigations. Imperfect I say, and for this reason—that the Committee refused to test by the acquisition of local information and details the statements of the Roman Catholic solicitors who were sent to that Committee as the representatives as they declared of 215 convents and 30 odd monasteries. The country, Sir, does not feel satisfied. The request of the country—and on this point I would refer the House to the Petitions presented in 1870—was, that there should be an inquiry into the character and into the discipline by which those institutions are regulated. Was this an unreasonable demand? In France—and I admit that under the Empire the law was not carried out as it should have been—but in France the law is this. There are what they term legally-constituted conventual institutions. Now, what constitutes a regularly or legally-organized institution or convent in France? It is an institution in which the nun shall never be
  1694
  bound by her vow to remain for more than five years. It is an institution the inspection of which is committed to the Maire of the Arrondissment; and that provision of the French law is operative, so far as these authorized institutions. Moreover, I am prepared to bring before any competent tribunal an instance of an English girl who was rescued from a convent in France by the intervention of the Maire. That is not a solitary case; I can produce several. Now if, in France, for the rescue of this English girl the authority of the Maire was necessary, are we to suppose that there are no cases in this country in which there ought to be a similar power of intervention by some constituted civil authority? I ask the House, do they expect the people of this country to believe that there is something so peculiar in the convents which happen to be situated in England, although they are avowedly organized on foreign models, and in many instances are, as I know to be the case, governed by foreign superiors, that the power of intervention on the part of the civil authorities which is found to be necessary and is operative in France can be unnecessary here? Why, in Italy there was the same power; but there in former years the temporal government of the Pope, outside the limits of his own recognized Dominions, had so completely enveloped the civil power, that the visitation of these institutions had failed. Let any hon. Member read the narrative of the Princess Carraciolo on this point, and he will find that the civil power was paralyzed in the kingdom of Naples, and indeed throughout the whole Peninsula. What has been the consequence? Serious troubles, active intervention on the part of the regular orders in revolutionary movements, and much misery and distress for years has resulted in the suppression of nearly all these institutions. Do I now propose that the House should take steps to suppress these institutions? No. I am prepared for the present, at all events, to abide by the provisions of the Act of 1829 which permitted the existence of convents in this country; but then I say this—they have increased so rapidly, and they have extended so widely, that we must draw instruction from Continental legislation and provide the same safeguards for the interests of families and for the personal freedom of the inmates

  1695
  of those convents which have been found to be necessary throughout the civilized world, wherever those institutions are now permitted to exist. Is a proposal like that unreasonable? Will any Roman Catholic Member rise in his place and contend that it is unreasonable? Will he condemn the late Government and the present Government of France? Will he condemn the Government of Spain? Will he condemn the Government of Italy? Will he condemn the Government of Bavaria? Will he condemn the Government of Austria? Will he condemn the Government of Prussia, and the Government of Germany? If he does, then, I ask, where is his condemnation to stop? I do not ask him to sanction the system of Russia. I know that the hierarchy of the Papal Church are at variance on that point with the civil power everywhere; but is this a reason why this House should yield? When I formerly addressed the House on the question I did not know the exact practice of Germany, of Prussia, on this point; but a case has come within my knowledge which illustrates the practice, and I will state it to the House. A German workman—and I have his statement here—came to this country in the exercise of a skilled trade. He had been married. He was a Roman Catholic and had married a Protestant in Germany. The family were to be educated under these conditions—the boys were to be of the same religion as the father, Roman Catholic, and the girls of the same religion as the mother, Protestant. The mother died, leaving one girl, who, at the time I am speaking of, was about 15 years of age. The father was summoned to the military service of his country. At the commencement of the Franco-Prussian War he rejoined the corps d'armée to which he belonged. Some time afterwards the daughter received letters, informing her that her father had been wounded, and had subsequently died of his wounds. Her father had left her under the care of a Roman Catholic tradesman, a native of his own country, resident here in London. She was making a very good livelihood; but when she found herself an orphan here in England, it may easily be conceived that the poor girl was grievously distressed. This tradesman, who was her employer, was compassionate to her, and although he knew she was a Pro-
  1696
  testant, yet, from not knowing, perhaps, a Protestant clergyman, he brought a Roman Catholic priest to visit the poor girl in her distress. Now, do I blame the priest? No; I blame the system. The priest behaved kindly to her, and very naturally suggested that, as she was alone and an orphan, she should go into a convent at Liverpool. However, the German tradesman, with whom she was, intended to return to Germany, and eventually she went with him. When they arrived in Germany this friendly tradesman persuaded the girl nominally to change her religion and allow herself to be consigned to a convent in Germany. Now, it happened that the father had not died. The report of his death was false. He returned to England to find no trace of the child he had left behind him, and but little trace of the tradesman who had been her employer and protector. The father was deeply distressed; but, actuated by characteristic German perseverance, after much painful labour he tracked the person to whom he had confided his child to the docks in London, and on board a ship, bound for his native Germany. The father was poor; but he quitted his means of livelihood. His means were small; but he went back to Germany, and picked up fresh traces of the German whom he had left in charge of his child, and who he now learnt was dead. He traced his child among the relations of him whom he had virtually appointed to be her guardian, and travelled hundreds of miles on foot until he had traced her to a convent. He was poor and way-worn when he got there. He demanded admittance, and asked if his child was there. The Superioress—I do not blame her—doubted, or seemed to doubt, the man's story, and refused to give him any account as to whether such a girl as his daughter was in the convent. But the father, so keen was the paternal instinct, and so persevering was his German spirit, knew that the girl was there, and said—"Madam, my child is here. I will not leave this place except by force, or unless you send for the police." Well, they sent for the police; and as in Germany the magistrates have a record of the real name of every inmate of a convent, the moment the matter was brought before the magistrate the difficulty was solved. The father produced his passport, and letters from the relations of

  1697
  the person to whom he had committed his child, her former employer, who was dead. The magistrate referred to the list of the inmates of that convent, and, at his instance, the lady superior immediately restored the child to her father. Now, if that girl had been sent down to the convent at Liverpool, as the English priest recommended—and she might probably have been transferred from that to any other—the father could never have made an effectual demand for his child, because he would not have had a magisterial document to which he could refer to prove her entrance into the convent. Now, that is where the law of this country fails. I know of instances—and can produce instances—where parents have had presumptive evidence that their daughters had entered convents; but upon their applying for them they have been met with the answer—"There is no such person here," and some of them have lost their children for ever. That cannot happen in Germany, because there a magisterial list of every entrance into a convent is kept. I ask the House, then, to agree to the appointment of a Commission, which shall consider whether the German law in that respect is not wiser than our own. Is there anything so sacrilegious, anything so uncharitable, or anything so unworthy in that proposal that hon. Members should seek to refuse me leave to introduce a Bill, which will be manipulated by the House, the powers under which will be limited as the House may think best? I am unwilling further to detain the House; but I am sure the House will feel that I am bound to explain my reasons for this Motion. I will now come to the last object which I have in view. It is this—if Parliament thinks fit to concur in the appointment of a Commission, I would not limit the investigations of the Commissioners to the propriety of repealing the clauses of the Act of 1829, upon which, let the House remember, as was positively proved before the Select Committee of 1870, depends the only valid restriction against the unlimited acquisition of property in perpetuity, contrary to the principles of the law of mortmain, by monastic institutions in Scotland, and to a great extent in England. For that is the evidence, as the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Sir Thomas Chambers), who was also a Member of that Com-
  1698
  mittee, will bear me out in asserting. In this matter of property, such have been the decisions of the Courts of Law, such the imperfection of the system of enrolment of deeds, that matters have come to this, and it is an absurd conclusion—as decided in the case of "Cocks v. Manners," that a cloistered convent—a convent, that is, of an Order which is called contemplative in the Roman Catholic vocabulary—that a cloistered convent, through a system of secret trusts, can acquire not only personalty, but impure personalty, such as charges upon land, to almost any extent. But a convent, such as the authorized convents of France—a convent, the inmates of which are engaged in teaching and in works of charity—is debarred from acquiring property under the same unlimited conditions as apply to the cloistered convent. Therefore, the state and practice of the law in this country at present is, that a convent, if it is cloistered, something like a prison, can defeat the law of mortmain; but against such a convent as the law of France approves, the limitation by the laws of this country is still valid. Can anything be more absurd? But I was about to say why I desire that the proposed Commission should inquire into the subject of the increasing disparity between the sexes of this country. There are in England and Scotland, according to the last Census, between 700,000 and 800,000 more women than men; whilst in the colonies the disproportion between the sexes is reversed. Not to detain the House needlessly, I will mention but two instances. In South Australia the excess of the male population over the female is 5,200; and in North-east Australia and Queensland there are 24,000 more men than women. So that literally, in the colonies, the tendency is towards an excess of the male population; whereas there is an increasing excess of the female population in the mother country. There is a most excellent person, known I believe to some Members of the House—a Miss Eye, a lady who has devoted herself to a work of charity in a manner that every Christian, and every man possessed of the feelings of a man, must applaud. She has been engaged in the work of collecting together girls who are without parents, orphan or deserted, and has spent years of her life in travelling from England to the colonies to

  1699
  find homes for these poor orphan girls. The undertaking may have seemed to be somewhat Quixotic; but Miss Eye has made it a work of practical charity. Already she has found homes in the colonies for 600 orphans through her own exertions. Would it not, then, be a work of benevolence on the part of the House—would it not be worthy the character of the House, if it were to appoint a Commission to inquire whether, by some legislative or administrative arrangements, the Governors of the colonies and some of the public Departments at home might not co-operate to perpetuate the work of mercy and of charity which Miss Rye is carrying on? Now what, it will be asked, is the connection existing between this subject and the supervision which I would have exercised over convents in this country? Sir, there have been but one or two cases in which a judicial tribunal has been able effectually to reach a person who was unwillingly detained in a convent; one of those is in the Colwich case. I have a long correspondence here in reference to that case, in which the Roman Catholic authorities tried to shake the evidence that was adduced respecting it, and to impugn the authority of the late Mr. Justice Wightman, and my veracity in stating what had been done. That case, when I brought it before the House in 1865, touched the feelings of the House. It was the case of a Miss Selby, who, having escaped from the convent at Colwich, had been recaptured and brought back. After a most protracted and difficult investigation by expert detective officers, and by other persons under the authority of Mr. Justice Wightman, sufficient proof was collected to enable him not to put the Habeas Corpus Act in operation, but merely that, as a Judge, he should think it possible to do so. It was proved by the admission of the lady superior of the convent at Colwich that Miss Selby had been removed to a convent at Wimborne in Dorsetshire. Mr. Justice Wightman was informed of that; and he said, that it was necessary to the ends of justice, and to action under the Habeas Corpus Act, that the persons engaged in the case should go down to Wimborne and demand to see Miss Selby; and if, when they saw Miss Selby, she stated that she was detained in the convent against her will, that then, and then only, he, as a Judge, had
  1700
  power under the Act to issue an order for her being released from the convent. That shows how lame our law is, for persons may easily be concealed in convents, and the law cannot be enforced except upon sworn evidence that they have been found in a convent, to which there is no admittance for those who would procure evidence. Well, Miss Selby was discovered; and here I have the statement which was returned to Mr. Justice Wightman by the persons he employed and authorized to go down and see Miss Selby. They informed her that if she wished to leave the convent the Judge would issue an order for her release. This was her reply—"No, I cannot leave now." Again she repeated—"No, I cannot, I must not leave now. I embraced the convent life and took the veil at the early age of 18, with the earnest desire of devoting my best years to God, and serving him in a way I then considered most for his glory, and I cannot now turn my back upon Him." I saw that her resolution was taken, and that it was vain to attempt to shake it. It appeared likewise to be a relief to her, as if she had now time to arrange her thoughts, and she quietly said—"What could I do if I left? All my relations and friends are Roman Catholics, and they would turn their back upon me, and what do I know of life?" Now, those words show the coercive power which the relations of this lady, acting under the directions of their religious teachers, under the stern authority of the Canon law, according to the doctrines of Liguori, exercised. For, if this poor woman had quitted the convent, she declared that her relations would have left her helpless, perhaps cast upon the streets. It is from this point of view, then, that I connect this subject of the emigration of women with the proposal to inquire whether the same means for ascertaining the state of these convents should not be adopted in England and Scotland as are provided in every other civilized country, excepting perhaps the United States of America. In the United States they are as far behind in legislation upon this subject as we are; but there is a rough kind of justice there of considerable power. It does not wait for tedious legal proceedings. If a sufficient number of the American people suspect that anyone is confined in a monastery or convent

  1701
  against his or her will, they make short work of it, and by means of a Vigilance Committee speedily open the doors which had been closed against them, and set the prisoner free. There is evidence of that having been done in the United States; but I do not cite it as a precedent to be acted upon in England. This I do say, however—that it would be merciful, that it would be charitable, that it would be acting in the spirit of the laws of the Roman Catholic States to which I have referred, if the Commissioners whom I propose should be appointed were to inquire whether, supposing an unwilling nun were discovered in a convent, she might not be provided with the means of emigrating to one of our colonies; seeing that it is deemed to be a religious duty by some Roman Catholic families not to receive back one of their members, if once she shall have taken the vows and the veil. Would it not be merciful and just that if it be discovered that some inmates of convents desire to leave the conventual life, means for their emigration to the colonies should be provided? I merely ask to be allowed to introduce the frame of a Bill which the House will have before them on the second reading; and then, in Committee, if it should appear that there is anything rash, improper, or extravagant in its provisions, the wisdom of the House will no doubt correct it. I trust the House will not treat the earnest and righteous Petitions of many thousands of our fellow-countrymen with such contempt as to refuse their request because it is preferred by the hon. Member whom these persons have chosen to represent them, so far as to obtain permission to introduce and lay upon the Table of the House a measure embodying the proposals I have explained to the House. I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the increase and character of monastic and conventual institutions in Great Britain; into the conditions under which property or income is held by or for such institutions; and whether in contravention of the principle of the laws against superstitious uses and against the tenure of property in mortmain; and, further, to inquire what regulations are needed with respect to convents, and under what circumstances and securities it may be desirable to promote the emigration of women.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for appointing Commissioners to inquire respecting Monastic and Conventual Institutions in Great Britain, and for purposes connected therewith."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, that having been a Member of the Committee of 1870, which had sat to inquire into this subject, he trusted the House, whatever might be its ultimate opinion as to the advisability of permitting the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to introduce a Bill dealing with the question, would permit him to answer some representations as to matters of fact which had been made by the hon. Member. The Committee which had sat from the commencement until the end of the Session of 1870 had been occupied for the most part with listening to the evidence of witnesses called by the hon. Gentleman, and to the irrelevant questions which he had put to them. Having trespassed upon the forbearance of the Committee to that extent, the hon. Gentleman on the reassembling of the Committee last year to present its Report had retired from it in order to leave himself free to attack the Report when it was presented. The hon. Member said it was due to the Roman Catholics of this country that such a measure as he proposed should be adopted; but he (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) thought that surely the sisters and daughters of Catholics were the persons most affected; and he thought that if there were wrongs, it might be loft to their own friends to vindicate the wrongs of which the hon. Gentleman seemed to wish to constitute himself the avenger. Any hon. Gentleman who had read the proceedings of the Committee would come to the conclusion that the matter had been fully investigated, however great the irritation that might be caused. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the laws of other countries on this subject. He (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) did not know what the acquaintance of the hon. Gentleman with the laws of those countries might be; but he would venture to tell the hon. Gentleman that he was very much mistaken in the views he held of the laws of this country. The laws of this country were amply sufficient to prevent any persons being confined in convents against their will. The very inmates of lunatic asylums had the

  1703
  power of compelling inquiry into the cause of their detention; and in like manner, if any person was detained in a convent against her will, the law, on the fact being established, would afford summary relief by restoring the person to liberty. That was one of the well-known privileges of the subjects of this country. The hon. Member in advocating an investigation before the Committee, told the House that there were 215 convents, 30 monasteries, and 131 parochial residences; but the hon. Member stated there was some difficulty in getting at the details. The hon. Member produced on several occasions the Catholic Directory, which was a document compiled by a Catholic clergyman for the very purpose of giving the most minute information as to the locality of these institutions. When the gentleman who superintended the publication of that directory (the Rev. Mr. Johnson) was before the Committee, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire asked him if it were accurate in every particular, and the witness gave the only answer possible for him to give—that he had endeavoured to make it accurate by sending out circulars to every Catholic institution in England and Scotland, but that he could not vouch for the accuracy of every particular. But that book contained substantially the information on which the whole public relied as to the number and objects of these institutions. With regard to the various cases to which the hon. Member referred—the English girl who was detained in France, and the German girl who was brought back to Liverpool—as the circumstances were not within his knowledge he would not attempt to explain them. But what occurred in Germany or France was by no means relevant to the question in this country. The hon. Member stated that the law of mortmain did not apply to one class of convents while it applied to another class; but everybody who knew anything about those institutions knew that the property was necessarily vested in trustees, who might be called to account for its administration, though, no doubt, a great deal depended on their honour, as in most cases there was no declaration of trust. However, the fact was, that no complaint was ever made of the conduct of the trustees. The hon. Member had widened the field of discussion by introducing—he would
  1704
  not say dragging in—the question of emigration, the connection of which with the Motion was not very clear. The question of emigration ought not to be introduced as a religious question, or in connection with a subject insulting to any portion of the community; it ought to be dealt with as a broad social question, and if it had been brought before the House in that spirit he presumed no Member of the House would object to the introduction and discussion of it. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire must see that in importing this element into the question he was evincing a spirit which he (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) would not characterize, and which he trusted the House would not encourage. With regard to the introduction of the proposed Bill, he could say for himself he had no particular objection to its being brought in; but it would be exceedingly objectionable if the hon. Member had been allowed to make the statements to the House which he had made, and to draw the conclusions which he had drawn, without any reply, thereby allowing the country to assume that they could not be answered. Whether the Bill was read a first time or not was a matter which rested with the House to determine.
  MR. MATTHEWS, referring to the complaint by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), as to the unusual course which had been taken to dissuade him from making any statements on the present occasion, by promising that his Bill should be allowed to be introduced without opposition, said, he did not know from what source these intimations proceeded, but all he could say was that the hon. Member had done his best to draw upon himself that kind of opposition by the course which he pursued. It was not usual to make a second-reading speech on the occasion of the first reading of a Bill, as the hon. Member had done. The hon. Member had also complained that he had been asked to abstain from topics which—he would not say irritated, because that was not a word strong enough—but which excited the most passionate resentment among those whose nearest and dearest relatives were struck at with something like contumely by the arguments the hon. Member used. He was not surprised that the friends of those whose lives were spent in these

  1705
  institutions should appeal to him not to use arguments and allude to topics which only gave unnecessary offence. As to the conduct of the Committee, he endorsed everything that had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock). He also had been a Member of that Committee, and had sat through long sultry July days listening to the most irrelevant evidence tendered by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. And what did that evidence amount to? The hon. Member, having the most ample verge and scope, literally proved nothing. The whole information which was contained in the Blue Book was voluntarily laid before the Committee by the friends of the religious Orders. The hon. Member spent one long summer day after another in producing persons who kept rate books and public registers, to show that certain property was held by such institutions; but not one single grievance, evil, or act of wrong-doing in respect of the property could he adduce. Nothing that required redress did he succeed in bringing before the Committee. It did seem an unusual course, therefore, to come back to the House and ask for a Parliamentary Commission to do over again what had been done before, and to do also what the House of Commons had refused in 1870 to permit. The House had refused to inquire into the character of monastic institutions—it refused to inquire into the private lives of blameless ladies. Since the days of Torque-mada no one had exhibited such a genius for inquisition as the hon. Member. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had again reverted to the Colwich case, regarding which he should have thought that the hon. Member had heard enough in 1870. The hon. Member's mention of the Colwich case had led to a correspondence which he should have thought the hon. Gentleman would not have desired to hear of again. It amounted to this. The hon. Member had charged something which amounted to a crime against some ladies of birth and respectability living in a house in the county in which he was a magistrate, and which he represented. The brother of one of the ladies, Sir Charles Clifford, came forward, and said—"Sir, you have ventured in public to allege against the community of a house in your own county, and within your own
  1706
  jurisdiction, that which, if true, should have been prosecuted at the time—which, if true, ought to have been proved, and is capable of being proved now—and which, if false, ought to be retracted. I, therefore, as the brother of one of the ladies, call upon you to prove your charge, or to retract it." But the answer of the hon. Member was—"I prefer sheltering myself under the privilege of Parliament; I will neither come forward and prove the charge against your sister, nor will I retract." Thereupon the correspondence closed with a letter by Sir Charles Clifford, to the effect that the hon. Member had availed himself of the privilege of Parliament to cast upon a community of ladies the most shameful imputation, and when called upon to prove or to retract the allegation, he had sheltered himself under the privilege of Parliament. Sir Charles Clifford went on to say that he was therefore of opinion that the hon. Member was guilty either of compounding a felony, or of refusing to make reparation for an accusation which was founded on underhand evidence which was utterly worthless. Sir Charles Clifford added that he was happy to think the hon. Member was the only man in the country who, after having inflicted so cruel an injury, would have followed the course which he had chosen to adopt, a course which must be reprobated by every English gentleman. And what, he should like to know, if the hon. Gentleman believed in the truth of that which he stated, was become of the law of Habeas Corpus, which they had been accustomed in this country to rely upon as a sufficient security for their liberties? In 1870, foreseeing that an inquiry with respect to the property of proscribed persons—such as monks—was about to be instituted, he (Mr. Matthews) had taken the liberty of moving that it be an Instruction to the Committee not to ask the witnesses any questions which might lead to the forfeiture of their property or to personal penalties. But the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government reproved him on that occasion by telling him that the Committee would consist of English gentlemen, and that no such questions would be asked. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire, himself, speaking that very night, said that no Committee of the House of Commons

  1707
  would put questions which would oblige witnesses to criminate themselves, and which might involve the loss of their property. The hon. Gentleman, nevertheless, proceeded in the Committee to attempt to put inquisitorial questions which might have led to the very results which he had just mentioned, and brought about the instant forfeiture of property. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: They do hold property, then?] Yes; and that, he hoped, would long be the case. The temper of the House and the country would not, he felt satisfied, sanction the confiscation of property which was devoted to works of the utmost utility and advantage. From resources extremely small, the best possible results to the community were produced, and instead of following with such relentless hostility the institutions by which so much good was done, the hon. Gentleman ought to be glad to see similar institutions spread among his own co-religionists, for it was only by their action that the deficiencies of the parochial system could be satisfactorily supplied. The hon. Gentleman did not spare the Oratory in the course of his inquiries, and did not hesitate to say that when he endeavoured to supply the defects of the evidence, the Committee had turned upon him and put an end to that line of examination. Anyone, however, who chose to look in the Blue Book could see that the hon. Member had consumed four or five days in endeavouring to prove that the Oratorians were monks; and at last the Committee, out of pure exhaustion, told him that he might take it that they were quasi-monks, but thereupon the hon. Gentleman stopped and had not another syllable to say about the Oratorians. Thus was the time of the House of Commons consumed year after year by such inquiries, which could be productive of no public utility, while they were objectionable in the highest degree to large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects. For his (Mr. Matthews') part, he would not take the unusual course of dividing against the first reading of the Bill, which might lie on the Table as one of the curiosities of literature, but he should oppose it in its subsequent stages.
  MR. GREENEexpressed his surprise that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Matthews), after what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for
  1708
  North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), should have made a long speech, as if the present stage of the Bill were the second reading. It was all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to have made such a speech; but he should like to recall to his recollection the time when the Motion of his hon. Friend on the same subject was lost by a majority of 2—when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, with all the subtlety of which he was so great a master, succeeded in taking out of it all the point. He could corroborate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that he had been told if he did not make a speech the Bill would be allowed to be introduced. If there were not something in these institutions that required investigation, the voice of the country would not have been so loud in favour of such an inquiry. Speaking for himself, he had no wish to do anything harsh towards his fellow-Catholics—[A laugh]—towards his fellow-subjects; but he was sorry to say that Roman Catholicism was not confined to Roman Catholics themselves. There was a large number of Members in that House who silently sympathized with it, and it was well the matter should be considered by the constituencies of the country, for it was undoubtedly an electoral question. It was clear that Romanism was making rapid strides, and that members of that persuasion were holding property in contravention of the laws of the land. Now, that was a point which he, as well as his hon. Friend, wished to have inquired into, while they were also desirous of assisting the weak against the strong. Parliament had passed a law for the protection of the Irish tenant; and why, he should like to know, should not poor women be protected and enabled, if they desired it, to regain their liberty? If there were convents and monasteries, why, he should like to know, should they not be subjected to proper regulations? When the proper time arrived he had no doubt his hon. Friend would be able satisfactorily to dispose of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down.
  MR. PEMBERTON, while reserving what he had to say on the subject for a future occasion, did not think it was fair to hon. Gentlemen professing the Roman Catholic religion that the rest of the House should suppose that their testi-

  1709
  mony alone was all that could be adduced in reference to the proceedings before the Committee. He most thoroughly endorsed everything that they had said as to the proceedings before the Committee. A more wanton waste of time was never incurred, and a weaker case was never brought before a Committee of the House of Commons, without so much as a tittle of evidence to support the charges which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) had made.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, that the greater part of the speeches of hon. Members who opposed that and similar Motions always consisted of assertions that any such inquiries implied an insult to those of the same religion as themselves. He denied that there was any foundation for such an allegation. His principal reason for supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire was, that he believed proper securities were not provided by the law of this country for the liberty of persons who had entered convents. The hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) told the House that the law of Habeas Corpus afforded sufficient security. That statement appeared to him (Mr. Aytoun) entirely contrary to fact. How was it possible for the inmates of convents to bring the law of Habeas Corpus into operation? Supposing anyone to be in prison, the law of Habeas Corpus could be put into operation only by someone outside the prison. What means, then, had the inmate of a convent of applying for a writ of Habeas Corpus? We might be told that the friends of the person who wished to obtain her liberty might apply. But it might so happen that those very persons did not wish that the law should be put into execution. The hon. and learned Member cited, in support of his argument, the case of the inmates of lunatic asylums. For his own part, he should be perfectly content if ladies in convents were placed on the same footing in respect to securities for their freedom as the inmates of lunatic asylums. The hon. and learned Member had stated that the law applied equally to each case; but failed to show that such was the fact. Roman Catholic Members said—"You need have no fear for the security of the ladies in convents, because their relations are all honourable people, and any inquiry on the subject would be an insult to them." In 99
  1710
  instances out of 100 it was quite true that the relatives of the inmates of convents might be relied upon to afford them protection, and in 999 cases out of 1,000 the Protestant relatives of lunatics might be trusted to do the same. But for all that, the law of this country was rightly founded on the certainty that there would always be persons who would sacrifice justice and humanity to their own interests. Accordingly, Inspectors were appointed to go round and inquire whether the inmates of lunatic asylums were properly detained. He maintained, therefore, that the same security should be provided in the one case as in the other.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had appealed piteously to the House to protect him from the machinations of the Roman Catholic Members, who wished to tie the tongue of that zealous advocate of Protestantism. But there was no such desire on the part of Roman Catholic Members. So far from that, the hon. Member was informed that the usual courtesy of not opposing the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill would be extended to him, provided he confined himself to the Motion. But the hon. Gentleman was determined to take a very different course, and not only to make a second-reading speech on the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill, but to import into that speech personal charges, and therefore he must not be surprised if an answer were given to them. The hon. Member had previously related stories which were afterwards shown to be worthless, and from that fact the House might judge of the weight to be attached to the stories he had related to-day. The hon. Member had always shrunk from making assertions where they could be tested—in a Court of Law—either at his own instance, or at the instance of those whom he had libelled. The hon. Member's charges were vague, and yet most sweeping. He asserted that there was not a single country in Europe in which there was not legislation of the kind that he advocated. The fact was, that in Prance, with one exception, the legal position of religious Orders was precisely the same as it was in England. In Protestant Holland religious communities were free in every respect, and in Belgium the legislation was similar to what it was in France. In Prussia, also, there was no

  1711
  such repressive legislation as had been represented. He contended that the individual cases which the hon. Member had brought forward were not worthy of credence. He should reserve all further observation until the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he could assure the House that he should not endeavour to prolong the debate, and he would follow the advice of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and reserve what he had to say upon the principle of the measure until the second reading. But it appeared to him that hon. Members had taken rather an unusual course, and if he had come suddenly into the House he should have supposed that they were discussing the second reading. It was the first time that he had heard the first reading of a Bill discussed in that way, and he was surprised that the Government had not upon such a monstrous Bill expressed an opinion. He thought that they should have imitated the example to which reference had been made, and joined the Oratorians. It would have been satisfactory to that House, because was ever before Notice given of such a Bill as that? He made the greatest allowance for his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate), whom he had known for many years, and whose sincerity he did not question; he knew the goodness—the softness of his heart—and how he really thought that he was doing an act of charity to those ladies, who had been by the hon. Member from Scotland (Mr. Aytoun) likened to lunatics. But he did not expect when his hon. Friend had his hobby, that he would propose a roving Commission not only to inquire into the state of the ladies in those convents, but to send it to the colonies also. There never was such a thing heard of as a Parliamentary Commission not only to inquire into the state of the ladies, but under what circumstances and securities it would be desirable to promote the emigration of women, and the House was seriously asked to pass a Bill for that purpose. He thought that his hon. Friends and Colleagues from Ireland might satisfy themselves without debating this Bill. They all knew what it was. The hon. Member had fired his petronel at these unfortunate ladies, and they should let him bring in his Bill. They might depend upon it that they would never hear any more about it. He had made his speech, and his
  1712
  faithful Sancho Panza upon that side of the House had supported him. That being so, he said—"In God's name let him bring in his Bill!" If there was an inquiry as to the emigration of women, and the hon. Member could call his friend Miss Eye before another Committee, what harm could come of it? People outside the House knew very well the craze of his hon. Friend and respected his sincerity. But the House would do well now to go to a practical subject, and leave his hon. Friend to the emigration of women.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANcomplained that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had cast imputations upon hon. Members without naming them, with reference to a statement that his Motion would be opposed unless he brought it on without making a speech.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that if the discussion at such a stage was unusual, and if unacceptable remarks had been made in the course of it, the result was mainly due to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who had diverged into irrelevant topics, sure to excite strong feeling among many Members of that House. Hon. Members who had been justly moved to anger by some of the statements of the hon. Member would, however, exercise a wise discretion in not opposing the introduction of the Bill; because, though there were objections to the mode in which the hon. Member proposed to proceed, and objections to certain parts of the proposed inquiry, it could not be denied that there were other parts of the subject which demanded inquiry. It was notorious to all that the taking of monastic vows in this country rendered the taker subject to an indictment for misdemeanour. The support of monastic institutions in this country was also illegal. But such institutions had been established in this country, and a great number of persons had taken monastic vows in this country. It was beyond a doubt that large sums of money had been contributed for the purpose of supporting these institutions. The law which those persons had broken was unreasonable, and contrary to the more enlightened opinions of the present time. Whether the particular measure which the hon. Gentleman proposed was the right one was a subject as to which he must reserve his opinion; but there could be no doubt that the present

  1713
  state of the law justified the introduction of a measure on the subject.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, in reply, said: I thank the House most sincerely for accepting the Motion I propose, to the request made at the instance of many thousand Petitioners. I shall not notice much that has been said in this debate; but I desire for one moment to be allowed to advert to something like an impeachment of my personal honour which fell from the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The hon. Member has quoted one letter of a correspondence, and upon that letter has thought fit to condemn my conduct. The hon. Member seems not to be aware that I published that correspondence. The point of the hon. Member's remarks was this—that I had made allegations, which were offensive to certain Roman Catholic persons, with respect to what had occurred in the convent at Colwich. Now, whatever I said on that subject was but the reading of the affidavits upon which the late Mr. Justice Wightman acted; and when the offensive comments, the hon. Member has quoted, were made, the only reservation I made was this—that until I could obtain a Committee of the House of Commons, or some competent Court for the protection of the witnesses, I would not appear before any tribunal. That was the only reservation I made. And what, Sir, would have been the use of my appearing without my witnesses? Besides, I had reason to know that I should not have been justified in producing witnesses, unless they were covered with the protection of the privilege of this House or of the law. That was my reason for refusing to appear before any extemporized tribunal. In conclusion, I have to thank the House for having reversed that which I was positively informed had been the intention of some hon. Members. [An hon. MEMBER: Who informed you?] I will tell the hon. Member in private. I was so informed by two hon. Members before I applied to a higher authority. Five or six weeks ago I was told—but I will not repeat a private conversation—that I was to be opposed. I rejoice, however, that hon. Members have abandoned that intention, and I thank the House for giving me leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. COLLINSwished to mention that he had recently visited the Priory of Colwich, and had heard the superiors there speak in the highest terms of his
  1714
  hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Although they believed him to have certain prejudices, they had unbounded confidence in his honesty of purpose. They added, that if his hon. Friend would visit the Priory they would be glad to afford him all the information in their power.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for appointing Commissioners to inquire respecting Monastic and Conventual Institutions in Great Britain, and for purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. HOLT, and Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.—LEAVE.
  MR. CANDLISH, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the twenty-fifth Clause of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, said, he had no desire to assail that Act, his impression being that it was an excellent measure, conceived in an exceedingly good spirit, and calculated, with certain Amendments, to be a blessing to the country. It had, however, some defects, as was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in his speech at Greenwich; by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council; and, indeed, by the House itself, on the discussion of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon). He did not intend to enter into a general discussion of the imperfections of the Act, but rather to confine himself to the 25th section, which he sought to have repealed. He believed that if the Bill were taken up by the Government it would not occupy the House of Commons more than a single night. Wherever that section had been brought into operation it produced acrimony and bitterness. It enacted to the effect that any school board, if they thought fit, might pay the school fees payable in any public elementary school by any child resident in their district whose parent, in their opinion, was unable to pay the same; but that no such payment should be made or refused on condition that the child should attend any public elementary school other than such as might be selected by the parent. The first objection to that section was that a local school board might or might not pay fees for any children educated within their district, and that there would be no uniformity throughout the

  1715
  country on that subject. The school board elected under the Act had no control whatever over the teaching which had been given in the elementary schools, their sole duty being to pay a proportion of the school fees of the children taught. This being so, it was but natural to ask how the clause got into the Bill. His own impression was that it was not intended by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) to form part of the Bill. Indeed, he said that he had never anticipated the action of this clause to be what it had proved to be. The objections to the clause remaining in the Bill were, to his thinking, overwhelmingly strong. The first objection was that it was opposed to the principle of the measure itself. The principle of the clause was, that the school boards might invoke the power and forces of the Civil Government to compel the ratepayers to pay for the maintenance and propagation of a religion in which they did not believe. That was a principle, which in his opinion nothing could justify. A further objection to the clause was that it was at variance with the general principle of the Act, inasmuch as in other portions of the Bill it was laid down that the State contributions for teaching should not be made in respect of any instruction in religious subjects, and that they should be granted for secular teaching only. In June, 1870, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government distinctly stated that the funds of the State should be applied to secular results only. Now he (Mr. Candlish) submitted that the 25th clause was in direct antagonism to the principle which he had then laid down. The 7th clause of the Act separated religious from secular education; and the 14th clause provided that no religious catechism or formulary which was distinctive of any particular denomination, should be taught in rated-aided schools. The 97th clause provided that no Parliamentary grant should be given in respect of any instruction in religious subjects. A further objection to the clause was a requisition set out before the House, to the effect that the parent should have the power to choose the religious instruction which his child should receive. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) must now be quite aware that he had no power to secure the condition which he desiderated. He knew that when there was but one
  1716
  school and two creeds, some of the parents could not have the religous instruction which they desired for their children. Another strong reason against the clause was the bitterness, the heartburning, and contention to which it gave rise throughout the country wherever it had been put into operation. He feared that those contentions and heart burnings would never be allayed so long as the clause was allowed to exist. In the borough of Sunderland, which he had the honour to represent, there had been much of the contention to which he referred. The school board issued a precept for £1,800 to be raised by an education rate, and of this sum £600 was to be used for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 25th clause of the Act. This proposal was resisted by the town council; an angry and acrimonious discussion followed. A public meeting was held, a memorial signed by 7,500—being an absolute majority of the ratepayers—was presented to the school board to forego the operation of the 25th clause. Great hostility and bitterness was the result. There was as present a temporary truce; but each party was lying in wait till November, when the question would influence the election in every municipal ward in the borough. And what had taken place in Sunderland was characteristic and typical of the troubles that had been excited in the great majority of the places in which the clause had come into operation. For these reasons, he asked leave to introduce this Bill. It had formed part of the Education Act inadvertently—at least, its ill consequences had never been anticipated. In Liverpool it had been said by a noble Lord of high position that the clause was essential to religious liberty, and that its opponents were hostile to religious teaching. It was, in his opinion, absolutely absurd to say that it was essential to religious liberty. ["Oh, oh!"] Did hon. Gentleman opposite mean to say that to compel a contribution for religious teaching against the will of the contributor was a measure in favour of religious liberty? If so, it was rather more than he could understand. To compel a parent to contribute to the education of another man's child in a religion of which he did not approve was a religious liberty which he, for one, would rather be without. To give an Englishman an opportunity of having

  1717
  his child taught religion according to his views was religious liberty; but it was completely opposed to that principle to force contributions from others who were opposed to such religious teaching. Was he to contribute for the purpose of teaching children a kind of Christianity opposed to his own? [An hon. MEMBER: It is a Government grant.] He was perfectly willing that grants should be made for secular purposes; but that did not touch the principle of religious liberty at all. It was clear to his mind that if they permitted this clause to continue to form part of the law, and insisted on a man contributing for religious teaching, they were depriving him of religious liberty. The question was not whether they should or not impart to the children a religious education, but who should impart it, and who should pay for it. Our Christianity was the common property of the nation, and the whole population of the realm would rejoice if religious teaching could be more copiously imparted to the children of the land; but would the Vice President of the Council of Education argue it was just to make a Jew pay for the religious teaching of a Christian? He would appeal to the experience of hon. Members, whether there was a single parent in this country who, if he wanted his child to receive religious teaching in his own tenets, could not obtain such instruction from the general Christianity and humanity of the country? He contended that this clause was not necessary to accomplish the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that, if the statements which had been made as to the acrimony and bitterness excited all over the country by this clause could be proved, the question was one that did not admit of delay, but one that must be dealt with immediately. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER intimated dissent.] He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had said so—that if it could be shown that the clause was embroiling domestic circles and sowing the seeds of discord broad-cast, it ought to be dealt with at once. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Hear, hear!] He submitted that he had proved that this was the case, and he therefore trusted that the House would not refuse him the opportunity of bringing in the Bill, inasmuch as the evils produced by the
  1718
  clause would be aggravated by further delay, and that the interval of another year could throw no fresh light either upon their character or the proper method of their cure.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the twenty-fifth Clause of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."—(Mr. Candlish.)
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he should give a direct negative to the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill. The 25th clause was an integral part and parcel of the Education Act of 1870, and was indispensable to its proper working. The object of the vast majority of hon. Members and the public out-of-doors in approving of that Act was, that it should supplement existing educational deficiencies, and that it should not establish fresh schools where adequate ones were already in operation. It was perfectly understood that it would place on a footing of absolute equality the voluntary schools and those to be created by the school boards. The object of the hon. Member was, no doubt, different. He wanted to see the establishment of what he called a national system of education. Now, the Act did establish a system of public elementary schools, all of them secular ones. It was the strength and essence of the new system that no person should be compelled to have religious instruction imparted to his children if he disapproved of it. No doubt, a Conscience Clause could not be dispensed with; but, at the same time, the immense majority of the people of England had shown, in the most emphatic manner, that they wished the elements of religion to be imparted to their children. He believed that in every school board the principle had been admitted that the Bible, at least should be read, and in the vast majority that it should be suitably explained; in the metropolis he was under the impression that that principle had been admitted without successful, or even serious, opposition. The argument of the hon. Member, therefore, about the injustice done to the ratepayers by taking money out of their pockets for the teaching of religion was worth nothing, for it was clear that his views on the subject were wholly antagonistic to those of the great mass of his fellow-countrymen, and that the clause did no injury to their consciences. To be logical, the hon. Member

  1719
  ought to have objected to the reading and teaching of the Bible at all in the board schools. But it was not a question of principle with the hon. Member; it was one of objection to denominational schools, and that was the root of the whole matter. He would have religious education given everywhere in board schools to which all ratepayers contributed, and yet he opposed the payment of fees to denominational schools, thus straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. With regard to the way in which the Parliamentary grant must be made, the Act distinctly provided that the school should not necessarily be connected with any particular denomination, and no Cabinet Minister, whatever his position, was permitted, without first obtaining the assent of Parliament, to give a preference to one school over another, because schools of all creeds, or of none, were equally good in the eye of the law for giving an elementary education to the poor—they were equally protected by a common Conscience Clause, and examined by the same Inspectors. In this respect, therefore, the State, rightly or wrongly, repudiated the teaching of religion in the schools so aided. All it cared to do was, that something substantial should be given in the form of secular education in return for the contributions of the taxpayers. Rightly to understand the Act it was necessary to read Clauses 25, 26, and 17 together, for they were based on exactly the same principle as the 97th clause, which dealt with public grants paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and laid down the broad, intelligible principle, that all public elementary schools should be treated in exactly the same way, so far as grants from the Treasury were concerned. With reference to local grants, Clause 25 provided that they might pay the fees at any public elementary school in the district. Nothing was said about the denominational character of the school; so that it might be a secular one, where no religion whatever was taught, and where a parent, preferring a secular school, might send his child to be taught. It was likewise provided, in Clause 26, that in certain cases free schools might be established. Clause 17 provided that where the parents of a child attending a board school were extremely poor they might remit the school pence. After reading these clauses together the House
  1720
  would at once see that the hon. Member was flying in the very teeth of the Act of Parliament, by placing schools that were in the hands of voluntary managers in a worse position than the board schools. Were the hon. Member's Motion agreed to the Bill would be made lopsided. But there were higher grounds on which the question might be considered. For his part, he would like to see the principle of compulsion extended beyond its present limit. He was willing that the system of school boards should be extended; but on the principle only that the people of this country, and especially the representatives of the Nonconformists, must first get rid of the idea of these being religious schools, and that they must hereafter recognize them as secular schools, since parents who objected to religious teaching were protected by a Conscience Clause. Nine parents out of ten who could afford to pay for their children's education sent them by preference to a school of their own creed; but if this clause were expunged from the Act the poor would have only one sort of school to which to send their children. They would be treated worse than criminals, for our gaols were now provided with ministers according to the creeds of the prisoners. The Protestant ratepayers of the West Riding of Yorkshire were required to contribute towards the support of the Roman Catholic chaplains attending Wakefield Gaol; why, then, should not they contribute towards sending Roman Catholic vagrant children to a school of their own denomination? And since the same Government Inspector examined schools of all denominations, why should not a poor person be permitted to choose a Roman Catholic school for his child if it were certified as efficient? To forbid him to do so was irreligious intolerance. Hon. Members opposite spoke as if they really represented the people of England; but were they aware that not a single school board had prohibited the teaching of religion? The result of these school board elections showed a strong determination that religion should form part and parcel of the education given in elementary schools to those children whose parents did not object to such teaching. A similar testimony was borne by the Parliamentary elections of Plymouth, Tamworth, Dover, and the West Riding of

  1721
  Yorkshire. How had this new-born zeal of the Nonconformists arisen in reference to this question? Ever since the passing of Denison's Act pauper children had been paid for out of the rates at public elementary schools—schools that were unprotected by a Conscience Clause. What had all that new-born zeal been about, while that principle had been applied for the last 10 or 12 years? It was no new principle to which they had now woke up. The hon. Member for Sunderland was endeavouring to compel every parish, although it might have an excellent school within its area, to which no one objected, to set up union schools, and instead of sending a few poor children to be educated with the rest of the parochial children, send them to pauper schools. Under ordinary circumstances he should not oppose the introduction of this Bill, for he would prefer to have taken the decision on the second reading; but the hon. Member for Sunderland had gone very near the wind in contravening the clause in this House. Substantially the question had been decided already. This was really not the first reading of the Bill. It was the old question over again. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) on the 5th March brought forward Resolutions—"That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of the Elementary Education Act were defective, and its working unsatisfactory, and that it allowed school boards to pay fees out of rates levied upon the community, to denominational schools, over which the ratepayers had no control." It was moved as an Amendment that "the time which had elapsed since the passing of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, and the progress which had been made in the arrangements under it, were not such as to enable this House to enter with advantage upon a review of its provisions." In point of fact, they had had the clause debated on this Motion by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. The question was fully discussed; and by a majority of 355 to 94, or about 3½ to 1, the principle of this clause was affirmed. What, he should like to know, was the use of having Rules if a question which had been thoroughly thrashed out at the commencement of a Session might be again revived a few weeks afterwards? Although, technically, the hon. Member for Sunderland was justified in bringing
  1722
  forward this question, yet, substantially, he was not, and, therefore, he thought it right to say "No" to the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. F. S. POWELLregretted that the hon. Members for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) and Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had made up their minds to disturb the Education Act of 1870. That Act was a compromise—a compromise, however, in a good sense, because it recognized the forces of the country, because it gave fair play to those forces, and because, on the whole, it did no injustice. He would remind the hon. Gentlemen to whom he alluded that if they attempted to take bricks out of a structure built with so much care, there were other hon. Members in the House who objected to, and would endeavour to alter, other portions of the measure. While he agreed with much that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), he did not share the desire that school boards should become universal. He had no desire to see the existing machinery disturbed in cases where the work of education was by its means being completely and satisfactorily carried forward. It was probable that in many cases a school board, when elected, would begin to levy taxation and to impose regulations which would render the cause of education unpopular where it had previously been popular. He attached little weight to the argument that if education was to be compulsory the appointment of school boards must be compulsory also, because he believed other bodies could be appointed who would pass by-laws sufficiently authoritative to enforce the compulsory attendance of children at school. The hon. Member for Sunderland objected to the clause that it gave too wide a discretion to the school boards as far as the payment of school fees was concerned; but this, if a valid objection, applied equally to the whole Act. Next, the hon. Member for Sunderland objected that the parents being ratepayers had no control over the school to the support of which they were compelled to contribute; but this objection had little weight in face of the fact that the Government, representing the whole country, had control over all schools partly maintained by the State, whether they were or were not managed by school boards. The next objection of

  1723
  the hon. Gentleman was one of those high and ethereal ones that were difficult to deal with in Parliament. The hon. Member contended that in all matters appertaining to religion legislation was excluded. In answer to this he contended that, apart from any question of Church establishment or anything of that kind, there must always exist a connection between religion and legislation in any civilized country. It was only by means of legislation that religious bodies could hold their places of worship or schools, or could possess endowments. Therefore, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, when pressed to an issue vanished altogether, or became inapplicable to the question the House was now called upon to discuss. With regard to the objection that the clause was at variance with the spirit of the Education Act, he could only say that it was strange no hon. Member made the discovery in the course of the long debates which preceded the passing of the Act. The hon. Member for Sunderland seemed to be labouring under the impression that because, in order to avoid pressing upon the consciences of any body of persons, the Act contained no direct expression in favour of religious teaching, therefore religious teaching was forbidden. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was of opinion, when he introduced and passed the Act, that the people might be safely trusted with the religious teaching of the rising generation, and that the religious teaching of the country would be better secured by leaving it to the votes of the ratepayers when electing school boards, than by enforcing it under the terms of an Act of Parliament. Such had been the feeling of the country generally, and in London the decision at three recent school board elections had been emphatically in favour of religious teaching. Each election for a vacancy in the School Board had shown the increasing desire of the people that Christian instruction should be given. Another of the hon. Member's objections was that there was no district in England where the faith of all was taught. It must be admitted that schools teaching the faith of all were not equally accessible to all. But his reply to the hon. Member was that, apart from the broad distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and
  1724
  the Jew from both, there was a wide substratum of common opinion, and that the children of the artizan class in the schools to which they were sent were able to receive, and did receive from teachers of different denominations, instruction in religious matters which was not in contradiction to the faith of the parents. And it might be taken as an undoubted fact that Protestant children were sent to schools belonging to different denominations without injury to the feelings of the parents, and without any risk, he was almost going to say, that the child would be detached from the denomination to which the parents belonged, and that to a great degree removed the objection of the hon. Member who ventured to urge it. He was surprised to hear it objected to the clause in question that when it was brought into operation there was contention. They lived in a free country, and he was unwilling to admit that any principle was bad because its enunciation or its carrying out in practice caused contention and dispute. If there had been contentions in Chancery and disputes at municipal elections, owing to the religious part of the question, his answer was that if the law was in that state that such controversies could prevail, it should be changed, so as to give school boards the power of direct rating. The sanitary laws were almost inoperative, because those whose duty it was to carry them out had no power of direct rating. A remedy for this defect formed part of the Government Bill for the reform of those laws. Hon. Members who raised objections to religious education being paid for out of the rates must know that for many years past they had been contributing towards Roman Catholic education in Ireland. There could be no doubt that the national system in Ireland was to a large extent a Roman Catholic system, and it was inexplicable to him that those who had concurred in such a system should suddenly find a grievance in the fact that under the English Act education might be given in religious matters to which some of the ratepayers objected. Reference had been made to the circumstance that the Jews might be called upon to contribute towards the education of Christians in Christianity, and the latter to contribute towards the education of the Jew in Jewish dogmas; but he ventured to say they must not

  1725
  legislate for extreme oases. There was an old saying among lawyers that "hard cases make bad laws," and if in matters of education Parliament was to be governed solely by a sense of abhorrence of all hard cases its legislation would not be good for much. He believed that it was the desire of many working men that their children should be educated in religion in the week-day schools, and he was unwilling to deprive them of it. Education in religion in Sunday schools alone would not satisfy the desires of many parents. It would be a great injustice and a great hardship to tell them that they might send their children to Sunday schools to receive instruction in religious matters, but that they should not have religious teaching imparted to their children in the week-day schools. In many cases parents who were entitled to the privilege of having their children educated in rate-aided schools were themselves ratepayers, and it would not be fair to deprive them not only of their inherent right in the matter, but to prevent them from securing in many instances a fair share of the money they had paid towards the rates for the purposes of public education. Living in a civilized community, hon. Members must not weigh these matters too nicely. Society involved a contract, and a contract involved, in rough-and-ready language, the principle of "give and take." He could not understand how any Government could be carried on, if everything were to be swept away to which every person might for the moment take exception. He confessed that he had heard with some surprise the tenderness of conscience which had suddenly arisen, and he would ask, what had these gentlemen of tender conscience been doing for years past for the people in the matter of education; and he should not be far from the truth in saying that the religion of those who were now so conscientious had been during the anxious period when the friends of religious education had been constructing their schools a religion of contemplation, moderation, and theory alone. It was an undoubted fact that the amount levied by rates in aid of schools under Clause 25 had been most limited, because the great sacrifice which the working man made in sending his child to school was not the school-pence, but the wages which the child if not at school would be
  1726
  able to earn. He was convinced that the real objection to sending children to school had not arisen from the weekly pay, but from the inability of the parents to sacrifice the wages which the child was able to earn. He maintained, moreover, that unless they gave the parent a choice of the school to which he would send his child, it would be impossible to carry out the principle of compulsory attendance. They could not in reason or justice oblige the Roman Catholic to send his child to a school-board school which was either secular or Protestant, neither could they impose on their Protestant fellow-citizens a harder yoke than they placed on the Roman Catholic. They would, therefore, be driven back to the 25th clause, which gave liberty of choice alike to Roman Catholic and Protestant. Freedom in a matter of that magnitude and sanctity was the right of the English parent—a right which they had not given, and which they could not not in reason and justice take away. With respect to the question of compulsion a gradual feeling was arising amongst the managers in favour of that principle. The compulsory powers, however, had not yet been largely exercised, and until they were exercised it was impossible to say how much resistance they could encounter on the part of the parents. It was said that controversy and even acrimony had arisen under the operation of that clause; but let it not be supposed that controversy would cease if religion were excluded from the schools. On the contrary, they would have far greater strife and unprecedented agitation. The history of England, in its various vicissitudes, had been deeply affected by religious sentiment, and if they had a purely secular system it would be assailed by a jealousy ever active, by a suspicion which never slept, and by an opposition which would bide its time in order to efface and destroy. If they wished for peace and contentment, they must, as practical men, carry out conscientiously and fully, in the letter and in the spirit, the Education Act of 1870.
  MR. DIXONsaid, that as hon. Gentlemen who had opposed that Motion had alleged as a reason for doing so that the subject had been already discussed this Session, he should have thought they would have spoken more briefly upon it on the present occasion, and he

  1727
  should also have supposed that after the statement which his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) considered it necessary to make in asking leave to introduce his short Bill, it would have been better to have given leave without any further discussion. It was not his intention to answer the arguments of those hon. Gentlemen; but he would content himself with making an appeal to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, and giving reasons why he thought he should not at any rate object to the introduction of that Bill. On the 5th of March, when the debate occurred on the question of education, his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) told the House he was not adverse from some modification of the 25th clause of the Act, but thought it better, on the whole, to allow the subject to rest for the present, and he undertook to bring it forward next Session. It would be advisable, however, for his right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision and deal with the matter at once, because the grievance produced by the operation of the 25th clause was one which was widely and very keenly felt. In Birmingham the school board, who did not represent the majority of the people of the borough, determined to pay the school fees, and issued their precept to the town council to pay them, which the latter declined to obey, and it was only after considerable trouble that the dispute had been deferred for a time. If this clause should be modified or repealed at once no further difficulty would arise in Birmingham; but if the matter should be left over until the next Session difficulties would again arise, the grievance would increase, and every one would admit that Birmingham knew how to make the most of a grievance. He had been assured by an eminent Nonconformist that the grievance was increasing in intensity, and spreading throughout the country; and surely it was unwise on the part of the Government to allow it to do so for a whole year. When the Education Act was passed in 1870, they were distinctly told by the Prime Minister that one condition of granting 50 per cent additional every year to the inspected schools was that the connection between the school boards and the denominational or voluntary schools was to be entirely severed. But by the 25th clause that tie was not
  1728
  severed, and it was because they wished to see it severed that they now asked that the clause should be repealed. He would particularly impress upon the Government that this was an evil of great magnitude, which was being widely felt, and with increasing intensity in the country. It was being felt, too, by those people who had been hitherto the staunchest supporters of the Government; who, when the Government from time to time found itself placed in difficult and perilous circumstances, refused to desert it; and who, with an affection which had long existed, and which they did not wish to see diminished, still clung to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was their hope, and they did not wish that anything should be done which should have the effect of increasing the present irritation, and widening that breach which unfortunately this clause to a great extent had been instrumental in producing. The grievance could be easily removed, and he hoped, therefore, that the Government would not tell them that they would not even allow the Bill to be introduced and read a first time.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should be glad if the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) would show his usual courtesy to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) and would permit his Bill to be brought in and read a first time. He was satisfied that it was the feeling of both sides of the House that to no hon. Member was courtesy more due than to the hon. Member for Sunderland. While saying that, however, and while sincerely deprecating any attempt being made by taking a vote of the House on the subject, to prevent the hon. Member for Sunderland from bringing in his Bill, the Government would be misleading the House and the country if, in the event of a division being taken, they did not vote against the introduction of the measure. He thought that there was something in the objection—that it was an unusual course to bring on this Motion so soon after the Education Bill had been passed. The subject of the 25th clause formed a prominent part of the question raised a short time back by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), who, together with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), urged arguments of great ability in fa-

  1729
  vour of their views; but the House decided by a large majority against an alteration of that clause or other parts of the Bill during the present year. That conclusion was come to by the House on the ground that the time which had elapsed since the passing of the Act and the progress of the arrangements made under it were not such as enabled the House to enter with advantage on a review of the provisions of the Act. He thought he might almost conclude his remarks by this reference to that decision; but he felt it due to the hon. Member for Sunderland and the hon. Member for Birmingham to make some allusion to their statements. He was obliged to the hon. Member for Sunderland for the kind manner in which he had referred to him, and it was matter of regret to him that some of his Friends, with whom he agreed on other matters, did not agree with him on the subject of the 25th clause. It was, however, a misfortune that must happen to every public man who did what he thought right; and, however hardly some of his Friends might think of him, he did not think that they would less respect him if he did what he thought right. His hon. Friend who had just sat down seemed to think that in the six weeks that had elapsed since the previous Motion, the Government should have reconsidered its decision, and have induced the House to do so too. He, however, failed to see that reasoning. Undoubtedly, there were some parts of the country where there was opposition to this clause, and he believed in no place so much as in Sunderland, from local causes, which he believed would gradually disappear. He could not but admit that the school board of Sunderland had, as far as he, judging from a distance, could see, worked this clause in a somewhat extravagant manner; but he had great confidence that the good sense which the hon. Member for Birmingham told them was healing divisions in that town, would in Sunderland also have great effect. The hon. Member said this 25th clause was an excrescence, but the House came to a different decision only six weeks ago; and he would ask the hon. Members to consider the position in which they would be placed by a simple repeal of the clause in question. A very great work was being undertaken
  1730
  by the school boards throughout the country, and they were setting to work not merely to provide the necessary school accommodation, but also to get—and, indeed, to force—children to attend. If they took away from these school boards the power of paying the school fees for poor parents at the present schools, they would, in reality, take away from them the power of enforcing compulsory attendance. Take London, for instance. He admired the gallantry with which the School Board of London was dealing with the educational deficiency. They were incurring very large expenses in giving the necessary accommodation, and they also showed the immense deficiency of attendance in existing schools. There were some 100,000 at least of children uneducated, and they were trying to get them into the schools. If the 25th clause were repealed, how were these children to be got to school? The board schools did not at present exist in London, nor in many of the boroughs of the kingdom. No doubt there were school boards in almost every borough; but there were as yet no board schools in existence to meet the necessities of the case, and still less were they placed in the metropolis and in other large towns, in such situations as to be convenient to the parents. If they set to work to compel children to be sent to schools, they must be ready to meet all reasonable objections. It was not an easy thing to interfere in a man's social life, and insist upon what he should do with regard to his children. If they compelled a poor man to send his child to school they must pay the fee, or in some way get it paid. They could not send a man to prison if he were too poor to pay the fee. It was not a question merely of the conscientious objection of the parents, though it could not be denied that such persons should have their conscientious objections respected. They would also have to contend with reasonable, or even unreasonable, preferences. If a man were to go to prison for not sending his child to school, he would say—"Let me send him to the school that I prefer, and not to a board school a mile off." If a parent should say—"I have a conscientious objection to send him to the board school; I prefer his going to another particular school," how could they step forward and say—"You shall not send

  1731
  him there, you shall send him to the board school." He contended that simply to repeal the clause, and leave the school boards in that position, would be taking from them the power of compulsion which on both sides of the House was acknowledged to be necessary. His hon. Friend said there was ill-feeling throughout the country; but his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) opinion was that there was not now so much feeling about the matter as there formerly was, though he could not deny that he did get letters and extracts from newspapers every other morning, which were very often more forcible than complimentary. He found, notwithstanding all this discussion, that the work was being done. Allusion had been made to Stockport, which would be said to be his pet case. In one respect it was, for Stockport was doing its work in such a way as to be held out as an example to other boards. Only that morning he had received the Report as to the second half-year of compulsion at Stockport. The average attendance had been increased from February to September of last year by 1,020 children, or 26 per cent, and up to the 25th of last month the average was increased by 36 per cent, the number of children in attendance being 1,434. They pretty freely used compulsory powers. They had threatened compulsion throughout the town to those parents whom they thought it necessary to inform of their duties. There were during the last half-year 47 children for whom they were paying fees; there were rather more now, because he believed that they had got into the deeper stratum and were reaching the pariah class, and there were now 57 children who were paid for. In the first half-year they paid £2 18 s. 8d., and in the last half-year £7 15 s. 11 d. If that school board had not had the power to compel parents to send their children to school, and to take from them all reasonable excuse by paying their fees and giving the choice of schools, they would not have produced this result. He got similar Reports throughout the country, and he had not the slightest doubt that if the 25th clause were abolished he should present to the House next year a much less bill for education than he otherwise would. They were now only beginning to get the results of the Act in the increased attendance. In Stockport the
  1732
  number of children receiving some kind of education had not simply very much increased, but the transfer of children from inefficient to efficient schools had been arranged. The same state of things was observable throughout the country, and it would, of course, result in increasing the grants of next year. He gathered from the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) that he would replace the clause in the Act by some other provision. Of course, it was a strong temptation to any Government to accede to the request of influential and active supporters; but there was a greater temptation in the thought that, by getting rid of a certain enactment, he could remove the displeasure of political Friends with whom he had been long personally associated; but he felt that in the interests of education any attempt to modify this clause in the present year would be premature. At the end of the year they would have found out what schools boards would be established, and they would have experience of compulsion in large towns, and even in villages and agricultural parishes; and they would then with greater advantage be able generally to consider the question of attendance and compulsion. He did not, however, wish to mislead his hon. Friend. It was not in his power to pledge the Government to bring forward a measure of general compulsion next year. He could not say—if they happened to be a Government next year—what might be the prominent subjects; he could only say that if he held the same position as that which he now occupied, he should next year think it his duty, as at present informed, to press very eagerly upon his Colleagues and his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government his claim to have the general question of compulsion considered. They would also have to take into account the power of the school boards with respect to the payment of fees; but with their present information they could not devise any good modification, if modification were desirable. He should not be honest if he did not repeat what he stated six weeks ago, that whatever modification might be proposed, he should feel it his duty to adhere to the principle that the parent should have his choice of the school where there were public elementary schools amongst which choice could be

  1733
  made. He knew he might he told that his regard of the parents' conscience was geographical, as there were places in the country where there was only one school; but he should reply that they believed it to be absolutely necessary that the parent, if possible, should give secular education to his children. That was their object. Where there was more than one school giving secular education the parent should have power to choose; but of course where there was only one school choice was impossible, and they must be content with giving the fullest protection by enabling the parent to withdraw his children from religious instruction of which he disapproved. There were one or two other circumstances with regard to the clause which would admit of discussion upon a full consideration of the question. Experience, he thought, showed that in some places the school boards attempted to act too extravagantly. The question was, whether it was necessary to guard against the extravagance which arose from good motives, or whether it would be better to trust to the general economical feeling of the ratepayers in the matter? The desire of the Government was to meet the conscientious objections advanced by his hon. Friend if they could do so consistently with the regard which was due to the conscientious objections of the parents. But they had had no reason to expect the conscientious objection. His hon. Friend thought he had stated that they were entirely mistaken as to the probable action of the clause; but what he had said was that they did not anticipate the objections to the clause, because what they were doing with the 25th clause was what had been done for years with regard to Denison's Act. They could not expect a strong conscientious objection to pay school fees for a Roman Catholic child in a Church school from those who would be willing to send such a child to a school-board school, to receive an education of which a Roman Catholic might disapprove, and for which he might be taxed. It was not for him to point out what might seem to be inconsistencies in his hon. Friend's opinions, and he had been too much accustomed to associate with those who had strong feelings on matters of conscience not to respect them, whether he agreed with them or not. He could only state that, with due regard to what they con-
  1734
  ceived to be the rights of the parent, the Government would do what they could to meet these objections.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had answered his own objections to a division on this Motion, proposed to be taken by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins); and he was sure the hon. Member would not have taken this step but for the extraordinary character of the Bill itself, which renewed a subject on which the House had had an opportunity of forming a deliberate opinion only six weeks ago. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for the assurance he had given that the Government would adhere to their policy of respecting the religious rights of parents, however poor and humble. As to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) he felt indebted to him for his great candour. The hon. Gentleman, in effect, said—"We Nonconformists give you on the Treasury Bench notice that you exist—not 'for the benefit of the Liberal party,'" for that party includes Churchmen as well as Nonconformists, nor even "for the benefit of Nonconformists," for they number among them a great many earnest religious men who respect the rights of conscience; but—"You exist for us, a select Committtee of political Nonconformists, sitting somewhere in Birmingham—Birmingham, which knows so well how to make itself disagreeable—and if you do not act as our small political clique tells you, you will soon know the reason why." That was the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, written short, free and clear. He did not agree in the statement of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish); but that hon. Gentleman had at any rate not put forward the red rag of political agitation. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) recklessly declared that agitation against this clause was increasing; but proofs could be given directly to the contrary. Look at the West Riding. A Conservative candidate favourable to the 25th clause had been returned there against a gentleman who opposed it, though on his committee appeared the name of the Vice President of the Council, as the opponent of his own principle. They were all sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman there; but they knew he could not help it. Bon gré, malgré,

  1735
  there he was; but, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's support, the Liberal candidate, a man of great local eminence, was beaten by the Member who raised the flag of religious liberty. But London also contradicted the assertion. In Marylebone, a well-known clergyman had been returned as a member of the School Board over a candidate opposed to the 25th clause by a majority of two or three to one; and in Westminster a noble Lord (Viscount Mahon), a Member of that House, and a confessed adherent of the Tory party, stood upon the principle of religious liberty against a representative man of the party of narrow intolerance, and this distinguished patriot and philanthropist was beaten by five to one. Yet, in the face of these facts, the hon. Member for Birmingham had the assurance to say that the agitation was increasing, and woe to the Government if they did not heed it. With regard to the grievance in itself, he would ask whether either the hon. Member for Birmingham or the hon. Member for Sunderland had applied the simple arithmetical test of inquiring whether the school fees paid under this clause were greater in value than the secular instruction received? If it were not so, the complaint simply evaporated. The hon. Member for Birmingham proposed that the education of destitute children should be paid for out of the Parliamentary grant. But would not the grant be squeezed out of the pockets of taxpayers, just as the rate was squeezed out of the pockets of ratepayers? If it was unholy money in the one case, how did it become sanctified in the other, being in either case equally the money of the people themselves, strained through a public department? As to the equity and the charity of the contest, the people whom these hard-mouthed agitators sought to make shuttlecocks of were those members of our poor and dependent population who were audacious enough to have a conscience and a fixed religious belief of their own. These were the people whose children they sought to drive to schools of which the parents conscientiously disapproved. He could not but feel that if there were anything in the world that deserved to be called bigotry, it was to be found here. They might talk about the bigotry of the Pope, and might appeal to his assumption of Infallibility; but for true bigotry and true contempt of logic, com-
  1736
  mend him to the political secularists, spouting on a platform in rebuke of a Liberal Government. The common sense and good feeling of England were against these agitators, who were uniting all classes against them upon a question which had been settled, and ought to be settled, by the Education Act, and he would recommend the hon. Member for Sunderland to confine himself in future to those economical subjects of which he was a master, for the more he agitated the grievance of this 25th clause the more unpopular would that agitation become.
  MR. MIALLsaid, he had not any intention of taking part in this debate, but for the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member reminded one very strongly of a certain Athenian weaver, celebrated by Shakespeare, named Bottom. Like him, the hon. Member aspired to play every part. He played Pyramus in the true 'Ercles vein. He could lisp and love like Thisbe; and he could "roar as gently as a sucking dove." There was only one part of his performance which would not correspond with that of Bottom the Weaver; for there was not a single Member in this House who would cry out, "Let him roar again." The hon. Member had addressed to a certain section of the Liberal party a lecture which, perhaps, for solemnity and buncombe, had never been exceeded in that House. They had had quite a forgetfulness, if he might say so, of the point which was under the consideration of the House, in order that the vials of the hon. Gentleman's wrath might be poured out upon those agitators, those bigoted, polemical Dissenters, whose narrow minds could comprehend no great principle, whose intellectual power was not even up to the mark of appreciating the eloquence of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. And now a few words as to the general point under consideration. He would admit that he did not think it was absolutely necessary or proper that this subject should again be brought under the consideration of the House. He would not have counselled that it should be done; but as it had been done, that was a sufficient reason why they should deal with the subject reasonably. Now, the true reason why there was so much excitement upon this part of the Act was not because the 25th

  1737
  clause was the worst clause in it. It was simply because it was just that point at which two systems came into antagonism. It was the first point of contact, and it was that which brought out all the difference of sentiment and feeling between one side of the House and the other. He did not believe that this Act, over which there had been a great deal of glorification before it had done much, would be found to work out all the results that had been expected from it. It was a misfortune that this religious question should have been thrown into the educational movement, and should have become a controverted matter. The whole question might have been arranged differently, so as to satisfy the reasonable desires of all the Members of the House and of the people of the country. But since that had not been done he, for one, must protest against the constant aspersions which were thrown on those who took the same views as himself, that they were in the smallest degree insensible to the value of religious education. The question between the two parties was not whether religious education should be given, but simply who was to give it—whether it should be given by a mechanical schoolmaster. ["No, no!"] He said "a mechanical schoolmaster" simply because the State as such, and the ratepayers as such, could not estimate the religious character of the schoolmaster. The difference between the two sides, then, was, who should give this religious education? He and those who agreed with him said it was men and women who had so much religion in their hearts as to induce them to look after the religious interests of these poor children. But as long as this religious education was given by means of a schoolmaster they, in fact, threw a blind on the eyes of society, and pretended to be doing that which it was impossible that they could do, because they had not the right people by whom to do it. He, for one, believed that if there were not some blind spread over their eyes the clergy of the Church of England, among their other works of benevolence and mercy, would delight in taking the religious part of the education of their people under their own control, and so would the Dissenters. It was not fair, therefore, to ascribe to those who supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Bir-
  1738
  mingham (Mr. Dixon) as mere bigotry that which prang up in their minds from honest religious principle. He did not want to argue the general case now; but he must enter this protest against the spirit of the speech which had last been delivered. It was a speech which was founded on nothing that was true in their general character, for the history of the Dissenters had shown that they devoted themselves heart and soul to the promotion of religion.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYquite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in thinking that it was not wise to keep up this religious controversy in connection with the education of the poor. What was the grievance which the Education League at Birmingham now alleged. It was simply that the religious denominations had done so much more than they had in the cause of popular education that they felt jealous and dissatisfied. The League had agitated long to obtain power in connection with this great national question; but since they had succeeded in getting what they wanted by the Act of 1870, and in securing for themselves a platform in the shape of a school board, what had they done for the advancement of education? Absolutely nothing. The school board was created, and they failed in attempting to place themselves in a majority upon it; the Church, and even the Roman Catholics, stood above them on the popular poll—and they had done nothing since but agitate against those religious denominations which had done so much from the first to set on foot and to promote popular education in the country. For more than 40 years the religious denominations, having first initiated, had carried on with vigour, self-sacrifice, and success the great work of national education, and the only grievance that these gentlemen had against them arose from a feeling of jealousy that they had done so much. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dixon) had said that the Government, when they, by the Act of 1870, proposed to increase the Treasury grant for schools 50 per cent, intended to create a severance between the denominations and the school boards. But the object of the Government was precisely the reverse, and the increase of the grant was given in just recognition of what the denominations had already done. The League, however,

  1739
  would prefer to see poor people taken to prison for not sending their children to secular schools, to allowing them to send them to be taught by any religious denominations. It was very doubtful, however, whether compulsory education ever could be generally established in this country, particularly in the rural districts. The people of this country, at all events, never would consent that parents should be taken to prison for not sending their children to school, if the system were set on foot by first wilfully sacrificing the existing denominational schools. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) in the speech just delivered, in which he balanced the difficulties on both sides, held out a hope to the Gentlemen who proposed the repeal of this clause that if they gave him time he would consider the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to postpone the difficulty by asking for time, and intimating that probably next year he would settle this point with them. But this was not a question between this year and next. The supporters of religious education had made up their minds permanently on the subject. They would not give in to this proposal merely to gratify the jealous feeling of those who, under pretence of a zeal for education not yet practically manifested, were placing themselves in opposition to the men who for 40 years had done so much by voluntary efforts for popular education. The intention of the Act of 1870 was not to supplant the schools which had been established with so much energy and zeal; but to supplement the educational deficiencies which might still exist in the country.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he should vote for the introduction of this Bill for reasons altogether different from those enunciated by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) and those who supported him. He was very sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope), which certainly contributed very little to the healing process which the Vice President of the Council said was going on all over the country, and which was absolutely necessary if the children of the poor were to be educated—that being, after all, the question in which they were mainly interested. He had always been an advocate of education for the sake of education
  1740
  itself, without any reference to the interests of any particular religious denomination. He believed that without a system of compulsory education very little education would be given to the children of the poor, and to accomplish that it was absolutely necessary to pay the school fees of the children of indigent parents. From a Return which he had lately obtained from the President of the Poor Law Board, it appeared that on the 1st of July, 1871, the number of in-door pauper children was 47,247, and the number of out-door 294,371; making a total of 341,618 pauper children in the country, and unless there were some means of paying the fees of such children it would be quite impossible to enforce compulsion. In Ashton and Stockport the money required had been supplied through the voluntary efforts of Churchmen and Nonconformists. He would point to the example of Germany in this matter, where they avoided the scandalous extravagance with which they were threatened in this country. He appealed to the Vice President of the Council whether, with the present attitude of Nonconformists towards the Act, it would be possible to maintain the 25th clause? They had town councils refusing precepts to school boards; they had ratepayers going to prison rather than pay what was demanded; they had school boards treating the Act as nugatory; and, after all, it was education that suffered. It might be said that Nonconformists had no right to give themselves those conscientious airs. While he himself felt no scruple in paying school rates to enable poor parents to send their children to any school they pleased, he thought they ought to respect the consciences of one-half of the people of this country, who were doing so much good. If the 25th clause of the Elementary Education Act were repealed, something must be substituted for it. They could not compel children to go to school, and at the same time rely on voluntary subscriptions as a means of paying their school fees. Why should not the provisions of the Act with reference to the education of children employed in factories be extended to agriculture, and every department of labour, and let Denison's Act be made compulsory, and be applied to the 350,000 pauper children in this country? He would appeal to hon. Members opposite not

  1741
  to make that a party question. Much having been conceded on the one side, let something be conceded on the other; and he hoped the House would allow that Bill to be introduced, and the Government would be able to devise some machinery which would give relief to the consciences of honest and independent Nonconformists, who desired to promote education as much as any section of the community. He trusted the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) would not be so discourteous as to prevent that Bill from being introduced.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, neither his hon. Friend the Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) nor he desired to prevent the Bill from going to a second reading; but they protested against having a second discussion on the same question. As to the denunciations against the Government on the part of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) and others, he had heard them so much lately that he thought they must be all derived from a common source. The case reminded him of a story which he had met with. It was related by the late Tom Hood that a lady and her maid having gone to Holland in a violent storm, it produced those effects which storms did produce on passengers generally and on ladies' maids in particular, and that the lady's maid, in describing her feelings afterwards, said—"Next to Christianity the greatest comfort I had was in giving Missis warning, which I did every time between the attacks." He, therefore, hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite, having relieved their feelings by giving Government warning, would settle down, and keep quiet.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwould have appealed to the hon. Member for Boston not to put the House to the trouble of a division, had he not known that there could be no greater waste of the time of the House than so doing. If, however, the hon. Member should take that course, he would have to vote with him. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that if they were to have the pauper children of the country educated, they must put the compulsory clauses in force, and enable the parent to choose the school to which his children should be sent. The 25th clause secured that object; but it did so in a bad manner. The hon. Member
  1742
  for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had said there was no objection to Parliamentary grants to denominational schools, because those grants all went to pay for the secular part of education. Might not a similar arrangement be made with respect to the payment of school fees? He calculated that the annual cost of the education of each child was about 30 s., and it would relieve the consciences of all if 15 s. of that were paid out of the general taxation, and 10 s. out of the rates; these two paying for the secular education of the children, leaving the other 5s., the cost of his religious education, to be provided by voluntary subscription. The managers could not expect to retain the management of schools unless they subscribed to them, and it might be understood that their subscriptions covered the cost of the religious instruction. He thought educational grants were given much too lavishly. Money given in that way pauperized both parents and children, and it was well worthy of consideration whether the question of determining who ought to receive assistance should not be removed from the school boards and placed under the Boards of Guardians, who, through their relieving officers, knew the circumstances of the parties, and could say whether assistance should be given or not.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had hoped that after the decision of the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) this question would not have been again brought forward this Session. As he had been appealed to by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), he had to express his regret that owing to the continued agitation on this subject, the school boards, not only that of the metropolis, but those of the country generally, were not permitted to carry their work to a practical solution in regard to the religious difficulty. As a member of the London School Board, he would appeal to its representative in that House (Mr. Reed), whether it was not the fact that, face to face as they were, Churchmen and Dissenters, with the practical question of education, they could not find means for accommodating their differences, and for bringing in the masses of children who required education, without needing any assistance from the House of Commons to settle these questions?

  1743
  He had been sorry to hear the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall), the representative of orthodox Dissenters, apply to schoolmasters the term "mechanical," and argue that ministers of religion only were qualified to give religious instruction. ["No, no!"] He should be glad to be corrected if he was misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman; but he certainly understood him and his supporters to object to religious teaching by schoolmasters and mistresses. The great majority of the country disapproved such a limitation of their duty, and a great part of the education of children consisted in instruction in the knowledge of right and wrong, instruction which could only be based on the Scripture. As far as school boards were concerned, be did not attach much importance to the 25th clause; but if 340,000 pauper children had in some way to be educated at the public cost, nothing could be gained by transferring the battle from the education to the poor rate. The same conscientious objections would obviously be urged against the action of the Guardians as against that of the school board. School boards should be permitted to carry out their work as far as they could. They would gain increased experience, both of the children and of the ratepayers, and he believed that by moderation, common sense, and good feeling, they would be able to smooth down the difficulty which had been excited by an injudicious expenditure in certain districts. If in a year or two legislation became necessary, the question could be dealt with with greater information and with more moderation than it could at present. He earnestly entreated the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) not to press his Motion to a division. It would only involve them in greater difficulties, without in any way contributing to a solution of them.
  MR. MIALLexplained. Perhaps it was an unfortunate description he had given of the schoolmaster as being mechanical. He used that word simply as the first that came near the idea in his own mind; but he begged to express his sincere regret that he had used it, because he was afraid it might give pain to a class whom he most highly respected.
  MR. WHITWELLconcurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member
  1744
  for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), that it was unfair to charge upon the teachers of this kingdom that they were not impressed and instigated in the discharge of their duties by the highest sentiments of religion and morality. He did not think a Bill ought to be introduced for depriving the schools of the advantage of all religious instruction; but he did concur in the absolute necessity for repealing the 25th clause, so that the rates should be relieved from what must be a great and increasing charge.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHexpressed a hope that no division would be taken on this question. It would be injurious to the interests of education and of the Education Act, which they had all so much at heart.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 316: Majority 201.

  AYES.

  Anderson, G.

  Gilpin, C.

  Armitstead, G.

  Goldsmid, Sir F.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Goldsmid, J.

  Baker, R. B. W.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Bazley, Sir T.

  Graham, W.

  Beaumont, Capt. F.

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

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Harris, J. D.

  Blennerhassett, R. (Kry.)

  Herbert, hon. A. E. W.

  Brand, H. R.

  Hoare, Sir H. A.

  Brewer, Dr.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Holland, S.

  Brinckman, Captain

  Holms, J.

  Brocklehurst, W. C.

  Horsman, rt. hon. E.

  Brogden, A.

  Howard, J.

  Brown, A. H.

  Illingworth, A.

  Buckley, N.

  Kensington, Lord

  Cadogan, hon. F. W.

  Lawrence, Sir J. C.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Lawrence, W.

  Carter, R. M.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Chadwick, D.

  Lea, T.

  Cholmeley, Captain

  Leatham, E. A.

  Clay, J.

  Leeman, G.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Locke, J.

  Cowper-Temple, right hon. W.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Macfie, R. A.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  M'Arthur, W.

  Crawford, R. W.

  M'Clure, T.

  Dalglish, R.

  M'Laren, D.

  Davies, R.

  Melly, G.

  Dickinson, S. S.

  Miall, E.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Morgan, G. Osborne

  Dodds, J.

  Morrison, W.

  Edwards, H.

  Mundella, A. J.

  Ewing, U. E. Crum-

  Muntz, P. H.

  Fawcett, H.

  Norwood, C. M.

  Finnie, W.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Parry, L. Jones-

  Fordyce, W. D.

  Pease, J. W.

  Forster, C.

  Philips, R. N.

  1745

  Plimsoll, S.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Potter, E.

  Stuart, Colonel

  Potter, T. B.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Price, W. E.

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

  Price, W. P.

  Reed, C.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Richard, H.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Richards, E. M.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Rothschild, Brn. M. A. de

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Russell, H.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Russell, Sir W.

  West, H. W.

  Salomons, Sir D.

  White, J.

  Samuelson, H. B.

  Whitwell, J.

  Sartoris, E. J.

  Williams, W.

  Seymour, A.

  Wingfield, Sir C.

  Shaw, R.

  Young, A. W.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  TELLERS.

  Simon, Mr. Serjeant

  Candlish, J.

  Smith, E.

  Dixon, G.

  Stapleton, J.

  NOES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Adam, W. P.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Adderley, rt. hn. Sir C.

  Bryan, G. L.

  Akroyd, E.

  Buller, Sir E. M.

  Amcotts, Colonel W. C.

  Bury, Viscount

  Amory, J. H.

  Butler-Johnstone, H. A.

  Amphlett, R. P.

  Butt, I.

  Annesley, hon. Col. H.

  Buxton, Sir R. J.

  Anson, hon. A. H. A.

  Callan, P.

  Arbuthnot, Major G.

  Cameron, D.

  Arkwright, A. P.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Arkwright, R.

  Cartwright, F.

  Assheton, R.

  Cave, rt. hon. S.

  Ayrton, rt. hon. A. S.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Bagge, Sir W.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Bagwell, J.

  Cawley, C. E.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Ball, rt. hon. J. T.

  Chaplin, H.

  Barnett, H.

  Charley, W. T.

  Barrington, Viscount

  Child, Sir S.

  Barry, A. H. S.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Clowes, S. W.

  Bates, E.

  Cochrane, A. D. W. R. B.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Cogan, rt. hon. W. H. F.

  Beach, Sir M. Hicks-

  Cole, Col. hon. H. A.

  Beaumont, S. A.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Bective, Earl of

  Coleridge, Sir J. D.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Corbett, Colonel

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Corrigan, Sir D.

  Benyon, R.

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

  Beresford, Lt.-Col. M.

  Cowper-Temple, right hon. W.

  Bingham, Lord

  Birley, H.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  Croft, Sir H. G. D.

  Bolckow, H. W. F.

  Cross, R. A.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Dalrymple, D.

  Bowmont, Marquess of

  Dalway, M. R.

  Bowring, E. A.

  Damer, Capt. Dawson-

  Brady, J.

  D'Arcy, M. P.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Brassey, T.

  Dawson, Colonel R. P.

  Bright, R.

  Dease, E.

  Bristowe, S. B.

  Delahunty, J.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Denison, C. B.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Browne, G. E.

  Dent, J. D.

  Bruce, Lord C.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  1746

  Dimsdale, R.

  Herbert, H. A.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Herbert, rt. hon. Gen. Sir P.

  Dodson, J. G.

  Downing, M'C.

  Hermon, E.

  Dowse, rt. hon. R.

  Heron, D. C.

  Duff, R. W.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Duncombe, hon. Col.

  Hill, A. S.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Hogg, J. M.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Holford, J. P. G.

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Holt, J. M.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Hornby, E. K.

  Egerton, Capt. hon. F.

  Hoskyns, C. Wren-

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Hunt, rt. hon. G. W.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Hurst, R. H.

  Elcho, Lord

  Jackson, R. W.

  Elliot, G.

  Jardine, R.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Johnstone, Sir H.

  Ennis, J. J.

  Jones, J.

  Esmonde, Sir J.

  Kavanagh, A. MacM.

  Fellowes, E.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, U. J.

  Fielden, J.

  Kennaway, J. H.

  Figgins, J.

  Keown, W.

  FitzGerald, right hon. Lord O. A.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E. H.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W. W.

  Fletcher, I.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Floyer, J.

  Knox, hon. Colonel S.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Laird, J.

  Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

  Legh, W. J.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C. P.

  Leslie, J.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Galway, Viscount

  Lindsay, hon. Col. C.

  Garlies, Lord

  Lindsay, Colonel R. L.

  Gavin, Major

  Lloyd, Sir T. D.

  Gilpin, Colonel

  Lopes, H. C.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Lowther, J.

  Glyn, hon. G. G.

  Lowther, W.

  Goldney, G.

  MacEvoy, E.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Mackintosh, E. W.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  M'Combie, W.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Graves, S. R.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Gray, Lieut.-Colonel

  Mahon, Viscount

  Gray, Sir J.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Greaves, E.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Greene, E.

  Manners, Lord G. J.

  Gregory, G. B.

  March, Earl of

  Greville-Nugent, hon. G. F.

  Matthews, H.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Meyrick, T.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Miller, J.

  Grosvenor, hon. N.

  Milles, hon. G. W.

  Grosvenor, Capt. R. W.

  Mills, C. H.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Monckton, hon. G.

  Guest, A. E.

  Monk, C. J.

  Guest, M. J.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Montgomery, Sir G. G.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Morgan, C. O.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Muncaster, Lord

  Hardy, rt. hon. G.

  Neville-Grenville, R.

  Hardy, J. S.

  Newport, Viscount

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Nicholson, W.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  North, Colonel

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

  Henley, Lord

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Henry, J. S.

  O'Conor, D. M.

  Henry, M.

  O'Conor Don, The

  1747

  O'Donoghue, The

  Smyth, P. J.

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

  Somerset, Lord H. R. C.

  Stanley, hon. F.

  Onslow, G.

  Starkie, J. P. C.

  O'Reilly-Dease, M.

  Steere, L.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  Storks, rt. hn. Sir H. K.

  Osborne, R.

  Straight, D.

  Paget, R. H.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Sykes, C.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Synan, E. J.

  Parker, C. S.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Peel, A. W.

  Taylor, rt. hon. Col.

  Pelham, Lord

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Pell, A.

  Tipping, W.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Torrens, R. R.

  Pim, J.

  Turner, C.

  Playfair, L.

  Turnor, E.

  Plunket, hon. D. R.

  Vandeleur, Colonel

  Powell, W.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Raikes, H. C.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Read, C. S.

  Walker, Major G. G.

  Ridley, M. W.

  Walpole, hon. F.

  Round, J.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Royston, Viscount

  Walsh, hon. A.

  Russell, A.

  Walter, J.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Waterhouse, S.

  St. Lawrence, Viscount

  Waters, G.

  Salt, T.

  Watney, J.

  Samuda, J. D'A.

  Wells, E.

  Samuelson, B.

  Wells, W.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Wethered, T. O.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  White, hon. Colonel C.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Whitwell, J.

  Winn, R.

  Shaw, W.

  Wise, H. C.

  Sherlock, D.

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Shirley, S. E.

  Yarmouth, Earl of

  Simonds, W. B.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Young, G.

  Smith, A.

  Smith, F. C.

  TELLERS.

  Smith, R.

  Collins, T.

  Smith, S. G.

  Powell, F. S.

  Smith, W. H.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND).

  ADDRESS FOR A COMMISSION.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKErose to move an Address for a Royal Commission to inquire into the nature and amount of Educational Endowments in Scotland. Some years ago—in 1864, he believed—a Royal Commission was issued to inquire into the whole of the educational system of Scotland, and especially into the effect of the larger or smaller endowments in various parts of that kingdom. They were to inquire both into the amounts of the endowments and the basis upon which they were founded; but upon both these interesting points the inquiry was incomplete. This, indeed, was not surprising, for the way in which the inquiry was conducted rendered it impossible that full information
  1748
  should be obtained. His present Motion, however, was directed to the conclusion of their Report, which bore more directly upon the duty of Her Majesty's Government and of the House. He referred to that part in which the Commissioners recommended a national system of education to be administered by a Board of Education, with a system of annual inspection. In 1869 the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was then Lord Advocate (Mr. Moncreiff) introduced his Bill to make better provision for Endowed Hospitals and Endowed Educational Institutions in Scotland. The Bill was a Permissive Bill, enabling the managers and trustees of these institutions to reform themselves, with the assistance of the Secretary of State, by means of Provisional Orders. The object, in fact, was that the hospitals, or those who had their management, while preserving their own privileges, should amend their scheme of education, and avail themselves of the opportunity of following in the steps of Parliament with regard to the improvement of the endowed schools in England, and to make them so elastic that they should admit of a graduated scheme of education, which would reach the middle and lowest classes of the population. But he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) considered that those proposals fell far below the real requirements of the country, and considering that any measure which had for its object the amendment of the national system of education in the country would be incomplete unless Parliament had full information as to the endowments throughout the country, and in order that Parliament should not in legislating mar rather than amend, and should remedy rather than continue the abuses to which all such institutions were liable, he moved for this Commission. The information obtained by the Commission could not fail to be extremely valuable in this respect. The objection raised against the measure of his right hon. and learned Friend the predecessor of the present Lord Advocate, was, that it did not deal with middle-class education; but eventually his proposal was adopted by the Government in a manner most effective, because in the Bill now before the House for the education of the country, a clause was introduced giving full powers to obtain what he sought for by this Resolution—

  1749
  namely, by conferring upon Commissioners appointed for carrying into effect the education of Scotland; which, if they had been carried out, the object he now had in view would have been entirely superseded, and the effects of it would have been already seen in the improvement of these institutions. But, unfortunately, the result of that legislation was not productive of good, because the Bill, after passing that House, went up to the House of Lords at so late a period of the Session that it fell through. The position in which they now stood was altogether different. Her Majesty's Government had introduced a Bill different in some respects from that brought in by their predecessors in office, and instead of a Commission to carry out their legislation, they had vested powers of control in a local Board, subject to the Privy Council, and some very limited powers of inquiry were to be given to them. Those powers, however, fell far short of what he considered were really required for the benefit of the country. The inquiry into the state of their schools enabled them to know what amount of education was really given, and to make many suggestions for its improvement. It tended rather to degrade the schools, and to mar rather than improve the education of the country. Above all, they failed to deal with those large endowments, the magnificence and importance of which attracted the attention of all educational reformers since they were first brought before Parliament, and left them entirely untouched. One word with regard to the results of that permissive legislation. The Bill of last year proposed to give enlarged powers to the educational bodies to reform themselves. What had been the result? The managers of several of the larger institutions were stirred into action. Some valuable practical suggestions were made—one particularly by one of the leading companies of Edinburgh—the Merchant Company—dealing with a revenue of about £1,000 a-year. The proposal in question, although it did not fully satisfy all the demands made, introduced a very valuable reform, and removed from the hospitals some of the reproaches to which they were subjected, by throwing them open to a large class of the people. But, after all, that was only a partial measure. Were, then, matters to remain as they were? An offer
  1750
  had been made to those bodies to reform themselves, and only partial reforms had been introduced by them in the institution over which they ruled. The question was, whether an opportunity should not be given for considering fully the question as a whole—because he feared that without that consideration the measure as it stood might be regarded as abortive. He thought he was entitled to ask the Government and the House that they have before them facts which would enable them to take immediate action, and to recommend some specific reform for the future consideration of Parliament. He submitted that looking to the incomplete nature of the former inquiry, it would be more consonant with their past legislation on this subject that they should be in possession of all the information bearing on the question, and then he trusted they would be able to deal with it in the spirit which they had already evinced in connection with educational reform. When his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair) introduced his Motion on a former occasion, objection was taken by the Government to the proposal on the ground of its incompleteness, and the Lord Advocate said that the present system was defective, and that in order to remedy it a wide and comprehensive reform was necessary. He (Sir Edward Colebrooke) thought this amounted to a pledge that the Government would take action themselves. The Universities had been reformed, and the Public Schools of England, which had been the subject of repeated inquiries, had been placed on a new footing. He thought that the educational endowments of Scotland should be dealt with on the principle of the Public Schools Act for England—that they should administer those institutions in the spirit in which the original donors would have acted could they have foreseen the times in which we live.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the nature and amount of all endowments in Scotland, the funds of which are devoted to the maintenance or education of young persons; also to inquire into the administration and management of any Hospitals or Schools supported by such endowments, and into the

  1751
  system and course of study respectively pursued therein, and to report whether any and what changes in the administration and use of such endowments are expedient, by which their usefulness and efficiency may be increased."—(Sir Edward Colebrooke.)
  MR. PARKERsaid, he was sure that Scotland would receive with great satisfaction the intelligence that the Government had granted this Commission; but it appeared to him that they might, with advantage, introduce into the Address words which would enable the Commissioners to extend their inquiry into endowments which ought to be applicable, but were not at present applied, to purposes of education. These words were identical with those which were used in the Commission for England; but they were used with great reserve and delicacy by the English Commission. He moved to insert after "funds which are devoted to the maintenance and education of young persons," the words "or can rightly be made applicable thereto."
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word "persons," to insert the words "or can rightly be made applicable thereto."—(Mr. Parker.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the matter now stood in a somewhat different position to what it did when his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) proposed a similar Motion some years ago, for at that time they had not the same experience in the matter that they now possessed. He was not prepared to say that they had been so successful in the attempt to carry into operation the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 as they had hoped to be, and he thought, therefore, that there was great propriety in the inquiry which his hon. Friend asked for, and he was persuaded that it would be attended with considerable advantages. The Motion would not, therefore, be opposed by the Government; but he thought it would be an improvement to extend the scope of the inquiry beyond the range of those institutions the funds of which were devoted to the maintenance and education of young persons, and that it should include all charitable or educational institutions—the funds of which were devoted to charitable or educational pur-
  1752
  poses. It would, of course, be understood that the inquiry was to extend to the Universities.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEassented to the Amendment proposed by the Lord Advocate.
  MR. PARKERsaid, that approving the suggestion of the Lord Advocate, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words "the maintenance or education of young persons," in order to insert the words "charitable or educational purposes,'—(The Lord Advocate,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'charitable or educational purposes' be inserted, instead thereof."
  MR. COLLINSobserved, that the proposed alteration might be a very good one, but it ought not to be proposed in the way it had been, and without Notice. There was no hurry in the matter, and the House ought to have the proposal before them in black and white, instead of hastily rushing into the Royal presence in the way now proposed. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. ORR-EWINGalso thought the Lord Advocate should have placed his Amendment on the Paper.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the Amendment did not propose to alter the character of the inquiry, but only to extend it. He trusted, therefore, that the adjournment would not be pressed.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYthought the House was entitled to complain of want of Notice.
  MR. M'LARENconcurred in the objections urged against the course adopted by the Lord Advocate.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether the institutions to which the Amendment would extend the inquiry were educational in character? If not, they would scarcely come within the scope of the inquiry contemplated by the original Motion.
  MR. BRUCEstated that most charitable endowments in Scotland combined provision for the aged, and education

  1753
  for the young. Perhaps it would be better if the proposal of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) were agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.
  MR. CHADWICKrose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into matters connected with the Income Tax, when—
  MR. SPEAKERstated that Notice of an Amendment had been given to the hon. Member's Motion, and it being past half-past 12 o'clock it was not competent for the hon. Member to proceed.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA.)
  THE COUNTER CASE.

  CORRESPONDENCE.
  Copy presented,—of Counter Case of the United States, presented to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, April 15, 1872 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.—North America (No. 6, 1872).

  CASHEL BOCK BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HERON, Bill to vest the "Rock of Cashel" in Trustees, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERON, Sir JOHN ESMONDS, Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Colonel WHITE, and Sir JOHN GRAY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 128.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Epping Forest* (82); Isle of Man Harbours* (83).
Select Committee—Union of Benefices Act Amendment* (12), The Earl of Powis added.
Committee—Report—County Buildings (Loans)* (65).
Third Reading—Marriages (Society of Friends) * [70]; Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation* [61], and passed.
Royal Assent—Mutiny [35 Vict. c. 3]; Marine Mutiny [35 Vict. c. 4]; Bank of Ireland Charter Amendment [35 Vict. c. 5]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental [35 Vict. c. i.].

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).
THE UNITED STATES COUNTER CASE.

OBSERVATIONS.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, last evening the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) asked me whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to lay before Parliament the American Counter Case; and, in reply,
1676
I stated that General Schenck had telegraphed to his Government to know whether there was any objection to our doing so. Yesterday, General Schenck told me that, in the opinion of the American Government, there would be no objection to such a course as soon as the Counter Case had been laid before Congress, and in the evening he told me this had been done. I beg, therefore, to now present it to your Lordships.
Counter-Case of the United States presented to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.—North America (No. 6.) (1872.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of putting to my noble Friend the Question of which I gave him Notice last evening. I feel this is a subject of such importance, and one on which so much anxiety is felt in the country, that no apology is due to your Lordships for the course I am taking. I think the time has arrived when we are entitled to expect some direct and definite assurance from Her Majesty's Government on this very important question. In putting this Question, my Lords, I do not at all desire that any debate or discussion should arise upon it. I think, in fact, such a result would be extremely inconvenient, and would not be fair to the noble Earl (Earl Russell) who has a Motion on the subject for next Monday. I put the Question because the course which I, and those who do me the honour of acting with me, intend to follow with respect to that Motion will be mainly influenced by the answer which my noble Friend may give me on the present occasion. I will not say more now, but ask my noble Friend whether the Government are prepared to give the House an assurance that further proceedings in the Arbitration at Geneva will be suspended unless the claims termed the Indirect Claims are abandoned or withdrawn by the Government of the United States?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the Question which the noble Duke has put to me, I have to state that I regret I cannot agree with him that the proper time for answering the Question is the present moment. Even under the threat which he has just uttered as to the course which he and his Friends

1677
may pursue, I must say that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it would not be for the public interest if they were to make a declaration as to the future course they will take in the Arbitration until they are made aware of the manner in which the United States Government intend to deal with the despatch of the 20th of March. I may add that we have official information that the answer to that despatch has left America, and we believe it is now on the way. I may further add that Her Majesty's Government have not the slightest doubt they will receive the support of Parliament in maintaining that position which they have held consistently with regard both to the scope and the meaning of the reference to the Tribunal of Arbitration; and they believe that any declaration at this stage of the diplomatic proceedings would not strengthen but weaken that position.
LORD BUCKHURSTsaid, he had put on the Paper a Notice of his intention to ask for the production of certain papers having reference to the Alabama. As, however, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary had been good enough to tell him that those Papers would be found in the Library, although they were not on the Table of the House, he would not put his Question; but he begged to ask the noble Earl, Whether the Papers to which he had referred him contained the instructions sent to different ports relative to the Alabama after she left Liverpool?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not answer the Question without Notice. The Papers to which he had referred the noble Lord were in the appendices of several large volumes.

EPPING FOREST BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to enlarge the powers of the Epping Forest Commissioners; and for other purposes—Was presented by The Duke of ST. ALBANS; read 1a. (No. 82.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.