Sitting of 5 July 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Farm Buildings (Scotland)* [231].
First Reading—Union of Benefices Act Amendment* [229].
Second Reading—Criminal Law Amendment Act (1871) Amendment [157], debate adjourned.
Report of Select Committee—Juries* [No. 286]. [Bill 230.]
Committee—Metalliferous Mines Regulation (re-comm.) [151]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Mines (Coal) Regulation (re-comm.) [150]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* [218].
Considered as amended—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* [171].
Third Reading—Naturalization* [145]; Bank of England (Election of Directors)* [211]; Municipal Corporations (Wards) [102], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS ON NOTICES OF MOTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, having been called on by Mr. Speaker, said, he should have to ask the advice of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair with respect to a Notice which he should have to give. As it involved a question of Order, he would act upon the right hon. Gentleman's warning on a previous day, and, therefore, he now begged to move the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: According to the Orders of the House, the rule is, that after the Private Business, Petitions, and unopposed Motions have been disposed of, the Notices of Motion should be given. I therefore called upon the hon. Member to give a Notice of Motion, and he cannot take that opportunity of moving the Adjournment of the House.

  NEW LAW COURTS—THE STRAND FRONT.—QUESTION.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is their intention to authorize the expenditure of public money in the execution of the design for the Strand Front of the New Law Courts, which is now exhibited by Mr. Street at the Royal Academy, and which was dated November 1871?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that on more than one occasion he explained to the House that the design for the New Law Courts was not approved by him, but by the Lords of the Treasury; and since they approved the sketch of the design, Mr. Street intimated that he was making some small changes in the elevation towards the Strand. The nature and extent of those changes he was not able to judge of, because he had adjourned the consideration of them until Mr. Street sent in his regular contract plan and elevation for the building. The design exhibited at the Royal Academy was not the real elevation, but was merely a perspective drawing of the design which Mr. Street had in view in November or December last. As soon as Mr. Street sent in his regular contract plans and drawings, they would have to be considered either by the Office of Works or the Treasury; he could not say which at the present moment. If by the Office of Works, they would only have to see whether the contract plan was in accordance with the sketch plan sanctioned by the Treasury. If the contract plan was to be considered by the Treasury, they would be able to judge of the whole plan as before. No doubt, a great many observations had been made on the elevation of the Law Courts towards the Strand; but while great difference of opinion and much dissatisfaction had been expressed, there had been no such general disapproval as would render it necessary for the Office of Works to take any steps on the subject. In the case of the University of London great dissatisfaction with the elevation was at first felt; but, then, any hon. Member of that House took the decisive course of moving a Resolution condemning that elevation, and though the building had been partly erected, the Office of Works was compelled to take down what had been done,
  700
  and to have a new elevation made in deference to the opinion of the House. That was the precedent which any hon. Gentleman who disapproved the design of the New Law Courts ought to follow, and if he succeeded in inducing the House to adopt his view, it would then be the duty of the Office of Works to reconsider the subject.

PARLIAMENT—GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.

  QUESTIONS.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering the advanced period of the Session, and that many Irish Members will be absent during the next fortnight attending the Assizes, considering also the important changes contemplated by the measure, the noble Lord will consent to withdraw the Grand Jury Presentments Bill? The hon. and gallant Member said, he had to complain that his Question, as it appeared on the Notice Paper was different in terms to what it was when given in from him.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not propose to withdraw the Bill which was the subject of his hon. Friend's Question, for there was some hope, though, perhaps, not a very strong one, that the House would be able to proceed with the consideration of the Bill on this subject that day. If not, he hoped an early day would be named for the second reading; for though at that advanced period of the Session, there was no great prospect of being able to pass the Bill this year, it would be of the greatest possible importance that there should be a discussion upon it, in order that the views and wishes of hon. Members might be ascertained, with a view to facilitate future legislation on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: With reference to the complaint made on the alteration of the Question as originally proposed by the hon. Member, I think it right to say that it is against the Rule of the House to put Questions which involve opinion or argument, and, in accordance with that Rule, the terms of the Question of the hon. Member were altered by the Clerks at the Table under my authority.

IRELAND—CONSTABULARY FORCE.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. P. J. SMYTHasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it be true, as stated in Dublin newspapers, that a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire into the grievances alleged to exist in the Royal Irish Constabulary Force; and, if so, if he will state the names of the Commissioners?
  MR. MAGUIREasked, Whether it was a fact that there were at the present moment 1,000 vacancies, more or less, in the Force? and, if so, why those vacancies existed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it had been decided to refer the complaint which had been received from the Royal Irish Constabulary, and also from the Dublin Metropolitan Police, on the inadequacy of their pay, to a Commission about to be appointed for the purpose of investigating similar complaints from the Irish Civil Service. He tad been enagaged for some time in endeavouring to procure the service of what he believed would be competent Commissioners, but he was not able as yet to communicate their names to the House. He hoped, however, in a few days to be in a position to do so. He was not able, especially without Notice, to answer the Question of the hon. Member for the county of Cork. He was aware there was a considerable number of vacancies in the Royal Irish Constabulary, but he did not think they were anything like the number stated.

IRELAND—THE GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—THE MAYOR OF DROGHEDA.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. WHITWORTHasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the statement, as reported, that
  "The Irish Executive, for the first time since Commissions have been issued, has omitted the name of the Mayor of Drogheda from the precept for holding the ensuing Assizes for that county town"
  is true; and, if so, if he would state to the House what are the reasons why the chief magistrate of that ancient borough has been omitted from the precept?
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, that on the same subject he wished to put a Question to his right hon. and learned
  702
  Friend the Attorney General for Ireland—namely, Whether this Mayor was the same right worshipful Thomas Simcocks who, on the 14th of June last, issued a placard, on the requisition of James Matthews, J.P., Thomas M'Evoy, J.P., Patrict Ternan, J.P., Thomas Green, J.P., John Gradwell, J.P., John Chadwick, J.P., and other inhabitants of Drogheda, requesting him to call a meeting at
  "The earliest convenience, for the purpose of expressing our disapprobation of the unwarrantable attack which Mr. Justice Keogh made on the Venerable Archbishop of Tuam, the Bishops, and clergy of Galway and its vicinity, when delivering his judgment on the recent Galway Election."
  Whether such meeting did take place on Sunday, the 23rd of June, and whether the right hon. Gentleman thought such a person fit to be associated with Her Majesty's Judges at the coming Assizes for the county of the town of Drogheda?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he must defer the answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth), for he had not the requisite information. If, however, the hon. Member would repeat his Question on Monday, he had no doubt he should be in a position to satisfy him on the subject. With respect to the Question of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stuart Knox), he did not know whether the Mayor referred to in the advertisement was the Mayor referred to in the Question, though, unless Drogheda had two Mayors at once, he probably was the same. As to whether he was a fit man to be associated with Her Majesty's Judges in the precept for holding the Assizes, he must decline to answer such a Question at five minutes' notice, and thought it would not be a proper Question to answer at any time.

CATTLE IMPORTATION—CATTLE FROM SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUDAasked the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether the Government has been able to make arrangements with the German Government by which cattle from Schleswig-Holstein can be imported without the necessity of being slaughtered at the port of landing, and therefore, as regards London, with a free permission to

  703
  pass alive to the Metropolitan Cattle Market at Islington?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: An Order will appear in The Gazette to-day with regard to the importation of cattle from Schleswig-Holstein; and as it relates to a most important matter, perhaps the House will allow me to explain the meaning of the Order. All cattle from Germany are considered under the Cattle Diseases Act as scheduled cattle, and, accordingly, for some time past they have, in pursuance of an Order of the Privy Council, been slaughtered at the port of landing. The reason why it was necessary to keep up that restriction is because of the proximity of Germany to Russia and other countries in which the cattle plague permanently exists, for, of course, we could not be secure that in admitting cattle from German ports we should not admit cattle which came from Russia, or which had been in contact with infected cattle. We have been always sorry that that restriction applied to cattle from Schleswig-Holstein, where large numbers of cattle are bred, and where experience has shown that they are as free from disease as cattle in most countries, if not more free. But no arrangement seemed possible by which we could be sure that we had to do only with cattle from Schleswig-Holstein. However, I am glad to say that the German Government, having shown much interest in the matter and much willingness to meet the demands of the trade, have now arranged, through my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, to give to cattle imported from Schleswig-Holstein a Government certificate of origin declaring that they are really bred in that country. The Order, which will be issued to-day, will allow such cattle to be imported, and to go into inland towns or into the Metropolitan Cattle Market at Islington in the same manner as cattle from Denmark and Holland, provided those conditions are fulfilled which, after careful consideration, we deem sufficient.

ARMY—BRIGHTON REVIEW ON EASTER MONDAY.—QUESTION.
LORD ELCHOasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Reports of the Officers of the Regular Army who commanded Volunteer Brigades at the last Brighton
704
field-day on Easter Monday? The Report of the General in command has been given; but he understood that the Reports of the Brigadiers were favourable, and as it has been stated publicly that the Volunteer Force is not worth the paper on which the Estimate was written, he thought that in justice to the Volunteers these Reports should be produced.
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the usual course has been pursued in this matter. The Report of the General Officer who commanded at Brighton has been laid on the Table, and it certainly gives no encouragement to the idea that the Volunteers are "not worth the paper on which the Estimate is written." Nothing which has been said by any official authority in this House or elsewhere in the least degree favours any such impression. But the production of the Reports made by the subordinate officers is not usual; it would not be agreeable to the general practice approved by military authorities that I should produce them; and if such documents were produced they could not in future be written as freely as all these Reports should be written.

PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS— ORDERS OF THE DAY—RIGHTS OF PRIVATE MEMBERS.
MR. NEWDEGATE, who had on the Paper the following Notice:—
"To move, as an Amendment to whatever Order may be entered upon the Notice Paper as to be taken first at the Two o'clock Sitting of the House on the fifth July next, that the Order for the Adjourned Debate upon the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill be then taken,"
said: Sir, that I may be in Order when I put the Question which I intend, I beg now to move the Adjournment of the House. I had intended to propose that the Order for the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill should be taken first, in preference to any other Order that might have been entered upon the Notice Paper. You are aware, Sir, that I gave Notice of that intention in order that I might raise the question whether the Government has, or has not, the exclusive right of precedence at the Morning Sittings of the House. I waited last night until the conclusion of the Business of the

705
evening, in the hope of ascertaining what Order the First Lord of the Treasury would set down first on the list—because it would have been more regular that I should have given Notice in reference to that Order. But I found that the Government intended to take shelter behind a Standing Order. The right hon. Gentleman placed the following Orders on the Paper:—First, "the Mines (Coal) Regulation Bill—Committee." Then the "Metalliferous Mines Regulation Bill—Committee;" "Local Government Board (Ireland) Salaries Bill—Committee;" and fourth, the Committee on another Irish Bill. Now, by the Standing Orders of the House, no Question can be put upon the Motion for you, Sir, leaving the Chair, that the House may proceed with the Committee on a Bill; and therefore by this arrangement of the Government—by their having put down no less than four Bills for progress in Committee—they have brought a Standing Order across the path that I intended to pursue. That is the action of the Government on the matter. Sir, in answer to a previous Question that I put to you, you were good enough to state to the House that the precedence of Government Orders of the Day at Morning Sittings does not rest upon any Standing Order, or upon any Resolution of the House, but had been determined in accordance with the practice of the House—by the decisions given by your predecessor in the Chair in 1851. I have looked at that ruling. It appears that it was given in reply to a Question of Mr. Frewen's, and that at that time the House did not meet at 2 o'clock, but that when there were Morning Sittings it met at 12 o'clock. It met at 12 o'clock, and sat till 4 o'clock. The Sitting was then suspended till 6 o'clock, when Business was resumed. Well, the difference between those hours of meeting makes a vast difference in regard to the opportunities available to non-official Members for bringing for ward their Bills and Motions. Under the former arrangement, when the House met at noon, rose at 4 o'clock, and resumed at 6, they would have six hours and a-half—from 6 o'clock till half-past 12 o'clock. But now that the Morning Sittings begin at 2 o'clock, and last till 7 o'clock, and that the House does not resume its Sitting till 9 o'clock, there are only three hours and a-half—until
706
half-past 12 o'clock—of which non-official Members can make use; because, by the recent Resolution of the House, measures of which Notice of Opposition has been given, cannot be taken after half-past 12 o'clock at night. I may also remind you, Sir, that, in answer to me, you decided that if an Opposed Order comes on after half-past 12 o'clock, and if any objection be taken to the day, to which the hon. Member in charge of it proposes to postpone it, the objection will be valid, and the Order must be adjourned to the next day, or become a dropped Order. The Bill, in fact, would stand in the position of a dropped Order. Well, Sir, it is obvious that this process of objecting to postponements may go on ad infinitum, and that any single Member of the House, if an Opposed Bill comes on after half-past 12 o'clock, can, by merely objecting, adjourn that Order as often as it comes on. It certainly seems to me that the continuation of these Standing Orders, Rules, and Practice of the House, as at present applied and interpreted, inflict practical incapacity upon the great body of the House—upon the great body of the non-official Members; because, if any one of them is in charge of an Opposed Bill at this period of the Session—crowded as the Notice Paper is—it becomes practically impossible for him to secure an opportunity of submitting it to the House. Thus, the reason for the course I propose to adopt—namely, to dispute the right of precedence hitherto given Government Orders of the Day at our Morning Sittings, is because the ruling according to which you, Sir, have decided—and, I know, decided correctly—was a ruling given under a totally different state of the Orders of the House, and at a time when the Morning Sittings began two hours sooner than now, and when the Evening Sitting extended from 6 o'clock until the rising of the House. I am anxious that this curtailment of the hours at the disposal of private Members should be brought clearly to the apprehension of the House; because if you, Sir, inform me that there will be nothing irregular in my moving the second reading of one Bill—in substitution for the second reading of another Bill or in substitution of the third reading of another Bill—at the 2 o'clock Sittings of the House, it is my intention to renew my Notice, and, if ever

707
the Government should put down an Order for the second or third reading of a Bill at one of these 2 o'clock Sittings, I will, upon that Order, raise the issue as to whether the great body of the non-official Members of the House are to continue to labour under that practical incapacity, that disqualification which is inflicted on them by the present Standing Orders, Resolutions, and Practice of the House. I wish to ask you, Sir, Whether I shall be out of Order, if, at a Morning Sitting, I propose the second reading of a Bill which I may have in charge, in substitution of an Order indicating that the Government intend to take the second or third reading of another Bill first at that Sitting?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member proposed to move the adjournment of the House to put himself in Order in asking the Question which he has put to me, but he has not moved the adjournment of the House. I am, however, willing to answer the Question which he has put to me. I am bound to tell the hon. Member that the Amendment he has placed on the Paper is one that I cannot submit to this House. When the Orders of the Day are called on, any hon. Member in charge of a Bill which is the subject of the Orders of the Day may make such Motion as he thinks proper with regard to that Bill, and, having made that Motion, no Amendment can be moved, except an Amendment relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill before the House. If an hon. Member thinks proper to move an Amendment relevant to the Bill before the House he will be in Order in doing so. With reference to the conduct of Business in this House, in giving precedence at Morning Sittings to Government Orders of the Day, I have to inform the hon. Member—as I informed him some time ago—that the practice is one which has been uniformly followed since the adoption of Morning Sittings, and that this practice cannot be departed from without the express authority of this House.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Am I to understand, Sir, that no change in the present arrangements of the House can be made except by Resolution of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: The Business of the House is carried on in accordance with its Practice and Resolutions, and no change can be made in the conduct of its Business without the authority of the
708
House, signified by a direct Resolution on the subject.

MINES (COAL) REGULATION (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 150.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th July.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, the following new clause was agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill:—
(Prosecution of offences.)
"No offence against this Act shall be prosecuted except by an inspector under this Act, or by the permission of the Secretary of State; and in the event of any contravention or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Act, or any general or special rules in force there under, in respect of which contravention or failure the owner, agent, and manager are each guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he satisfy the court that he had taken all reasonable means for the publication and enforcement of such provisions or rules, the inspector shall not institute proceedings against any owner, agent, or manager who satisfies the inspector that he had taken all reasonable means as aforesaid."
MR. BROWN MR. BROWN moved, after Clause 5, the insertion of a new clause, providing that no boy under the age of 13 should be employed in any mine to which the Act applied below ground, unless he had obtained a surgical certificate from a person qualified to give such certificates for the purposes of the Factory Acts. He thought labour of this kind was degrading to boys below the age of 12 or 13 years.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, he must enter his indignant protest against the notion that manual labour was degrading to a boy. It was far more degrading to live upon the labour of others.
MR. BROWNexplained that he had not alluded to manual labour in general, but to a particular kind of labour to which boys of tender age ought not to be subjected.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, it was difficult to draw a hard-and-fast line as to age; but he thought at 12 years of age, a boy might have laid a good foundation of education without getting into habits which would unfit him from gaining a livelihood by manual labour. He should certainly give his vote against the proposed clause.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the object of the clause was that a surgical certificate should be given in the case of boys

709
under 13 years of age; but it was impossible in a clause of the kind to create the necessary machinery to give effect to the proposition of the hon. Member. For that purpose a great many other clauses would be required to be added to the Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. F. S. POWELL MR. F. S. POWELL moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:—
(Penalty to enforce attendance of children at school.)
"The parent, guardian, or person having the custody of or control over any child employed in or above ground in connection with any mine to which this Act relates shall cause such child to attend school, in accordance with the regulations of this Act."
"Every such parent, guardian, or person who wilfully fails to act in conformity to this section shall be liable to a penalty of not more than twenty shillings for each offence."
(Sec. 7 and 8 Vic. c. 15, s. 38, and 30 and 31 Vic. c. 146, ss. 4 and 15.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he decidedly approved of the clause. Indeed, he hardly knew the reason why it was omitted from the Bill in the first instance.
Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
MR. LIDDELL MR. LIDDELL moved to leave out Clauses 25 and 26, for the purpose of inserting a series of new clauses, providing that, for the granting of certificates of competency under the Act, Boards of Examiners should be constituted in the various districts under the superintendence of the Secretary of State, consisting of nine members, one appointed by the Secretary of State, three to be practical engineers, and three to be mine owners, elected by mine owners of the district, and two working miners, elected by the working miners of the district. The great object of the clause was to provide a proper machinery for the examination of managers of mines. The manager of a mine should be a person of great physical energy and powers of endurance and considerable tact, with a patient and conciliatory manner towards the men. He must also possess great knowledge of the district. His first and essential duty would be to provide for the safety of the pit; but he would have much more than that to do. He would have to make all the bargains with the men and settle the rates of payment to be made for work done. The position,
710
therefore, required a combination of qualities which it would be difficult to obtain by any examination. He was not wedded to the wording or the machinery of the clauses, except as affording a basis on which they might discuss this important question.
MR. PEASEsaid, he had supported his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland in moving the omission of the 25th clause on a former occasion. The Committee then came to the conclusion that the selection of the Board of Examiners ought not to be wholly left in the hands of the Secretary of State. The great point was to have the Board thoroughly representative in its character. No doubt the owners should be represented; mining engineers should also be on the Board as well as those employed in mines. The difficulty would be to obtain a proper representation of the miners. He proposed to reduce the number of representatives at the Board to seven, of whom one should be named by the Secretary of State, two by owners of mines, two by mining engineers to be named by the local institutes of mining engineers, with two persons employed in any mine in the district nominated by the mining engineers, to represent the working mines. The Board would thus fairly represent the various interests, including the local, and within a certain period of three or five years he should say every one with a seat at the Board should have a certificate himself.
MR. STAVELEY HILLbelieved, although there were three plans proposed, the only wish was to select the best Board of Examiners in order that certificated managers might be persons of thorough knowledge of the work and capable of carrying it into effect. As he thought that four would be a far better number of examiners than either seven or nine, he would suggest, as an Amendment of the Notice he had placed upon the Paper, that—
"For the purpose of granting certificates of competency under this Act Boards of Examiners shall be constituted under the superintendence of a Secretary of State in the various districts to which inspectors shall be appointed, and every such Board of Examiners shall consist of four members, one thereof a person appointed by a Secretary of State, one practical mining engineer, and one mine owner, appointed by a Secretary of State upon the nomination of the mine owners of the district as after mentioned, and one miner of the district appointed by a Secretary of State

711
upon the nomination of the miners of the district as after mentioned."
MR. RODENsaid, he could not think that four would be a sufficient number. A great many persons would have to be examined, and therefore it would be necessary to have a reasonably large number of examiners. The hon. Member for South Northumberland's plan, which was approved by the representatives both of the mine owners and the men, was, in his opinion, that which was most worthy of adoption, and he did not think there would be any difficulty whatever in the mode of election.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, this was one of the most difficult questions involved in the Bill. He could not conceive a Board of Examiners less calculated to do the work well than a Board of nine brought together in the heterogeneous manner which the hon. Gentleman approved, and would suggest that a Board representing masters and men should nominate Examiners for the approval of the Secretary of State. If the whole number was not to be brought together when an examination was to be conducted, the very object of the clause would be defeated, for that object he understood to be that there should be a representation of all the interests concerned—scientific, proprietary, and mining. None of the propositions which he had seen would carry out effectively the object which the Bill had in view. There was no clause providing that the managers of the underground works should have a certificate of competency, and he considered that a great omission. Perhaps it would be as well if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the suggestions which had been thrown out, and prepare a clause embodying them.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he adhered to the opinion which he expressed at an earlier period of the Sitting—namely, that the mining Institutes, which were perfectly independent bodies, should have the nomination of the Boards of Examiners; for if the election was to be made by the miners, the matter would become very complicated, there being then over 350,000 persons who would be entitled to vote. In that case, he certainly thought the machinery of election would be too cumbrous. He thought they might safely leave to the Institute of Mining Engineers—branches of which existed in almost every mining district—
712
the selection of the examiners, the Secretary of State, who would have to confirm the selection, being aided by the Inspectors of the district as to local details. He should suggest that the Local Mining Institute should select three persons to conduct the examination. In conclusion, he thought that in compliance with all the Petitions from the miners on the subject, every manager should hold a certificate.
MR. HENDERSONsaid, no difficulty was experienced in the North of England in the election of delegates by masters and men to treat upon trade disputes, and there would be no difficulty in each colliery sending a representative for the election of the examiners.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that he had spoken to persons representing the miners respecting the proposition of the Home Secretary, having reference to the appointment of Boards of Examiners, and they had assured him that there was no objection on the part of miners to that proposition. What they wanted was a perfectly independent body, from which the examiners should be selected, and he had every reason to believe that mining engineers were perfectly independent.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he could not agree with the suggestion of the Home Secretary, and much preferred that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy). Neither could he agree with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho) respecting the independence of mining engineers. In his opinion the majority of them were not independent, because they were, in a great measure, dependent on the coal owners by whom they were employed. He did not wish to say anything against mining engineer institutions; but they were composed of any gentlemen who wished to belong to them, and, as a matter of fact, numbers of practical engineers were not members of such associations. In many instances they were nothing more than debating societies, and the members could go away when they thought fit, but mine owners and miners could not. It was the owners and workmen who were really interested in the election of examiners, and, as far as he was concerned, he was not prepared to delegate the duty to other persons. He thought, also, that the nature of the examination should be defined, because otherwise there was

713
great danger that it might be too theoretical and would not secure practical men who could carry on a mine safely.
DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he was of opinion that the elective principle in the case of a body of examiners was so far of importance that it would tend to preserve the local peculiarities of the several mining districts, and the mining institutes would, he thought, form a very good body for the selection of local examiners. But although it was necessary to preserve local peculiarities, it was not expedient to run too much in the groove of those peculiarities. In the various mining districts into which the country was divided there was the greatest difference in the number of accidents of the same character which occurred in some as compared with others, and it was therefore, he maintained, the duty of the Secretary of State to see that general knowledge was brought to bear on the peculiarities of a particular district, either through the agency of a general examiner representing the public or an Inspector appointed by the Government. He agreed with those who contended that the examinations should be practical in their character; but to exclude from them scientific knowledge would be to ignore the whole progress of science in its application to industry. The lamp of Sir Humphrey Davy was, for instance, the result of pure abstract investigation.
MR. ELLIOTthought that many of the proposals which had been suggested would secure a good examination, but signified a preference for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. While not wishing to speak disparagingly of scientific education, he argued in favor of the great advantages of practical knowledge on the daily conduct of mining operations.
MR. FOTHERGILLexpressed his intention of supporting the proposal of the hon. Member for South Northumberland. He could not for a moment agrees with the Home Secretary's proposition. He admitted that it was a most difficult question, and expressed his belief that by far the best method of appointing managers was that which was adopted at present; but, at the same time, as there was to be a change, the working classes would not be satisfied unless they had a strong voice in the election of
714
certificated managers. Scientific men might be all very well, and they might be very able men; but they certainly did not make good servants. He would, however, suggest that the number of working miners on each Board should be three instead of two.
MR. WOODSthought the proposal of the Government satisfactory, and preferred that the appointment should be vested in the Government rather than an irresponsible body. He would suggest that the Board might be constituted of one-third owners, one-third engineers, and one-third working miners.
MR. PEASEexpressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendments, and thought his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland would see that it was impossible to carry out his Amendment without any machinery. Mining institutes were not merely scientific, but consisted of practical men; and he concurred in the proposition of the Secretary of State, supposing it to be modified in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford.
MR. WHALLEYwas of opinion that the best way of preventing accidents in mines was to leave the matter as much as possible in the hands of the mine owners, making them responsible.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment he had placed on the Paper.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, the practical discussion which had arisen fully justified his having submitted his proposal to the Committee. He was ready either to divide on his proposition or to withdraw it, according as it might be the pleasure of the House; but if he withdrew it he trusted some provision would be proposed by the Home Secretary based on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxford University.
MR. RICHARDdid not think the nomination of the Board by an irresponsible body would be satisfactory. But if nomination by institutes were accepted he hoped it would be from the council, not from the individual members of those bodies. However the Board of Examiners might be appointed, there should not be less than three examiners; and a working miner should be a member of the Board, or otherwise the men would not be satisfied.
LORD ELCHOhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell) would not divide the Committee, but follow the example of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham and withdraw the clauses.
MR. BRUCEalso hoped the clauses would be withdrawn. The Secretary of State would be responsible for the working of the Act, and it would be his duty to put the proposal in a workable form before the Report.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANhoped that the right hon. Gentleman in any clause he might frame would have special reference to the concluding portion of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Northumberland. It was most desirable that the nature of the examination should be clearly defined.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of doing an act of justice to a number of gentlemen who had acted as delegates from colliers in the North during the discussion of the measure. In consequence of representations which had been made to him (Mr. Bruce), he had complained—and felt himself justified in complaining—of the course they had taken in regard to the Bill, considering that from all the districts of the country the colliers had sent up Petitions to that House, and Memorials to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and himself, praying, in the strongest terms, that the Bill in its entirety should pass. He confessed himself deeply disappointed when he found that, with respect to some of the most important clauses of the Bill of which the colliers had expressed their approval, their representatives in London were quoted as opposed to the proposals of the Government, and he drew particular attention to the fact that their consent had been obtained to the insertion of words which, in his opinion, went far to destroy the legislation proposed for the protection of children, and also for the protection of the colliers themselves from accident. He asserted on that occasion that he had been informed that they would withhold their support from the Government with respect to the general rules, on condition that they obtained payment by weight instead of
716
measure. Now, he had been assured by those representatives—and he certainly was inclined to place entire confidence in the statement—that any opinion they expressed was conditional on the course they sanctioned being adopted by the Government, and that their wish was, as far as possible, to adhere to the proposals of the Government. They also stated that with respect to the supposed arrangement by which one clause was put against another, they only made that mode of arrangement when they conscientiously believed that Government was about to abandon their proposal to lay the burden of proof on the employers.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that the difficulties attending this measure would have been very much greater if an understanding had not been come to, and if they had not acted upon the principle of "give and take." He should be sorry to hear anything from his right hon. Friend discouraging to the system of arbitration, which so many people wished to see, established, and he hoped the system would be carried further. With respect to the miners, everyone who had been brought into communication with them would bear testimony to their conciliatory but firm demeanour.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he wished to know when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the Report, as several matters were to be discussed on that stage?
MR. BRUCEsaid, he proposed to take the Report on Tuesday, and, if necessary, the Bill could be re-committed. It would be impossible to put the Amendments on the Paper earlier than Monday night.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

METALLIFEROUS MINES REGULATION (re-committed) BILL— [BILL. 151.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)

COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Employment of male young persons in mines).
On the Motion of Mr. PEASE, clause amended, by inserting at the end of Subsection 1—
"Provided always, That in the case of boys and young male persons whose employment is at such distance from their ordinary place of residence that they do not return there during the intervals of labour, and who do not work more than 40 hours in any week, an interval of not less than eight hours shall be allowed between each period of employment."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6, agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 (Penalty for employment of persons contrary to Act).
MR. BRUCE, in moving the following Amendments:—
"In page 3, leave out from 'the' in line 3, to 'mine' in line 6, both inclusive, and insert 'any person contravenes or fails to comply with.'
"In page 5, line 10, after 'Act,' insert 'and in the event of any contravention or failure to comply with any such provision, the owner and agent shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he satisfy the Court that he had taken all reasonable means for the enforcement of such provision,'"
said, he proposed in this case also to follow the principle of the Factory Acts, and to make the owner primarily responsible, unless he showed that he had taken all reasonable precautions.
Amendments agreed, to; words inserted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 (Payment of wages at public-houses, &c).
MR. BRUCEsaid, it was the intention of the Government to put this clause on the same footing as the clause in the Mines (Coal) Regulation Bill.
MR. MAGNIACsaid, he inferred from that explanation that the right hon. Gentleman wished him (Mr. Magniac) not to propose the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper; but he saw no reason why the serious evil to which it referred should not be at once remedied in the Bill. He was, therefore, quite resolved to propose the Amendment which stood in his name, and which was in page 3, line 29, after "therewith," to insert—
"No deduction from wages, or money in the nature of wages, payable to any such person shall be made for the purpose of providing him with medical attendance unless a special rule shall be in force in manner provided by this Act, whereby there shall be secured to him the selection of a medical practitioner out of such a number as it may be deemed expedient to nominate, having
718
regard to the number of persons employed in the mine, and to the locality in which it may be situated.
"No deduction shall be made as aforesaid as a contribution to any benefit, sick, or accident fund or club unless under a like special rule providing for the publication, in a convenient manner, of the receipts arising from such deductions, and the payments thereout."
Many thousands of the miners for the last three years had watched this Bill with a view to getting a remedy for a most crying grievance. He had received scores of letters on the subject, which had been discussed in the newspapers of the country, and the unanimous opinion of the Press was that a most fearful abuse had been exposed. In 1869, when he first took up the subject, a reduction of 1s. a month was made from the miner's wages, and this money was paid to the mines' doctor for attending the miner and his family in sickness. That was an equitable arrangement in itself, and would be highly beneficial if properly carried out. But it had occurred to many managers of mines who had young relations dependent upon them, that the position of doctor to a mine was a very comfortable berth, which might be made the means of taking those young gentlemen off their hands. Accordingly, under the system of which he complained, whereby the selection of the doctor was made independent altogether of the wishes of the miners, it was quite possible that a young gentleman of 15 or 16, without any regard whatever to the bent of his mind, might be sent to walk the London hospitals, and return after a few years a youth of 20, or whatever was the minimum of age, to attend the miners and their wives and their children in cases of accidents, in cases of sickness, and even in child-birth. Doctors were allowed to live four, five, or six miles from the mine, and he was acquainted with an instance in which the doctor lived at a distance of 17 miles. That was a state of affairs which should not be tolerated. But that was not all. It had been publicly asserted at county meetings, and uncontradicted, that these mine surgeoncies had been put up to sale in the profession. For instance, A sold his charge for £200 a-year to B, who sold it again for £100 to C. In fact, a case was said to have occurred in which that had been bought for £80 or £90 a-year which in the first instance had

719
been sold for £300. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that no bitter feeling would be excited in the men from such a state of things? He had heard the very strongest language used about managers, doctors, and everyone concerned on account of it. Who was responsible for this injustice it was not for him to say; but the remedy proposed was easy and effectual. Already, in consequence of the publicity arising from his Amendments, he knew of several mines in Cornwall in which the managers having had their attention called to these things for the first time, had made arrangements for placing some such power as he proposed in the hands of the miners. A hon. Member of that House, whose interest in mines was second to none, had lately made arrangements for giving the men the choice of their own doctors. He could instance a mine in which there were three doctors to attend to 600 men—of whom Dr. A attended 400, Dr. B 190, and Dr. C 10. Such a fact as that showed a desire on the part of the men to choose their own doctors; and it was a scandal that there should be any system by which the manager should be empowered to job away the lives of the men under him. He maintained that any man, or body of men such as these, ought to be able to choose any doctor they pleased within the limits of the district. It was objected that a man might choose an incompetent doctor; but why should they? He doubted very much if men would do so in any case, and certainly not as a general rule. It had been also said, that the withdrawal of the wages clause was a reason why the Amendment should not be considered. He could not conceive why that should be a reason at all. This Amendment did not legalize a deduction from wages. It had also been argued that this was minute legislation; but he should be glad to know whether it was more minute than many of the regulations with which the Bill was crammed? It might be urged that a Wages Bill was to be brought in next Session, and that the question might stand over till then; but he would like to know what dependence could be placed on a Wages Bill coming in next Session? Besides, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that the Wages Bill was inapplicable to Cornwall. He,
720
therefore, appealed to the House to support him in his Amendment. He had exposed a great abuse, and had shown that the right hon. Gentleman, by adopting the Amendment, would confer on the miners an immense boon.
MR. ST. AUBYNsaid, he was sorry to say that it was from circumstances that had happened within his own personal knowledge that he could confirm a great deal of what had just been stated to the House by the hon. Member for St. Ives. He, therefore, desired to support his hon. Friend in giving to the men the power of selecting their own doctors; but regarded the latter part of the Amendment as unnecessary, and suggested the omission of the words following "the selection of a medical practitioner." If the Amendment were so limited, he should support it.
COLONEL HOGGsaid, he could confirm every word that had been uttered by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Magniac). The greatest possible abuses existed with regard to medical attendance, some of the doctors residing at long distances from the mines, so that, if an accident occurred, there was much suffering, or even a fatal result ensued, before the surgeon could be brought to the spot. Surely, if there was to be a deduction from his wages for medical attendance, a miner should be able to choose the surgeon who was to attend to himself and his children.
MR. WENTWORTH BEAUMONTsaid, he was opposed to this kind of legislation, but if it be deemed necessary he went a great deal further than his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac), for he objected to any deductions being made from the wages of the men for these purposes. He, however, did not think the question should be raised on the present occasion; and if the Amendment were persevered with, he should feel it his duty to propose to omit from it all the words after the word "attendance;" and it would then read—
"No deduction of wages or money in the nature of wages, payable to any such person, shall be made for the purpose of providing him with medical attendance."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that he entirely concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in his objection to raising the question then, because deduction for medical attendance was part

721
of a large question which ought to be treated with reference to broad principles of general application. Some of the mining population had great objections to this, in common with other deductions, and the question was whether, in common with others, it should be forbidden by law. The hon. Member for St. Ives had made a speech full of painful statements, and those statements had been confirmed by other hon. Members who had followed him; but he was mistaken in assuming that there was any legislation which gave masters power to make deductions from wages to pay a doctor appointed to attend the men. There was no such power; the men had always the power to resist such deductions, and it could be only with their consent that such deductions could be made. Although it might be right for Parliament to pass a law prohibiting deductions, even where the men were willing to consent to them, there did not now exist any legal authority on the part of the masters to control the men; the matter was purely one of arrangement between them, and discussion had led, in many cases, to the abuses complained of being remedied. Then, again, it was impossible to consider this deduction by itself; there were many others to be dealt with, and the House would be breaking faith with the colliers if, having postponed dealing with their grievances in this respect to next Session, it were to legislate upon the similar grievances of another class of miners. There was a clause in the Master and Servant (Wages) Bill which dealt with this question of deductions. It was just as applicable to Cornwall as to any other part of the country; and as the Government had undertaken to deal with the whole question of wages next year, he hoped the Committee would not now legislate in a piecemeal manner.
MR. PEASEsaid, he also objected to dealing with the question now, which would be breaking faith with the colliers, who asked for legislation upon it. The case had another side different from that which had been presented to the Committee. There was great difficulty in electing a medical man by the vote of the men. In one case in which it was tried, the men elected the doctor who on the previous pay day had given them the greatest amount of beer, and who, two months afterwards, bolted in
722
debt to all the neighbouring tradesmen. That those who paid the piper should choose the tune was a generally accepted principle; and the mine owners paid the medical men, the miners subscribing only part of the payment. Besides, the owners paid every man who was off work on a certificate from the doctor, and, in some cases, found hospitals for the men; and would it be fair for a doctor appointed by the men to have charge of these hospitals, and to give such certificates? If the proposed Amendment were carried, it would shut up some of the most useful institutions the mining districts could boast of.
MR. LEEMANsaid, he strongly objected to the Committee being asked to legislate on this particular point as regarded metalliferous mines, without it legislated at the same time in a similar direction for coal mines. Moreover, how would the Amendment work in a district of 10 miles where there was only one doctor? The practices on the part of medical men which had been referred to by the hon. Member for St. Ives did not exist, he was happy to say, in the North of England.
MR. R. N. FOWLERthought hon. Members interested in these mines, like his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, who represented an important mining constituency, were quite justified in pressing the Amendment, notwithstanding that those specially interested in coal mines had left the House, and the Bill relating to coal mines had gone through Committee; and he objected to postponing legislation until next year, because the Government undertook to bring in a Bill on wages, which the contingencies of a year might easily push out of the way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Clause amended by striking out in page 3, lines 38 to 41, both inclusive, and inserting—
"Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and in the event of any contravention or failure to comply with the provisions of this section, the owner and agent shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he satisfy the court that he had taken all reasonable means for the enforcement of such provisions."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 23 (General rules).
Amendment proposed, in subsection 4, line 6, to leave out the word "load" and insert the words "produce of the mine in transit exceeds ten tons in any one hour over any part thereof, and,"—(Mr. Pease.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'load' stand part of the Clause."
And it is now ten minutes to Seven o'clock.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
The House supended its sitting at seven of the clock.
The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EGYPT—JUDICIAL REFORMS.

  QUESTION. MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE, in rising to call the attention of the House to our commercial relations with Egypt; and to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will use their best endeavours to induce the Porte to complete the contemplated judicial reforms which are so essential for the further extension and security of our mercantile interests in Egypt; and to move for Papers, said, that the recent great development of the commerce of Egypt, and especially of British commerce, rendered our relations with that country, and above all the laws which regulated our commercial relations, a subject of the greatest importance; and he thought would furnish sufficient reasons for justifying him in placing it under the notice of the House. Even long previous to the opening of the railway between Alexandria and Suez, and the completion of the Suez Canal, public attention was directed to the system of judicial procedure in Egypt. That system had its origin in the original Capitulations with Turkey, made at a time when there was a great mistrust of the policy of Turkey; when the trade with
  724
  the East was of no great importance, and the foreigners residing in the country required every protection against the action of the Government. The Capitulations dated as far back as 1535. They were first granted to the French, and for many years no foreigner could reside in Turkey except under the protection of the French flag. But the commercial enterprise of England soon altered that state of things; the famous Levant Company sprang into existence, under a charter of Queen Elizabeth, in 1581, at a time when we were so little known that the Turks thought England was the capital of London. That Levant Company was granted additional power by James I., in 1605, and it monopolized all the trade of the East. That Company appointed Consuls, claimed extended jurisdiction in civil cases, and even a certain jurisdiction in criminal cases. When commerce, however, became too widely extended for the continued monopoly of the Levant Company, their Consuls were replaced by Government officers, and it was to the power which these gentlemen claimed to exercise, and the inconveniences which arose from those claims, that he wished that evening to call the attention of the House. The original Capitulations, he must repeat, were based upon a mistrust of the Turkish Government, which, three centuries since, and even much later, was not surprising, and cause for which even now existed in distant Provinces of the Turkish Empire; but the original Capitulations, which were moderate, had grown into demands and into practices which, especially in Egypt, rendered all government impossible, for, little by little, Western energy had overpowered Eastern apathy and fatalism, and the nations which wore the hat had forced themselves upon, and were trampling under foot, the nations that wore the turban. The encroachments on the central and local Governments had been incessant; and in Egypt, under her present enlightened and generous ruler, possessing in Nubar Pasha and other Ministers statesmen of eminent ability—and even while our interests were presided over and protected by Colonel Staunton, our Consul General, a gentleman second to none in ability, energy, and rectitude of judgment, and who had won the esteem and goodwill of all classes in that country—even under

  725
  these favorable circumstances, British interests were suffering under a system which, to use Lord Stanley's words, was as injurious to British interests as it was derogatory to the character and wellbeing of the Egyptian Administration. The subject would not be a very tiresome one when once he had got over his preliminary statement, because he should have some very curious facts to communicate to the House. The way in which the encroachments on the part of the Consuls occurred was this—Having demanded the right of being present during the trial of cases in which subjects of the countries they represented were interested, they claimed the right of carrying the sentences into execution, and soon after they demanded the further right of sitting upon the Bench when such cases were being tried. But it was not until 1848 that the Consuls for the first time arrogated to themselves the exclusive power of trying such cases; a most important and mischievous error, and the result of which was to render all effective government impossible in Egypt, the authorities in which did not receive fair play, seeing that one-half of the population of Alexandria consisted of foreigners. For instance, if a Maltese behaved ill he must be taken to the English Consular Court; if a Spaniard, to the Spanish Consul; and if an Italian, to the Italian Consul. Thus the Government of Egypt was powerless for good. Another ill consequence of the system was, that all foreigners escaped taxation by forcing the tax collectors to sue them in the Courts of their respective Consuls also, and the leading men in Egypt seeing that, had actually declined to pay their taxes on the ground that no taxes were paid by foreigners. He would advert to one or two incidents that had come within his knowledge arising out of this system. In one instance, a Belgian sold some property to a Frenchman, and the latter declined to pay, alleging that one part of the property had been withheld. The matter was tried by the French Consul, who gave a verdict for the Frenchman, with costs against the Belgian, and with power to bring an action against him. The action was taken and tried in the Belgian Consulate, when the Belgian obtained a verdict with costs against the Frenchman; and the matter was still unsettled between the two Consulates.
  726
  In another instance, an Egyptian let a house to a Neapolitan, who underlet a floor of the house to a Maltese, an Italian, and a Spaniard. On the Egyptian calling in due time for the rent he found that the Neapolitan had gone to Naples, and as the other tenants would not pay rent to him, he brought actions against them in their respective Consulate Courts. In each case the tenants obtained a verdict, and the unhappy man who had originally let the house could obtain no rent; but the rent was paid to an agent of the Neapolitan who sent it over to Naples. After waiting three years, the Egyptian had actually to buy out these men in order to get back his own house. A curious incident happened to himself in regard to this state of things. He went with a friend to the Bazaar at Cairo to buy two curtains. Having purchased one from a dealer, he gave the man £5 to purchase a second curtain for him, but the man returned, saying that it was impossible to get another. He then asked for the £5, but the man said—"No, we make it a rule in our establishment never to give back money when once we have received it." The police were sent for, but as the dealer, who had been in Algeria, had French protection, they could not touch him. It was suggested that he (Mr. B. Cochrane) should communicate with the French Consul General, but the Consul General was not then at Cairo, and three weeks would have elapsed before any decision could have been obtained. His steamer left on the following day, and he was therefore obliged to take a bundle of anything the man chose to let him have in exchange for the money. These things occurred every day; and he put it to the House—when English interests in Egypt were so immensely developed—whether it was not absolutely essential for us to see that those judicial reforms which had been so long before the public were really carried out? He now came to the reforms themselves. Both the late and the present Government of this country had always recognized the existing evils, and been anxious to remove them. Nubar Pasha, the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs, had published an important Paper on that subject, in which he said that the Egyptian Government felt that progress could only come from Europe; that it desired the introduction of that Conservative element,

  727
  and wished to entrust to it all its great works and to encourage capital to be brought into the country; that the Government was rendered powerless and had to abandon the country to itself; and that the system on which justice was administered tended to demoralize the country, while the Government was accused of weakness and error, as evidenced by the fact, that in Egypt Europeans had for 40 years enjoyed the rights of property and paid no taxes. All that was opposed to the letter and spirit of the Capitulations, and prevented the development of the resources of Egypt In a dispatch Lord Stanley entered fully into the subject, and stated that Her Majesty's Government were perfectly willing to lend their aid to the Egyptian Government in an attempt to establish a better system, and that if the Egyptian Government obtained the concurrence of other Powers, the cordial co-operation of Great Britain would not be withheld from so salutary a work. Lord Stanley added that—
  "Her Majesty's Government is certainly not inclined to hold out for a jurisdiction to which they have no treaty right, which they admit to be an usurpation, though brought about by force of circumstances, and which is as injurious to the British interests as it is derogatory to the character and well-being of the Egyptian Administration."
  Those views had also been fully and ably carried out by Lord Granville, and an International Commission had been appointed, representing the different Powers, on the subject of these reforms. The Report of the Commission said that it could not be denied that the establishment of a single jurisdiction, presenting real guarantees, and applying one uniform and known law, was precisely the direct and necessary remedy for the inconveniences resulting from the multiplicity of jurisdiction and system of laws. The Commission, therefore, did not hesitate to declare its opinion that disputes between foreigners and natives, as well as those between foreigners of different nationalities, should be submitted to a single tribunal, as proposed by the Egyptian Government. With regard to the execution of sentences, the International Commission was—
  "Unanimously of opinion that it should take place without the possibility of any administrative, Consular, or local power placing any obstacle in its way, either directly or indirectly, and that such execution should be assigned to the new tribunals
  728
  themselves. The Commission has only desired that the officer of justice charged with the execution should be obliged to give notice to the Consuls of the day and hour of the execution under the penalty of rendering the judgment void, and incurring damages."
  In a despatch of the 22nd of July, 1870, Lord Granville, writing to Lord Lyons, said—
  "The two Governments (those of England and France) agreeing in the proposed reforms, it seems to Her Majesty's Government that the facts of this accord should be made known to the other Powers who were represented in the Commission that sat at Cairo, as well as to the Porte and the Pasha of Egypt. It remains for the Viceroy to obtain the consent of the Sultan to these proposed reforms, and it is for the Sultan to inform all the Powers that these reforms are sanctioned by law."
  He was anxious that every means at our disposal should be used to get these reforms at once recognized. At the Conference of the Great Powers on the occasion of the Treaty of Paris, 1856, on the 25th of March, Aali Pasha submitted to the Conference that all the commercial difficulties between Turkey and the other Powers arose from the Capitulations, which had outlived their time. He asserted that the privileges thus acquired by Europeans were injurious even to themselves, and to all commercial transactions; that the jurisdiction claimed by foreign Powers led to a multiplicity of Governments, and consequently created an insuperable barrier to all improvement. M. de Bourqueney and the other Plenipotentiaries agreed that these Capitulations placed Turkey in a very false position, but it could not be denied now that Egypt was placed in a very false position, and Prince Tour d'Auvergne had expressed the opinion that, in consequence of particular circumstances, the position. Of foreigners in Egypt was not the same as in other Provinces of the Turkish Empire. The question was not a general one, but peculiar to Egypt. Lord Granville and Lord Stanley joined in this opinion, and Lord Clarendon, in a despatch, had alluded to the same point and insisted that Egypt was an exceptional district. The Sultan, however, had announced that he was drawing up a new code of law; but it might be 10 years before this code was arranged, while, in the meantime, a code had been already drawn up in Egypt and approved by all the different Powers, so that there was nothing to prevent the new Court, which was to consist half of

  729
  foreigners and half of natives, being constituted to-morrow. Its establishment would give confidence to all the Powers concerned, and the objections to the Consular Courts would no longer be a subject of complaint. If any justification were needed of the Motion he proposed making, it was to be found in the commercial returns of the country. Few not conversant with the facts were aware of the present state of the commerce of Egypt. The imports to Great Britain from Egypt amounted to £16,116,000; while from France the value was only £33,000,000; Turkey, £6,528,000; Germany, £17,000,000, only equal to Egypt. The exports from this country to Egypt were £8,726,000; to France, £11,000,000; to Turkey, £5,300,000. These, of course, included goods in transit; but the increase during the past four years was enormous. Everyone who had visited the country spoke of the amazing improvement and increase in its manufactures. The sugar manufactures had increased enormously; factories were studded all over the face of the country, in each of which British subjects were employed, and it might be said, with perfect fairness, that the interest of Egypt was the interest of England. That was the principle upon which he asked the House to consider the case. He had alluded to the Suez Canal the other evening, as an instance of our position with respect to the Consular jurisdiction, and said that out of 107 ships passing through the Canal 69 were English, representing a tonnage of 77,000 out of 104,000. Curiously enough, he found, from a Return for the month of February last, that 100 ships passed through the Canal, of which 79 were English, 6 French, 5 Austrian, 2 Italian, 2 Egyptian, 1 Dutch, 1 Norwegian, 1 Ottoman, 1 Portuguese, 1 Tunisian, and 1 German. Yet the French Government claimed the right of trying in their Consular Courts all actions arising out of differences between the traders and the company. What justice could be expected under such circumstances? If this state of things were continued, English interests could never be protected. The classical mind of the First Lord of the Treasury knew how much we were indebted to Egypt for our civilization. Lord Houghton had written—
  "Eastward roll the orbs of Heaven—westward roll the thoughts of men."
  730
  To put the matter, however, in a practical way, he hoped that men's minds would really turn eastwards, and take notice of the important facts to which he called attention. He asked his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Foreign Office, in his reply, to hold out some hope that Government would take advantage of the document which he had submitted to them, and in which all the Powers had agreed upon what was wanted in Egypt. He sincerely trusted that the Government would give way and grant these reforms, which were essential to the interests both of this country and of Egypt itself. The hon. Member concluded by asking the Government to lay on the Table all the Papers connected with the question.
  MR. A. GUESTsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, that the interests of England were identical with those of Egypt. There was, however, one important point connected with the case to which his hon. Friend had not referred, and which related to the mortgage of land. Whenever an Egyptian sued an Englishman in a case of that description, it was always decided in the Consular Court, and the same rule held good when an Englishman sued an Egyptian. To show the importance of the application of capital to the land in the cultivation of cotton in Egypt he might state that land which when not irrigated produced only one quintal and a-half of cotton would, when irrigated, produce five quintals or more. It was natural enough, therefore, that the Egyptian peasant should wish to have his land watered; but irrigation in that country could not be carried out without capital. The Egyptian was most anxious to enlist foreign capital on his side; but when he was about to do so an order came out from the Egyptian Government that no security could be taken on the land itself—the fact being that, in cases where the mortgage was foreclosed, the property passed beyond the jurisdiction of the Government, who were, therefore, afraid that by such means the country would eventually fall into the hands of the French and English, and that they might establish colonies there. Within the last few years, however, since the American War, Egypt had become one of the great cotton-growing countries. The cotton grown in Egypt was of a very superior

  731
  character, and it was of the greatest importance that the British capitalist should have his transactions assured to him by the Courts of that country. He could mention the most extraordinary cases in which British capitalists over and over again tried to get the money they had lost, but were utterly unable to do so. The judicial reforms in question had been assented to by all the foreign Governments; and though hereafter there might be some difference about the representation of the different countries on the Bench of the Mixed Courts, yet the Code had been ratified in each country interested, and it was only the Porte that caused any difficulty. Of course, they knew the Porte was jealous of the progress which Egypt had. Made during the last few years; but that was not a matter which they need take into consideration, because he felt sure that Egypt had no idea of separating from the Porte. The matter intimately concerned the foreign commerce of this country as well as the welfare of Egypt and its continued progress by means of foreign capital. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would be able to give them an assurance that the Government were prepared to put some pressure on the Porte to carry out these long-promised reforms. In conclusion, he begged leave to second the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had made a very interesting speech on the subject, and illustrated it in his usual pleasant and graphic manner by his own personal adventures; in the result of which he (Viscount Enfield) might at least say that the hon. Gentleman had not "spoiled" the Egyptians. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the despatch which he quoted, and which was addressed by Lord Stanley in 1867 to Colonel Staunton, had not been deviated from in any essential principle by the successive Secretaries of State who followed him. His hon. Friend had stated with perfect accuracy the state of the case. By virtue of the Capitulations granted by the Ottoman Government, most European Governments exercised the right of independent jurisdiction over their respective subjects in Egypt, excepting in cases where one of the parties to the suit was an Egyptian. In 1869 the Viceroy's
  732
  Government complained that abuses had arisen by which judicial power over foreigners, especially in criminal cases, was wrested from the Egyptian Law Courts and placed in the hands of Consuls, which often prevented natives from obtaining justice from Europeans. Nubar Pasha proposed the scheme of judicial reform which, at the suggestion of Colonel Staunton, was to be referred to an International Commission. The year 1868 was occupied in discussing the necessary preliminaries—namely, when the Commission should sit, whether inquiries should be made into the Capitulations themselves, into usages arising from the Capitulations, and whether the proposed civil tribunals should take cognizance of criminal matters? In 1869 the International Commission met at Cairo. Its composition was as follows:—Nubar Pasha, Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Khedive of Egypt; the Agents and Consuls General of Austria, of Hungary, of the North German Confederation, of the United States, two Commissioners for France, two for England, two for the Italian Government, and two for the Russian Government. The labors and Report of that Commission well deserved the attention of the House. He might be allowed to make a very few extracts from the Parliamentary Paper containing the Report which had been produced two years ago on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon). The Commission had to take cognizance not only of reforms to be carried out in civil and commercial matters, but also for the repression of offences. They had to inquire into the complaints raised by the Egyptian Government, and the greater or lesser foundation for the same; the exposition and appreciation of the reforms demanded; the enumeration of the guarantees offered by the Government; the examination of the efficiency of these guarantees, and of the supplementary guarantees which it would be necessary to demand. He would submit the following extracts to their notice, taken from the Report, and bearing on the subject:—
  "Besides the local tribunals, there are in Egypt 16 or 17 Consulates having right of jurisdiction over the subjects of the nations they represent. Consequently, in the actual state of things, the universal rule followed with regard to competence in civil and commercial matters is that the defendant should necessarily be brought before his own tribunal—that is to Say, the native before the

  733
  local tribunal, and the foreigner before the tribunal of his Consulate. It is the absolute application of the rule actor sequitur forum rei. The inconveniences pointed out weigh as heavily, and perhaps more heavily, on foreigners than on the natives; they have the effect of preventing foreigners from coming to Egypt, and on this account the Egyptian Government is justified in saying that they are exceedingly prejudicial to the country, by preventing the Government from applying to substantial contractors to whom it would wish to confide its great public works. But the most disastrous consequences to the Egyptian Government of the multiplicity of jurisdictions is, that it cannot possibly enforce the laws concerning patents, industrial property, and trade marks, because each Consulate would, in these matters, apply its own laws, and that the industry and wealth of the country would suffer from such impossibility. The Commission cannot deny that the establishment of a single jurisdiction, presenting real guarantees, and applying one uniform and known law, is precisely the direct and necessary remedy for the inconveniences resulting from the multiplicity of jurisdictions and systems of laws. It does not hesitate to declare its opinion, therefore, that the views of the Egyptian Government on this point should be adopted—that is to say, that disputes between foreigners and natives, as well as those between foreigners of different nationalities, should be submitted to a single tribunal."
  With regard to the execution of sentences, the Commission was unanimously of opinion that it should take place without the possibility of any administrative, Consular, or local power placing any obstacle in its way, either directly or indirectly, and that such execution should be assigned to the new tribunals themselves. In reference to the composition of the tribunals the Commission recommended that the tribunals should be composed in such a manner that in matters where foreigners were parties to the cause the majority should be secured to foreign magistrates, and it further recommended the addition to the Tribunals of First Instance, judging in commercial matters, of two merchants, one native, the other foreign, chosen by means of election. It was recommended besides that hearings should be public and the defence entirely free. The Commission admitted that the guarantees offered by the Government had, collectively, a real value, and testified to a sincere desire to secure a good administration of justice; but the Commission was of opinion that they required to be completed, and it was right to state that not one of those demanded by the majority of the Commission had been refused by the Government. The majority assured to the European Judges was considered by the
  734
  Commission one of the most important guarantees offered by the Government. As to the proceedings in criminal cases, the Commission thought the reforms proposed by the Egyptian Government were equally satisfactory, and after going very carefully into the manner in which the system should be carried out the Commissioners concluded by saying that they found the Government of the Viceroy was, in all respects, disposed to listen to their suggestions. His hon. Friend and the House were no doubt anxious to know why the recommendations he had just referred to produced no practical results. After the termination of the labours of the Commission, it was finally agreed that the French Government should frame a Code for carrying into effect the proposed judicial reforms. This work was completed on the 15th of May, 1870, and the Code having been carefully considered and agreed to by Her Majesty's Government, it only remained to obtain the assent of the Porte. The French War, however, supervening, matters remained dormant until January, 1871. It was then proposed by the Khedive that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the provisions of the Code; but the English Government said they could not take the initiative, and suggested a reference to Constantinople. In March, 1871, the Khedive said he would form his own tribunals, merely modifying existing laws conformably to the wants of his own country. The English Government said they generally approved that plan, and promised their good will. Sir Henry Elliot accordingly informed the Sultan of the plan, who offered no objection, but said that the position of foreigners must in no instance be thereby affected. The Khedive, through Colonel Staunton, said that would not be the case, adding that he hoped to make the general reforms more acceptable to the Porte and the European Powers. In October, 1871, Sir Henry Elliot reported that the Khedive had written to Aali Pasha; but the death of that distinguished statesman shortly afterwards put a stop to further communications. Colonel Staunton then announced that the Porte did not object to the general principles of judicial reform as laid down by the International Commission, but objected to the Code of the Khedive as trenching upon the Sovereign rights of the Porte.

  735
  On the part of the Khedive, Colonel Staunton replied that he would frame laws according to those of the Empire, with modifications to suit the circumstances of his country. The Khedive also stated that these modifications would be within the competence of his own Government, and authorized by Royal firmans. In May, 1872, Server Pasha, in reply to Sir Henry Elliot, said the Porte was preparing a new Code, to be completed within six months, expressed a hope that this would prove applicable to the whole Empire, and meanwhile suggested some delay in considering the scheme of the Khedive. He said also that while disposed to see that these reforms were carried out, he hoped there would be no interference on the part of the British Government. The House, he trusted, would therefore think that from the year 1867 to the present time no foreign Minister had shown himself insensible to the importance of judicial reforms in the East. But in dealing with the Porte, they were dealing with an independent and friendly Power; and though he felt certain that Her Majesty's Government would continue to give such attention to this subject as its importance demanded, and would not lose any opportunity of pressing this matter on the attention of the Porte, their interference must be confined within such limits and be exercised with such discretion as the Porte had a fair right to expect from this country. He did not know that he had any Papers to present to the House on the subject; but he trusted that within the time specified we should see a fair and impartial system of judicial reforms carried out in its integrity.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, there was nothing more clear from the Koran downwards, than the extreme and almost vindictive one-sidedness with which Christians, and all other people of other religions, were viewed by the Mohammedan law. The manner in which Mohammedans viewed the professors of other creeds might be summed up in the famous lines—
  "A Christian's well may not be clean tis true,
  'Twill do to wash the carcase of a Jew."
  This rancour was undoubtedly the real source of the difficulty they were discussing. The suggestion made by the Commissioners of an International tribunal was, no doubt, the only thing by which we could emerge from that diffi-
  736
  culty. Had the suggestions of the Commissioners been carried out nothing would have been more effectual in every respect; but, unfortunately, the old root of the bitterness had shown itself again. The Porte now said that they could not accept the Code which had been drawn up by the French, and that they would draw up a code of their own, which was to be ready in six months. He would be very glad if it was, but he feared the anticipation would not be realized; and although he would admit that in most respects the recommendations of the Commission were decidedly satisfactory, yet he must object to the proposal made by the Commission that the procedure before the tribunal was to be carried on in the language of the country, or in French or Italian. He should like to know why English should not be used, where the interests of British or American citizens were involved? The language of 80,000,000 of people should not be put aside in that way. He also objected to the procedure in cases affecting religious property being carried on in an Egyptian Court presided over by Egyptians. In that case foreigners would have no chance whatever. In all other respects he thought the recommendations of the Commission and the institution of the tribunal had been most excellent. He hoped the Foreign Office authorities would give their earnest attention to this matter, and though they might be very much embarrassed by the necessity of keeping up the independence of the Porte and its paramount jurisdiction, still he hoped they would not allow that to interfere with this most necessary re-organization of the law in the East.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £29,500, Natural History Museum.
MR. WHALLEYrose to Order, and asked whether he was to understand that Mr. Speaker had left the Chair? He was at a loss to know how it had happened that the right hon. Gentleman omitted to call his name, as he had a

737
Notice on the Paper. He had hailed the right hon. Gentleman before he was out of hearing.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the question now before the Committee was the Vote for the Natural History Museum.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he should like to know whether there was any probability of the whole of this sum being wanted in the present year. Last year £40,000 were voted, and only £5,000 expended. Two years ago, when £6,000 were voted for the construction of the Natural History Museum, it was taken as the final judgment of the House of Commons that the building should be erected on the ground purchased some years before from the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851. The total value of the property then disposed of to Her Majesty's Government for £120,000 was not less than £280,000; but the Commissioners felt themselves justified in what they did, on account of the purposes to which the ground was to be devoted. The Commissioners stipulated that the ground should be appropriated to purposes of Science and Art, and words to that effect were introduced in the deed of sale. For many years Her Majesty's Government did nothing with this valuable piece of ground, beyond practicing the art of doing nothing, and the science of growing nettles on it; but he had noticed lately that a hideous structure had been erected upon it in the shape of a district post office. He was not able to discover in what way the erection of a district post office fulfilled the condition that the ground should be solely applied to purposes of Science and Art, and should like some explanation upon the subject.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he objected to the Vote altogether, and would move that it be negatived. In the early part of last Session he put a Question to the Prime Minister, with the view that the plan should be laid before the public before the work should be proceeded with. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was to this effect: that £30,000 had been voted, that specifications had been invited, and, therefore, that it was too late to have the design submitted to the judgment of the public. He had reason to believe that the facts were somewhat different, and that the Prime Minister in giving that answer did not know the whole state of the case. He had reason
738
to believe that the designs and plans were only on paper, and he put down a Notice that no further steps should be taken with reference to the building until the designs were submitted to the public, for from what he had heard he was induced to believe that the contract had not yet been taken—at least that it was not taken a fortnight ago. The history of the whole affair was this—The Natural History Museum was to be erected in consequence of the crowded state of the British Museum, and, after much difference of opinion, it was decided that it should be built at South Kensington. Architects were invited to send in plans on certain conditions as to their nature, and a jury of gentlemen to whom the designs should be submitted was appointed, of which Sir William Tite, Mr. Fergusson, and Mr. Roberts were members. The designs were exhibited in Westminster Hall, and it turned out, after a most careful examination, that the design of Captain Fowke was successful. Captain Fowke put himself in communication with the Trustees of the British Museum, in order to settle the internal arrangements in a satisfactory way. But in the meantime Captain Fowke died, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who was First Commissioner of Works at the time, having to choose an architect to carry out Captain Fowke's design, fixed on Mr. Waterhouse, a gentleman of great ability and known for his Gothic tastes. Mr. Waterhouse was instructed to make estimates for Captain Fowke's design, and he calculated that it would cost £430,000. In March, 1867, Mr. Austen, of the Office of Works, wrote to Mr. Waterhouse announcing the intentions of the First Commissioner, and stating that should the House of Commons vote the money, Mr. Waterhouse was to proceed with the erection of the building in accordance with the design of the late Captain Fowke, or as nearly as circumstances would permit. In 1868 his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) was at the Office of Works, and Mr. Austen wrote to Mr. Jones, first Librarian of the British Museum, announcing that Mr. Waterhouse had been requested to communicate with the Trustees for the purpose of preparing plans, and, if necessary, revising, not the internal arrangements of the late Captain Fowke's de-

739
sign, but the elevation of the proposed Natural History Museum. Now, if you entrusted the plan or design of one architect to another to carry out, unless you tied down the latter in the strictest possible way, he was pretty sure to leave the marks of his own genius upon it. What happened in this case? In May, 1868, Mr. Waterhouse stated his objection to Captain Fowke's plan, and described his own. In short, he proposed to build in a style totally different from that of Captain Fowke. He did not in the least blame the present Government for the course which they had taken in this matter. All that the present First Commissioner of Works had done was to give effect to the action of his immediate predecessor in office. His complaint was that the country was dependent upon the action of the temporary holder of the office of the First Commissioner of Works for the design in which its public buildings were executed. Thus, one First Commissioner might be in favour of one description of architecture, and he might employ an architect to design a public building in accordance with a particular style; but a change of Government occurring, a new First Commissioner who was in favour of a different style of architecture might come into office, and he might direct the architect to design the public building in accordance with his peculiar views. There were many cases in which this hap-hazard system had been pursued to which he might refer. Thus the Foreign Office, which was originally intended to be executed in one style, was finally built in a different one. The Prime Minister himself, in more elegant language than he himself was master of, had shown the absolute necessity for some change in the present system. The National Gallery was originally designed under one First Commissioner, and that design was altered by his successor. Lord Palmerston had stopped the building of the London University in Burlington Gardens in the Gothic style, and it was subsequently built in the Renaissance style. The New Law Courts, the National Gallery, the South Kensington Museum, the Natural History Museum, the War Office, and the Admiralty Office Buildings had all been subjected to the same treatment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think it a waste of time to bring such
740
a matter before the House; but time would not be wasted by such a discussion if it produced an economy in public expenditure. Let it be proved that the system he denounced was not hap-hazard and unsatisfactory. What he wished for was such a system as would ensure money being expended on the best building talent could produce. He did not bring this forward as a question of style; about that he did not care; and he thought it a misfortune that discussion on the subject in that House too often became a battle of styles. The public had no knowledge whatever of what was going to be erected; the design was totally different from that which they knew about. True, the plans were put in the Library at the fag-end of last Session; they were seen by very few Members and not by the public at all. The system was wrong, and until it was remedied our expenditure would be wasteful. In 1860, in reply to the First Commissioner of Works, the Prime Minister said, with reference to the expenditure of public money on public buildings—
"He had no hesitation in saying that this and other circumstances of a like kind were entirely owing to the lamentable and deplorable state of our whole arrangement with regard to the management of our public works. Vacillation, uncertainty, costliness, extravagance, meanness, and all the conflicting vices that could be enumerated were united in our present system. There was a total want of authority to direct and guide."—[3 Hansard, clx. 1360.]
"Non meus hic sermo." If anything had been done to bring order out of this chaos it was desirable it should be known, and he hoped they would hear it. Unless they had an assurance that a better system had been inaugurated, he should ask the Committee to negative the Vote.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he wished to direct attention to the great necessity there was for the erection of a new Patent Museum, which was waiting for a site; and as a suitable one was now pointed out, he hoped a Vote would be taken for the Patent Museum next year.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he trusted he should be able to satisfy the noble Lord that it was quite unnecessary for him to enter a protest against the erection of this Museum. True it was, that the noble Lord, in conjunction with the other judges of designs selected, one which was

741
not being carried into execution; but that was owing to the fact that they made their selection on grounds of taste, art, or architecture, and their selection was not based on considerations with which the Government in the end found itself compelled to deal. The first and most important consideration with regard to any building was to clearly understand the purpose for which it was to be erected and the manner in which it was to be used. The architect of the Musical Academy of Paris had published a very considerable work, in which he discussed all the preliminary questions relating to the use of the building before mentioning architectural designs, which he dismissed as purely a matter of opinion. In this case a design was selected and sent to the trustees of the British Museum, who, after a most careful examination, came to the conclusion that the design which was deemed second by the judges was much better than the first. The result was that the architect and the trustees of the British Museum agreed to an entirely new design which would fulfill both the conditions required—namely, utility and architecture. The noble Lord asked whether the Government had arrived at any better system. His answer was that they had. They had discovered the defects of former operations and how they might be remedied. He had made considerable inquiries on that subject in Paris, and in all the great offices there he found that the same complaints and inconveniences existed; that the Government gave the buildings into the hands of the architect before they had determined precisely what the architect ought to do. The consequence was that the practical official use of the building was made subservient to what might be the peculiar opinions in point of art of the architect. No architect ought to be employed by the Government for the construction of any building, until they were perfectly satisfied as to the objects and purposes for which it was intended. After determining these preliminary questions, they should ask the architect to carry out their wishes with a due regard to the beautiful in art; but of course they must let him know how much money they proposed to expend upon the work, otherwise he might proceed entirely according to his own imagination. The Government, in fact, were bound to act
742
as any cautious, prudent man would do in his own business. The Office of Works was now so constituted that it could supply the Government with the preliminary information as to what was practically required in the case of any building, and how much money should be devoted to its erection. He had carried out that principle as far as he could in this instance. The Office of Works had arrived at a perfect accord with the trustees of the Museum, and had determined that a building such as was required ought to be constructed, not at the sum of £430,000 as formerly contemplated, but for £350,000; and for the smaller sum they would have in a suitable style of architecture a more commodious building erected than they would have had for the larger amount. With that view the contract plans and drawings had to be carefully studied by the architect; and those proceedings had taken more time than Mr. Waterhouse himself, or the Department had anticipated. He could not, however, yet fix the exact day when the contract would be made, for the simple reason that owing to the strike among the operative builders only the other day Mr. Waterhouse intimated to the Office of Works that he entertained some doubt now, at the last moment, whether they would be able to get a contractor to complete the building within the stipulated sum. It was his duty to inform that gentleman that he must revise all his details—and the Office suggested in what manner—so as to give a reasonable security to the Government that the contract would be completed within the stipulated sum. He thought no one could cavil at the delay seeing that the building trade was at that moment in a state of stagnation, owing to the strike or lock-out. The noble Lord thought they were proceeding in the dark; but the design had been very carefully considered, and, although complete in itself, was yet of such a character as to admit of large additions being made from time to time to meet the wants of the future. The noble Lord wanted to see the designs again before the work was commenced. [Lord ELCHO: The public should see them.] He did not know of what advantage it would be to exhibit the contract plans and drawings to the public. The design had been seen by the public at the Exhibition last year

743
sufficiently to enable a popular opinion to be formed upon it, and when the late Government determined to employ Mr. Waterhouse, and that determination was approved by Parliament, there was an end of the matter of taste. The work must, of necessity, be left to Mr. Waterhouse, who could not be assisted by the general public. Therefore, he hoped his noble Friend would allow that all had been done that was necessary to secure a fulfillment of the promises made upon the subject. His hon. Friend (Mr. Bowring) had raised a nice legal point as to what extent this land was vested in the Office of Works for the purpose of science and art. Presuming his hon. Friend correct, he could conceive of no idea more intimately connected with science and art than a post-office. What would be the use of science and art unless it could be diffused, and how could it better be diffused than by the post office, aided by the electric telegraph?
LORD ELCHOsubmitted that the right hon. Gentleman had not replied to his Question. He (Lord Elcho) had expressed a desire that steps should be taken to secure as satisfactory an outside to the building as it was presumed it would be complete inside. The promises of the Prime Minister had not been fulfilled, nor would they be until the designs had been exhibited at a time when hon. Members and the public could study them. It was true they had been put up in Westminster Hall for a short period at the fag-end of the Session, but that could not be called an exhibition. He was, therefore, resolved to oppose the Vote until he had a promise that the designs would be exhibited.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to state two things. In the first place, the present Government had never had an opportunity of appointing an architect for any public building—[Lord ELCHO: The Post Office]—in the second, the Government had most materially improved the system of erecting public buildings by the appointment of an officer in connection with the Office of Works.
MR. WHALLEYcomplimented the First Commissioner upon the great ability he had exhibited in this matter, and thought the country was greatly indebted to the Prime Minister for his selection of the right hon. Gentleman for that office.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought he could promise to vote with the noble Lord, on the principle that the House should insist upon a plan when it had once fixed upon it.
MR. W. ORMSBY-GOREsaid, he thought it was a preposterous proposal that they should vote a sum of £350,000 to be at the disposal of Mr. Waterhouse. If Mr. Waterhouse was to be the architect, and the First Commissioner of Works was to be his only supervisor, he doubted whether the House had sufficient confidence in either of those Gentlemen to sanction such an arrangement. It would be much better that a Committee of the House should be appointed to supervise the plans.
CAPTAIN TRENCHsaid, he thought that one remark which had fallen from the First Commissioner of Works had escaped the notice of the Committee, and it was that Mr. Waterhouse's design for the new building, which he had estimated would cost £350,000, and which had been substituted for Captain Fowke's design, had been handed back to him again by the First Commissioner of Works, on his representing that in consequence of the strike in the building trade—it could not be carried out at the cost estimated, with instructions to cut his designs down so that the original estimate should not be exceeded. He (Captain Trench) deprecated the introduction of such a system with reference to public buildings, and pointed out that the reason that there were so many barn-like barracks over the country, apparently reflecting discredit on architectural capabilities of the corps to which he (Captain Trench) had the honour to belong, was the working of such an utilitarian system, under which for a small amount of money large accommodation had to be provided—little money being given for, and consequently little regard being paid to ornamental appearance in the elevations. Such a system, he pointed out, might do well enough for barracks; but he thought it ought not to be applied to public buildings, more especially to such an one as that on account of which they were called upon to give a vote, which would also be in a measure a national monument, and one which would be visited by all foreigners and strangers coming to the metropolis. He submitted that the more proper course for the First Commissioner to

745
take would be to carry out the plan which had been inspected by the public and officially approved of; and if it was found that from strikes in the building trade, or other unavoidable causes, the original design could not be carried out for the amount originally estimated, he (Captain Trench) had no doubt that the House would willingly vote any additional sum—which could be introduced in a Supplementary Estimate—rather than agree to the cutting down and spoiling of the approved design.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 45: Majority 40.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,851, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for New Buildings, Maintenance and Repair of Buildings, and other Expenses connected therewith, of the Metropolitan Police Courts."
MR. WHALLEY, in moving to report Progress, said, he must appeal to the Government and the Committee to give him an opportunity of calling attention to the Tichborne Case. ["Order!"]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whalley.)
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Question before the House related to the metropolitan police courts.
MR. WHALLEYattempted to proceed with his remarks; but being repeatedly called to order, at length said he would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(3.) £110,483, to complete the sum for Public Buildings in Ireland.
(4.) £12,560, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
(5.) £450, to complete the sum for Embassy Houses Abroad.
(6.) £61,483, to complete the sum for Embassy Houses, &c. Constantinople, China, Japan, and. Tehran.
(7.) £251,472, to complete the sum for Superannuation and retired Allowances.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHcomplained that the Votes were being taken in a very spasmodic manner, and asked why some of the postponed Votes in Class 2 were not taken?
MR. BAXTERsaid, he had announced on the assembling of the House at two o'clock that three Votes to which Notice of opposition had been given would not be taken that evening.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought longer Notice ought to have been given.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) £31,910, to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c
(9.) £27,000, to complete the sum for Belief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad.
(10.) £14,350, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland.
(11.) £4,451, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
(12.) £4,618, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £976,468, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs Department."
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he trusted that the Vote would not be brought forward that night, as the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway), who wished to call attention to the subject, was not in his place.
MR. GOLDSMIDalso thought the Vote should be postponed.
MR. PEASEsaid, he would also draw attention to the fact that the promised Treasury Minute relating to certain officials in the Customs had not yet been laid on the Table.
MR. BAXTERsaid, that as the Minute in question had not been produced, he would assent to the postponement of the Vote.
MR. MUNTZremarked that there was great irregularity in the mode of taking the Votes. He trusted that in future the Votes would be taken in regular order.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHremarked on the inconvenience of altering at two o'clock an arrangement made the pre-

747
vious night, that a Vote should not be taken.
MR. WHITWELLalso complained of the uncertainty and confusion created by Votes being taken out of the regular order.
MR. R. N. FOWLERthought a Notice at two o'clock could not make up for the want of it the previous night.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(13.) £1,644,308, Inland Revenue Department.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he would suggest an amalgamation of the Customs and the Inland Revenue Collecting Departments in small town, where the income hardly equaled the expenditure.
MR. BAXTERsaid, no such scheme was at present in contemplation, and the question was too large a one to be discussed at a late hour without Notice.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) £2,609,814, Post Offices Services, &c.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (WARDS) BILL.— [BILL 102.]
(Mr. Winterbotham., Mr. Secretary Bruce.)

THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Winterbotham.)
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he thought the correct title of this Bill would be "a Bill for the Encouragement of Municipal and Political Jobbery." The great object of the House should be to prevent municipal contests becoming political. The Bill gave the Home Secretary the power to manipulate the municipal wards in every town in the kingdom, and he would naturally manipulate them in the interests of his own political party.
MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, the Home Secretary's name was not mentioned from one end of the Bill to the other. The power was given to the Privy Council.
MR. R. N. FOWLERreplied, that the Home Secretary would really be the person responsible, though the Privy Council might be nominally responsible. But if that were not so it only made his argument stronger. He had confidence in the present Home Secretary, but if the power rested with some Member of the Government not named—perhaps the Secretary of the Treasury—it only made matters worse. However it might be, the measure was calculated to give greatly increased prominence to political differences of opinion in every borough in the country, and would place power in the hands of the Government to dispose of in furtherance of their own political views. That was needless, for the Government had quite enough to do as it was, without having imposed on them the regulation of the affairs of every municipal borough in the kingdom. The Bill, if passed, therefore could not fail to give great dissatisfaction on account of the Government interference which it sanctioned, and it would lead to unlimited municipal dissensions wherever it was put into operation. If one Government made a change the next would be appealed to as soon as they came in to undo what their predecessors had done. He would, therefore, move that it be read a third time on that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
MR. STEVENSONsaid, the hon. Member ignored altogether the cases in which, owing to altered local circumstances, some reconstruction of the wards was absolutely necessary. It was an exaggeration to impute to the Bill mere wanton interference with municipalities for political purposes. In practice it was impossible to procure the sanction of two-thirds of the Town-Councils for a re-arrangement of the wards, and thus, under the existing law, no such re-arrangement could be made without the expensive process of an Act of Parliament.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that before they altered the law they were bound to show there was a real practical grievance. One or two cases might, perhaps, be adduced in which the neces-

749
sary two-thirds vote could not be obtained; but in those cases was not the majority in the right? A majority of two-thirds could always be obtained if a re-arrangement were required for municipal purposes; the only other object must be political; the House should not encourage municipal re-arrangements for political purposes; and as no municipal necessity had been shown, he supported the law as settled by his own Bill passed in 1859.
MR. WINTERBOTHAMobserved, that as the hon. Gentleman introduced a measure dealing with this question in 1859, he evidently believed that at that time there was a real grievance; and it was for the hon. Gentleman to show that it had now ceased to exist. There was, however, nothing in the Bill to indicate a political object, and, as a matter of fact, the increase of population and wealth in prosperous boroughs required changes in the distribution of wards; and many applications had been made to the Home Office for changes of this character to be introduced into Local Government Bills. The machinery of the Bill had been adopted from the Act of the hon. Member; and, as he considered that the question should not be regarded from a party point of view, he was anxious to prevent the measure being used for political purposes. As in the present Bill, so in the Act of 1859, it was provided that applications should be made to the Privy Council; and, therefore, the objections of the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. R. N. Fowler) failed. If an evil be recognized by one-third, they may make out a case for submission to the Privy Council; and this Bill contained a safeguard against abuse. He should therefore be sorry to see the House reject it.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought that the authorities on the Treasury Bench did not display any intimate knowledge of the practice in America on these questions, for in that country as soon as the question was decided one way there was an agitation for the readjustment of boundaries. He hoped the House would hesitate before they handed over power as was now proposed. He had never heard any great desire expressed for the alteration proposed by the present Bill, and he trusted the hon. Member would persevere with his Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLÉWORTHsaid, that his attention had been called to the difficulties which existed in relation to the ward representation in many boroughs, and especially in the borough which he represented; and, on behalf of his constituents, he had no hesitation in most heartily supporting the Bill.
MR. BIRLEYsaid, he was inclined to think that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham) was hasty in saying that the provisions of the Bill were satisfactory. In the course of time the Bill might have a very evil effect, for minorities in corporations and in boroughs might act in accordance with the wishes of an unpopular and tyrannical Government, and alter wards, and thereby change the political and social condition of the municipalities.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought it would be advisable to wait until the effect of the Act of last year taken in conjunction with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South-west Lancaster had been ascertained before further legislation on the subject was attempted.
MR. LEEMANheld that the Bill would be found useful, and that the House would do well to pass it, though he thought in some respects it scarcely went far enough.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 34: Majority 33.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 157.]
(Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Mr. James, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Melly.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. VERNON HARCOURT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he must express his regret that at that advanced period of the Session he could not hope to proceed with it beyond the present stage with any prospect of success; but in consequence of the defective state of the law upon the subject, a measure of this kind was required. Under the Act of 1871 convictions had been obtained and sentences

751
passed which were utterly contrary to the intention of the Legislature. The Bill provided that watching or "picketing" should not be subject to a criminal charge, so long as violence was not used. That was the only issue raised, and, briefly stated, the object of the Bill was to make the law clearer than it was at present, and to remove all ambiguity as to picketing. Hon. Members themselves were subjected to picketing by the Whips, who, however, were not sent to prison, and did not have their hair cut for putting moral pressure on Members. He believed it would give satisfaction to the working classes.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt.)
LORD ELCHO LORD ELCHO moved the adjournment of the debate. A Bill of such importance could not be properly discussed at that hour (1.30 A.M.). Moreover, as a Trades Union Commissioner, he thought the Act of last year, dealing with trades unions and regulating labour generally, ought to be continued for another year, and then the Government might amend that Act if necessary.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord Elcho.)
MR. BRUCEadmitted that there had been some very singular decisions under the Act, especially for the offence of picketing, as it was called, being the act of watching workmen with a view to their coercion; but he did not expect they would be repeated. He could not, however, consent to remove picketing from the category of special offences, nor did he think it would be proper to discuss such important questions as were connected with this Bill at so advanced an hour in the morning. He differed from his hon. and learned Friend when he said this Bill would give satisfaction to the working classes. The numerous communications he had received showed that they objected to special legislation on their behalf, and that they preferred the general law of the country. The Bill not only went further than the Government wished, but its introduction was altogether premature.
MR. JAMESsaid, he objected to delay in passing a Bill of this kind, which was essentially requisite in order to do justice
752
to the working men, who were liable, under the existing law, to imprisonment for mere picketing, without any violence being used. Baron Bram well had decided that picketing was not in itself an illegal act, and yet there had recently been convictions, with sentences of three months' imprisonment, for simply walking up and down in front of a house without the slightest attempt at coercion. All the working men asked was, that they should be put on the same footing in the eye of the law with the other classes of the community.
MR. COLLINSsaid, there would have been a better chance of the Bill passing had it simply defined the Act of last year, which was grossly misinterpreted in some localities.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he trusted that the House would discuss so important a question even at that late hour in the morning. It could not be denied that under the existing Act some exceedingly harsh convictions had taken place. Men had been imprisoned and put on the treadmill for simply passing up and down before a door. Did the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), who was so anxious to shelve this Bill, remember that during the whole of the week he had been exerting himself to hedge the mine-owners round with all sorts of protection? Would the House consent to send a master to the treadmill for an offence which was equivalent to picketing? They had heard from the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Fothergill) the dreadful results that would follow upon sending a mine-owner to the treadmill. The hon. Member had made the whole House shudder with his description of the clipping of the mine-owner's hair, until one could almost imagine he felt the scissors among his own ambrosial curls.
After short discussion,
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 30: Majority 2.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.

FARM BUILDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. FORDYCE, Bill to amend the Law of Scotland in regard to the right of property in Buildings erected by Agricultural Tenants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FORDYCE and Mr. M'COMBIE.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 231.]
House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Treaty of Washington* (191); Colonial Governors Pensions* (196).
Second Reading—Education (Scotland) (183); Sites for Places of Worship and Schools* (166).
Report of Select Committee—Petroleum* (104–135–193).
Committee—Court of Chancery (Funds)* (161–195); Infant Life Protection* (187).
Committee—Report—Boundaries of Counties (Ireland)* (180).
Report—Petroleum* (104–135–193).
Third Reading—Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment* (126), and passed.

ARMY RE ORGANIZATION—DEPOT CENTRES—OXFORD.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for

669
War, Whether his attention has been called to the proposed establishment of a Military Depât at Oxford, and to the strong objections expressed by the University to that measure? The noble Marquess said, the proposal to which his Question had reference met with the unanimous opposition of the University. Beginning with Professor Rogers, whose advanced Liberal opinions were well known, and ranging from him upwards or downwards, as their Lordships might wish, the political and theological opinion of every man in the University was opposed to the measure which the War Office had in view. In the first place, the military and academic lives did not fit in well. Officers in the Army had a considerable amount of duty to perform, but they had plenty of leisure, and with it high spirit and abundant animal health. The experience of the teachers in the University led them to conclude that the facilities of amusement for the students were already sufficient, and that it was not necessary to adopt means to stimulate the students to avail themselves of opportunities to amuse themselves. The luxury of our age made University life more expensive than it was formerly, and rendered it more difficult to restrain the young men from habits which were inconsistent with the pursuit of their studies. It was felt that the existence of a military mess of even a small number of officers in the vicinity of the University would not lessen but increase the evil. Again, if a military depot were once established at Oxford, the War Office could not abolish it hereafter, even if it were found to be very objectionable. There was another point of objection, to which he would not refer further than to say there was a fear that the establishment of a military depât would have a tendency to introduce the Contagious Diseases Act in Oxford. The War Office were, he believed, of opinion that Oxford was a convenient centre, being the junction of several lines of railway; but he would ask the War Office authorities to consider whether in this respect High Wycombe did not possess sufficient advantages in these respects, while in respect of being surrounded by a large area and being nearer to London it had recommendations superior to those of Oxford. It was said that the depot would cause the expenditure of £70,000 a-year in Oxford, which,
670
no doubt, was a temptation to the tradesmen of Oxford who had the good fortune to be the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office. The relations between a representative and his constituents were of a tender character, and he did not like to interfere with them; but the interests of the University in this instance were still higher. Then it must be remembered that, during the last year, the Government had treated the University as "a national institution," subjecting it to all the evils and drawbacks attendant on an institution of that character. They had pulled it to pieces, or turned it upside down, taken its money, and distributed that money as they pleased, and now they had in view a measure which would only add to these evils, instead of trying to mitigate them as much as possible. Whatever was done in a case of this kind ought to be done permanently; but whatever was done in opposition to the distinct wishes of the teaching body of the University could not be done permanently. These considerations ought to outweigh any advantages which Oxford might possess. He hoped the noble Marquess would be able to give their Lordships an assurance that the project had been abandoned; or, if not, that he would promise them that it should not be carried out until the whole of the teaching body, who were scattered, should have an opportunity of speaking their feelings to the War Office.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwished, in the first place, to assure the noble Marquess that the arguments he had urged with so much force had not only been considered, but fully and patiently considered by the War Office. The Committee, to whom had been entrusted the task of recommending certain divisions of the country into districts for military purposes, had weighed with the utmost care all the advantages and disadvantages of the different centres that were proposed, and that extreme care had been equally exercised by those on whom would fall the duty of giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee. But he must tell the noble Marquess that it was not in his power on the present occasion to give any assurance as to the selection or non-selection of Oxford. The decision must, in fact, depend on circumstances connected with adjoining districts, and till these had been fully

671
considered he could give no answer to the Question of the noble Marquess. The objection founded on the supposed disadvantages in a moral respect of the presence of a body of troops had been argued from other quarters. There was another objection founded on the argument that it was inexpedient to make any encroachment on ground likely to be required for University extensions, and a further one founded on the argumen that the proximity of a barrack would lead to a deterioration of property in Oxford. He would preface his answer to these objections by making two statements, the first having reference to the site of the proposed depôt, and the second, to the time and place of the annual training which might or might not take place hereafter at Oxford. Most of the arguments of the noble Marquess would be disposed of by this statement—that should the depôt be fixed at Oxford it would be neither within or near the University grounds, but at a distance of two or three miles. With regard to the training of the Militia, if Oxford were selected, that would take place in vacation and not in Term time. One of the recommendations of the Committee proceeded on the belief that, as there was probably a natural attachment felt by the Militia corps for their traditional headquarters, it would be expedient to retain High Wycombe for the Buckingham Militia, so that if Oxford were selected for the depôt, that arrangement would diminish by one-half the number of troops which would be at Oxford. Should any inconvenience be found to arise from the assembling of large bodies of Militia in or near the University of Oxford, it might be possible to have the training of that body carried on at Aldershot, or some other military station, and so relieve the University from any dangers that might arise from that source. The number of troops that would be stationed in or near Oxford would be very inappreciable for interfering with the order and discipline of the University. In most of the proposed centres throughout the country a mistaken impression prevailed as to the number of troops that would be stationed there, and their conversion into what were known as garrison towns, because, by a reference to the Report that had been laid upon their Lordships' Table, it would be seen that, under ordinary
672
circumstances, in the non-training period of the year there would only be 250 men stationed at each centre, of whom 200 would be recruits undergoing a severe course of training, and 50 old soldiers invalided or to be drafted. There would be in all about 15 officers; but he was informed on authority that the number of dining members of the mess—that mess to which the noble Marquess looked with so much apprehension—was not likely to exceed six, besides which the majority of the officers would be, in all probability, married men. He thought that if the noble Marquess looked at the map, he would find that Oxford possessed much larger railway facilities than High Wycombe. With regard to the suggestion of the noble Marquess that the Secretary of State for War might have a bias in favour of Oxford because the citizens were his constituents, he did not think it necessary to defend his right hon. Friend from that suspicion, and he would pass it by. As to the argument that if the depôt were established at Oxford there would be a difficulty in removing it hereafter, if such an argument were allowed to prevail against present practical advantages it would not be easy to come to any decision on such a subject. While he believed that the arguments against Oxford were not so gigantic as the noble Marquess seemed to suppose, their Lordships might be assured that the matter had not been decided, and that no decision would be come to on it without mature consideration.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he should have thought, only for the last sentence in the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that the question had already been decided by the War Office. What was it that enabled the noble Marquess to say that the site of the barracks would not be within two or three miles of the University?
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would be very glad if the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would kindly give the House the basis of his calculation that the number of dining members of the mess would be only six, and that the majority of the officers would be married?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied that no site had been selected at Oxford. What he meant when speaking

673
of the distance of the site was, that care would be taken that it should not be nearer to the University than two or three miles. As a considerable number of the officers would have lodging-money, he believed he was correct in saying that the dining members of the mess would not exceed six. He believed it was probable that the commanding officer would arrange so that the majority of the officers in the depôt would be married officers.
LORD SANDHURSTsaid, that some of the objections that had been raised by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), which had been heard in different parts of the country in the treatment of similar questions, depended rather upon his appreciation of the character of military officers than otherwise, and, perhaps, evinced a want of acquaintance with the facts on the part of those who permitted themselves to make such observations on the condition of society as affecting the officers in Her Majesty's service; but having been so many years connected with the Army as regimental and commanding officer he took exception to any suggestions which impugned the character of the officers of the Army and the depreciation of their character, and more especially of the younger officers. It was impossible not to attribute the statements of the consequences that were likely to flow from the establishment of depôt centres as given in all the representations that had come from various quarters, to the ignorance of military society. He was confident that everyone who had had an opportunity of forming a judgment on the matter would say that no small communities in civil life exhibited a higher morality or better order than the small military communities represented by officers' messes. That being so, he did not think any civil community, even an academic one, would be exposed to any danger from the presence of a depôt, whether the number of the dining members of the mess were six or sixteen, or whether the majority of the officers were single men or married men.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexplained, or rather he protested against the involuntary statement of his opinion by the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Sandhurst). He did not state or suggest anything derogatory of the Army; but that a number of imperfectly-
674
occupied young men in close proximity of the University would be an incentive to idleness in persons in statu pupillari that would not otherwise exist. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) seemed shocked at anyone suggesting the possibility of the Secretary for War being influenced by his constituents; but the noble Marquess himself, in the debate on the promotion of officers of the Scientific Corps, did not hesitate to state that noble Lords on the Opposition side were influenced by personal motives. Sic volo sic jubeo seemed to be the principle of the War Office. He should not move an Address, or propose to invite the House to expose itself to the insults of the Secretary of State for War; but it was possible that a legislative opportunity might arise without their being exposed to such rebuffs for ventilating the subject, and, if necessary, he should not scruple to ask their Lordships to avail themselves of it.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 183.)
(The Duke of Argyll.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was now three years since he had the honour of directing the attention of the House to the subject of education in Scotland, and of asking the assent of their Lordships to a measure to amend and extend the law which now existed in Scotland on that subject. Three years might be a very long or they might be a very short period in a Parliamentary history. He thought he might say that the three years which had elapsed since 1869 had been a long period in the Parliamentary history of Scotch education. It had been a period, however, which had not been allowed to remain idle—during that time the question had been most keenly debated. It had been debated by all political parties and all religious parties, and discussed in its principles and incidents, in all its bearings and in all its probable results, all over the kingdom. He thought he might say, too, that, whatever might be their own individual opinions or predilections as to what in the abstract would be the best system of national education, their Lordships no longer stood in the

675
same position that they occupied in 1869. Some things had been conclusively established; some things had been carried out by Parliament from which their Lordships could not now retreat, and the consequences of which they must all be prepared to accept. These changes were well worth reviewing. Three years since there was no such thing, properly speaking, as national education for England. The Parliament of the country had never acknowledged it to be its duty to see to the complete education of the people. For 30 or 40 years Parliament had been granting sums of money to various Churches and Societies, under certain conditions, towards the education of the people. During that period very great efforts had been made—especially by the Church of England—to turn to the best advantage the educational resources placed at their disposal. He did not think that too much praise could be bestowed upon the clergy of the Church of England for the self-sacrificing zeal they had brought to bear in the cause of education, and for the efforts they had made—often without due assistance from the laity—to fill up the great blank which had been left through the carelessness of former Parliaments. Parliament had not during those three years stood indifferent; but notwithstanding such aid and such exertions, they came to the conclusion that the system then in existence was inadequate and inefficient, and they set it aside. For his own part, he had no hesitation in saying three years ago that he had no objection to the denominational system of education. He still thought it was about the most natural organization to which the work of education could be entrusted. His theory of education was simple. It was that the duty of education lay first on parents. There was a call on parents in their collective capacity in any educational organization that might be formed; and, therefore, the organization of Churches fully agreeing on religious teaching was one of the most natural that could be formed. Failing that duty being performed by the parents, and failing its being performed by Churches, he thought the duty of the State came in. And this was very much the theory acted on in the matter of education by Parliament since 1869, and this was what was proposed to be done in regard to education in Scotland by the present
676
Bill. Notwithstanding the energetic exertions of the Church of England and other Churches, assisted by the Foreign and British School Society, the population had so outgrown the organization that it was impossible the work could be done; and Parliament, having come to the conclusion that hundreds and thousands of children were growing up without religious or secular education, passed the Act of 1870. Now, the Act of 1870, establishing national education in England, was, like almost every great Act in this country, a compromise. It did not take any abstract principle and follow it to a legitimate conclusion; but simply took the practical view, that, as the Churches had failed to perform the work, and as every other voluntary organization had either neglected or failed to perform it, the Legislature ought to step in. This principle was then laid down—that it was the duty and right of the State to see that the education of the people was ample and sufficient. The Act of 1870 gave compulsory power over parents in case of neglect, and it gave certain powers as to the rating of communities for the purposes of education. Very powerful forces had to be overcome before that Act could be passed. In the first place, there was in this country an extreme objection to the multiplication of rates; in the next place, the Bill of 1870 had to overcome what was a still more powerful feeling—namely, the attachment of Churches to their own denominational schools. Lastly, the Bill of 1870 had to break through the sincere fear as to the danger to the religious education of the people in any system of national education. Now, as regarded Scotland, it could not be denied that for a very long time an admirable national system of education had existed in Scotland to a considerable extent; but it had been outgrown by the national want. He did not deny its quality, which was good; but something more was rendered necessary by the great increase in the population, by the growth of large cities, and by the development of mining industry—there was a great necessity in respect of the enormous increase of the population in the counties and the great cities, for additional school accommodation, and a fresh geographical distribution of those schools. He was not going to trouble their Lordships with the statistics which he gave on the

677
last occasion on which he had addressed them. A Commission had sat the year before to inquire into the educational requirements of Scotland. No one would deny that with respect to the old cities of Scotland in the geographical position of the schools, there were immense deficiencies. He should read one extract from the last Report of Mr. Walker, an Inspector of Factories in Scotland, in which that gentleman said, speaking of the educational deficiencies in the great cities and counties—
"He found, in a company of Scotch Militia, that out of 82 of the rank and file, including two corporals, 46 had marks to their names, and the remainder could write very little more than their names."
The Report added—
"That it was a great mistake to suppose that education was more general in Scotland than in other countries. In the strictly rural districts, where parish schools were in force, much good had been accomplished, and agricultural labourers were better educated; but they must go to Lancashire and the West Riding, where the half-time system was in vogue, for good education."
This had reference, of course, mainly to the great cities, but it showed that in populous places the educational deficiencies in Scotland were marked. There was another point to which he wished to refer—namely, that whereas they found practically the same need with which they had to deal in England, they had not the same resisting force with respect to a national system of education as there was in the latter country. In the first place, it was an old established doctrine of the Scotch law that it was the duty and the function of the State and Parliament to see to the education of the people. There was nothing new in that doctrine. It was an old accepted doctrine in Scotland. It was familiar to the minds of the people, and therefore none of that resisting force which had been opposed to the Act of 1870 in England was to be experienced in Scotland. In the second place, there was not the same objection as there was in England of a reluctance to resort to rates for the purposes of education. In Scotland the established system of education was founded upon rates. Those rates were levied only upon one kind of property—namely, upon the proprietors and the tenants of land. There was another point of difference between Scotland and England in favour of a complete system of national
678
education in Scotland. There was no great anxiety on the part of denominational Churches to keep up separate denominational schools. In England there was a great desire to keep up those schools, and one of the things which they dreaded most in England was the fear that the rate schools would ultimately absorb the Church schools. There was not the same feeling in Scotland. There was only one Dissenting Church outside of the Church of Scotland which had taken a strong and active part in support of separate education—that was the Free Church of Scotland; but the Free Church had been driven into that by exceptional circumstances. They did not desire to set up new schools; but the fact was by the old law the parish schoolmasters must be members of the Established Church; and when the Secession of 1843 occurred, some of the masters went over from the Establishment, and being therefore unable to retain their schools, there was nothing for the Free Church to do but to allow them to starve, or to set up new schools. He might mention that several members of the Free Church, and among them his old friend Dr. Guthrie, were against their setting up a new system of schools, and expressed the opinion that nothing but absolute necessity would justify it. That was the only real earnest attempt of any religious Body to set up denominational schools; but that, as he had already said, was the result of accident. These schools were not desirable—they taught nothing but what was taught in the Established Church schools—they simply arose out of the circumstances of the case, and there was no necessity for them; but, on the contrary, they were needless and a burden. There was another difficulty which had presented itself in England, but which would not be much felt in Scotland—arising from the number of denominational schools. In England there was a great fear of the national system of schools, but in Scotland there need be no such fear, and for this reason—that with the exception of the schools of the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, which were denominational, the religious conduct of schools was universally the same, the hours devoted to religious instruction were the same, and there was practically no difficulty in regard to religious instruction. This being so, he did not think it pos-

679
sible for them any longer to shut their eyes to the necessity there was for seeing that the provision for the education of the people was made more efficient than it had been. One of the principles of the Act of 1870 was that of compelling parents to send their children to school. But in Scotland that was not new. By an old Act passed 400 years ago—in 1494—there was a system of compulsory education, and it was this—that freeholders were compelled, under a penalty of £20 to teach their eldest sons Latin, and how to administer the laws; but that referred only to the eldest sons, and it was not taken into account by the Scotch legislators that the eldest sons might die, and the second sons take their places. The Bill which he now asked the House to read a second time gave the same powers of compulsion as had been adopted in the English Act of 1870. It gave power to school boards to see that parents took means to educate their children, and power to impose rates for educational purposes. But the Bill also kept up the old Scotch principle—that there should be in every parish a local authority charged with educational affairs. At present the proprietors of the land did it. The only difference that this Bill made was with regard to the constitution of the school boards. Instead of confining the management of the schools to the proprietors of the land and the ministers, the whole community in the parish would have a voice in electing a school board which would look after the educational wants of the parish. The school boards would, therefore, include a representation of all classes of the community. The Bill abolished the present system of rating by which the burden was thrown exclusively upon land. He need hardly say that a system of rating confined to land, and not extended to all rated property, was a system which never would have been adopted in modern times—it was adapted to a time when there was no property but land and no ratepayers but landowners and their tenants; and accordingly, under this old Scotch law, there was no rating for educational purposes upon anyone but the owners of land, and all other rateable property was exempt. One of the main principles of the Bill was that this exclusive system of rating upon land was done away with; and wherever rates should be established,
680
they were to be levied in the same way as the poor rates—one half upon the occupier and one half upon the owners of property. He desired to direct their Lordships' attention to a point which might not strike them on a first perusal. The Bill did not make rating absolutely necessary in all cases. It was quite possible that there might be parishes which could not have any system of rating at all. The Bill said that there must be rating where there was any deficiency in school accommodation; but where there was no deficiency in this respect, there need be no rate. The income of schools might be derived from several sources. First of all, there were the fees paid by the parents; next, there were grants by the Privy Council—there were sometimes ancient endowments; and, lastly, there were voluntary subscriptions. Now, though no doubt the principle adopted was a system of rating upon all rateable property, there might be many cases—and he thought he knew many cases—in which it would be quite possible for landlords to address their tenants by saying—"We are now relieved by this Act from the obligation of keeping up these schools by a rate. We, however, do not wish to make any alteration in the present system. If you will agree with us in the management of those schools, if the school board is elected to represent us, and practically to reproduce the present system, we, the proprietors, will continue to pay out of our property to the schools." He (the noble Duke) did not know that this system should be generally adopted, but there were a great many quiet rural parishes where there was no rateable property except land, and no one but landowners and their tenants; and it was perfectly possible for the proprietors to make such an arrangement as he had suggested. He had next to ask their Lordships' attention to the question of the religious difficulty, and to the principles adopted in the Bill in respect to it. He would remind their Lordships that, up to the passing of the English Act of 1870, the Parliamentary Grants were given, under the Minutes of the Council, chiefly to these two great national societies, which represented the Church of England, and to the British and Foreign School Societies, which represented the associated body of Dissenters. Under the principle adopted

681
in the Minutes of Council, religious education was to a certain extent to be given; and there was this noticeable circumstance—that although money was given to schools which had no connection with any Church or with any Society, it was only given on condition that the Bible should be read. That was the system on which the Council founded their grants down to the passing of the Act of 1870. The first attempt that was made to break through this system, and to recognize purely secular schools, was by a Bill brought in by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Marlborough) as a Member of the last Government of Lord Derby. He (the Duke of Argyll) rejoiced that the proposition emanated from one whose earnest desire for religious education could not be doubted. The noble Duke felt, no doubt, that when no restriction as to religious education existed than that it should be conducted by some Church, Protestant or Roman Catholic, Unitarian or Trinitarian, and when the only condition imposed on secular schools was that the Bible must be read, with no security as to the spirit in which it was read or the consistency with it of the doctrines which were taught, it was necessary to give up the doctrine of the duty of the State to superintend religious education, and to recognize purely secular schools as doing the only work which the State had, he would not say the right, but the power to look to. That Bill did not pass, but it was a significant fact that such a proposal was made by a Conservative Government, and by the Committee of Council, under the conduct of a noble Duke sincerely desirous to do all he could in behalf of religious education. It being thus the determination of both parties that the State could no longer supervise schools with regard to religious instruction, the natural result was that the Act of 1870 freed the State altogether from that duty, and ostentatiously recorded in its clauses that the State had nothing to do with religious education, that it would take no part in religious inspection, and that the payments by the State to the schools, should be for secular instruction only. This being the solution of the religious difficulty at which, after keen discussion, Parliament arrived, and which he ventured to say all parties must accept, he knew of no peculiarity in the circum-
682
stances of Scotland which precluded the application to it of that solution. That solution consisted in interfering as little as possible with local parties, and in allowing them to manage religious instruction as they pleased, with the sole proviso that, as a condition of the assistance given by the State, the benefit of the secular instruction should be given to all children desirous of receiving it, without requiring them to accept the religious instruction also. The Church of England, though more jealous than any other body on this point, wisely accepted that solution as the only possible one under the the circumstances of the case; and it was a proof of the wisdom of their decision that the agitation now raised was against the compromise which they accepted—for the advocates of a purely secular system had found that under it the Church of England and the various Churches retained almost all the power which they previously possessed over the religious education of their own followers. Why, then, should the friends of religious education in Scotland demur to a conclusion which the Church of England had so willingly and so wisely accepted? Were there circumstances which rendered its application to Scotland more difficult? The circumstances were, on the contrary, more favourable than in England; for, with the exception of the Roman Catholics and the Episcopalians, the Dissenting Bodies practically agreed with the Established Church with regard to religious instruction. The Bill accordingly, adopting the solution arrived at in England, left the religious instruction to the free management of local bodies, with the protection of a Conscience Clause. He wished to say a word upon a point which had created a vast excitement—namely, with reference to "the Conscience Clause" or what was now generally termed "the time-table Conscience Clause." About a Conscience Clause there had never been any difficulty, for, though not an enactment, it had been laid down by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, as also, he believed, by the Free Church, that all scholars in their schools should have the benefit of the secular instruction without being obliged to accept the religious instruction. It was common, therefore, in parishes containing a few scattered Roman Catholics for their children to attend the parish schools,

683
withdrawing from the religious instruction, and no complaint had to his knowledge ever been made of any attempt to proselytize on the part of the schoolmaster or clergy. Scotchmen, however, with their peculiar jealousy of interference by the State, were a little jealous in some quarters, of the State requiring them to do that which they had nevertheless always done, and in some parts there was a feeling against the timetable Conscience Clause. He desired to say a few words in explanation of that. The truth was, that a great many people in Scotland did not quite see the effect and the necessary consequence of an Act of Parliament which gave compulsory powers over parents to compel them to send their children to school. Now, this was practically the first time any power of compulsion over parents had been given; and it had been felt in England that when Parliament gave local bodies or a central authority so large a power—which in some cases might affect severely the pecuniary resources of families, and possibly even touch their conscientious scruples—it was bound to see that the religious scruples of parents were respected. A time-table Conscience Clause was, therefore, necessary—this being merely a regulation that any religious instruction should be given at certain definite hours—that the children of Dissenting parents might be withdrawn; for if it were mixed up with secular instruction, Parliament would have no security that such scruples would be respected. He hoped, therefore, that noble Lords opposite connected with rural populations in Scotland, which did not see the Parliamentary bearing of the question would explain, to their constituents he might say—for there were communities which were more or less represented and guided by Members of that House—that Parliamentary security for the operation of a Conscience Clause necessitated such an arrangement. Before he touched upon the religious difficulty, he wished to point out one difference between this Bill and the English Act, which was not an unimportant one. The English Act absolutely prohibited any catechism from being taught in schools. The clause containing that prohibition was introduced into the Act in the other House, and it was accepted as a compromise by the friends of the Church of England, and, as he had
684
understood at the time, by a large number of the Dissenters. The present Bill contained no such clause, and the reason of this difference between the two Bills was that, whereas the Catechism of the Church of England was accepted in this country as the form of dogma of a particular religious body, the Westminster Confession was generally adopted by all the Presbyterian religious Bodies in Scotland. It was perfectly true that there was no prohibition in the Act against religious teaching in the schools, but only that a formula shall not be used. That clause was inserted with the consent of the Government, not at all with the notion—which was the notion of many persons—that it was wise to keep religion separate from dogmas. He always thought that an absurd idea. They must have some doctrine to which religious faith could be attached, and it would be utterly futile to separate religious teaching from dogmas. But there was this practically to be said in favour of that clause—he did not mean it as an abstract principle—but there was this to be said for it, it was accepted by the Church of England, and a religious party had assented to it. There were some Dissenting Bodies who would have no objection to send their children to Church of England schools and accept their teaching, provided their particular formula were done away with. That clause was not to be in this Bill, and he trusted that no Member of the House would ask for it. The simple ground of accepting it was this—that in Scotland the doctrine adopted by all the Presbyterians, the Free Church, the Established Church, the United Presbyterian Church, and, he believed, all the old Presbyterian churches, was the Westminster Confession, and that had got such a strong hold over the religious affections and religious feelings of the people that no measure would be accepted from which that was excluded. For his own part, he very much questioned whether the Churches of England or the Church of Scotland, if they were now drawing up for the first time a catechism for the schools, would prepare that catechism precisely as those who had gone before them. He believed they would not; and in regard to the Westminster Confession, although in his opinion it contained many questions and many answers which were the very noblest utterances of the

685
Christian Churches, still it was more intricate than he should like. It was enough to say that it was that to which the great mass of the people were earnestly and sincerely attached, and he for one thought it was wrong to interfere with dogmatic teaching. It seemed to him that they could leave that dogmatic teaching absolutely free, upon this one condition only—that the teaching might be acceptable to the whole of the people of Scotland. There was another very important part of the Bill to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. Although the existing parochial system of education in Scotland had failed in some measure in consequence of the educational wants of the country having immensely outgrown its power to meet them, the main cause of its failure was owing to the irremovability of the schoolmasters. Under the existing system in Scotland, it was almost impossible to get rid of a bad master, who held nearly as secure a freehold in his office as the parish priest. Unless the schoolmaster could be shown to have committed certain illegal acts, which it was very difficult to do, the parish was saddled with him for life, however inefficient he might be proved to be. At least 90 per cent of the inefficiency of the parochial system could be traced to that cause. In the Act of 1861 an attempt was made to remedy this defect in the law by transferring the power of removal from the Church Board to the Sheriffs; but that Act had been found to work inefficiently, only one or two masters having been removed under it. The Government and the other House of Parliament had come to the conclusion that the only way to get rid of the difficulty would be to permit free bargains to be entered into between the masters and the local boards, under which the former were to be retained as long as they performed their duties efficiently, but would be liable to dismissal if they performed them in an inefficient manner. He was aware that this proposal would be criticized by those who were accustomed to the old system, but for his own part he thought that it was unobjectionable. Another part of the Bill which had given rise to much discussion was that which related to the machinery by which the Bill was to be carried into effect. The measure proposed that local Commissioners should be appointed for four
686
or five years by the Privy Council, whose duty it would be to set the machinery provided by the Bill in motion, to unite or divide certain parishes, and to superintend other matters which required a knowledge of detail which could not attained by a London Board; but after the machinery had been thus put into working order, the general government of the education in Scotland would be handed over to a special department of the Privy Council. He thought he had now said enough to inform their Lordships of the nature of the Bill he now asked them to read a second time—he only wished further to express a very earnest hope that there would be no further delay in bringing this question to a settlement. Without in the least desiring to utter anything that might be regarded as a threat, he should regard further delay in the settlement of this question with considerable fear, lest it should result in the adoption of a purely secular system of education—a result he lookod forward to with as much dread as any other noble Lord in the House. Under no circumstances would he be the mouthpiece of a Government which should propose the adoption of such a system, and therefore he must be held free from uttering that warning in the light of a threat; but he was bound to tell their Lordships that he was alarmed at the prospect of this question of education being delayed much longer. Although the Act of 1870 had been wisely accepted as a compromise by both the Church of England and a large portion of the Dissenting Churches in this country, no man could deny that a very alarming agitation had been got up against the principles of that Act, and against any remaining relics of religious education which were preserved by it. Even men for whom he had the highest respect showed a tendency to adopt a purely secular system of education. He regarded such a system as an impossible ideal, and as such he hoped it would remain at least during the present generation. It would be very strange, indeed, if in this Christian country no child was to be allowed to receive any religious teaching whatever in our schools—that they should receive an education without hearing the name of God or receiving a glimpse of a future state. His objection to the secular system was that it put positive obstructions

687
in the way of religious education. The advocates of the secular system recommended that the masters should be actually prohibited from giving religious instruction, and that religious instruction should be given neither in the same place, nor by the same men as the secular instruction was given. That was putting absolute legislative restrictions upon religious education, and he could not be one to recommend such a system to Parliament. He believed that the people of this country were determined, as far as they could, to have a religious education; and his objection to the secular system was, that, in regard to a great mass of the people of Scotland, if they did not receive a religious instruction at those schools, it was certain they would not receive it anywhere else. Why, what was the real necessity under which they were called to legislate at all on the subject of education? Was it not because the Churches had failed to overtake the growing wants of the people? And, therefore, unless the opportunity for religious instruction was given in the national schools, it was almost certain that a large proportion of the people would get no religious instruction at all. On those grounds, then—on the ground of the positive merits of the measure—on the ground that it found a solution of the difficulties under which they laboured, he ventured to recommend it to the favourable consideration of their Lordships. It was not without some reluctance that he presented to them a Bill which, even in appearance, interfered with the system of education which had existed so long in Scotland and of which they had been so proud, and which as far as it extended had unquestionably done its work so well. But the more they looked at that Bi]l the more they would see that the edifice it proposed to raise was an edifice raised on the lines of the ancient Scottish system, with no other changes in it than those which were required by the changed condition of society and the changed relation of the Churches to that society. It had been suggested that they should legalize "the use and wont" of the Scottish people in regard to religious education; but he said let them leave religious education to that use and wont, and it would not be departed from, for the use and wont of a people were far more powerful than any law that they could
688
pass. The Westminster Confession had a strong hold on the majority of the people of Scotland, and they might leave the religious instruction of the young to them, with full confidence that under the new scheme all that was good in the old system would be continued and strengthened, and that the education of the country would be permeated by that spirit which had made it so successful for many centuries.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was glad to be able to agree very cordially with much that was contained in the last portion of the very eloquent address which the noble Duke had offered to the House, and more particularly with his remarks in reference to the secular system. He also agreed with another remark of the noble Duke—namely, that it would be a very disastrous thing for the people of Scotland if some settlement of the question with regard to the education of the people was not speedily come to; and he further thought that, judging from past experience and the evidence they had before them, the chances were that measures brought forward on the subject in succeeding years might not be so satisfactory to their Lordships as the Bill now under their consideration. But he could not agree with him in regard to various details of the Bill. He was glad that the task of introducing the Bill had fallen into the hands of the noble Duke, because he had for so many years devoted his attention to the subject of the education of the people of Scotland, and there was no one more competent or more able to give information with regard to the habits, wants, and educational requirements of the people of Scotland than the noble Duke who had just addressed them. The noble Duke had shown his ability to do so by the measure he brought in on a former occasion, and he (the Duke of Richmond) confessed he regretted that the measure now under discussion should be, to his mind, so much at variance with the Bill the noble Duke introduced in 1869. His noble Friend stated on that occasion that the Bill was mainly based on the Report of the Royal Commission over which he had presided; and that its provisions embodied the recommendations of that Commission. It had, moreover, this ad-

689
vantage, that in its Preamble there occurred these remarkable words—for which he looked in vain in the present measure—that it was intended "to extend and improve the parochial system of education in Scotland." The difference between the two Bills was this—that, whereas that was a Bill to extend and improve the parochial system of Scotland, this Bill at once put an end to that system; and although, it might be perfectly true that that system might not have been sufficient in the larger towns and in some of the mining districts, to overtake the educational wants of the people, he was rather astonished to hear the noble Duke state that of the want which now existed in Scotland, 90 per cent of that want was caused by the inability to get rid of bad or inefficient schoolmasters.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: In the rural districts.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: So that they were putting an end to an admirable system, because 10 per cent of it had failed to overtake the educational requirements of the country; for by bringing in a measure for the removal of inefficient masters they would, according to the noble Duke's own showing, get rid of 90 per cent of the inefficiency and the difficulty experienced in the local districts at least. He regretted that this measure would destroy a system—the parochial system—upon which, in 1869, the noble Duke himself pronounced an eloquent eulogy. He hoped the noble Duke would excuse him for quoting his words; but in asking their Lordships to assent to the Bill of 1869, the Preamble of which contained the words he had just quoted, the noble Duke said—
"My firm belief is, that if this Bill is adopted we shall confer the inestimable benefits already derived from our parochial system. We shall be erecting a lasting monument in grateful memory of immortal names."
Now, however, instead of erecting a system which in 1869 was to be "a lasting memorial," the noble Duke laid his axe at the root of that noble tree for the purpose of inaugurating and establishing a system which he believed was totally different from the parochial system—as different from the parochial system as one system could be unlike another. They all knew that under the parochial system great benefits were conferred on all classes of the community.
690
Anyone who knew anything of Scotland knew that under it the son of the humblest labourer was enabled to raise himself by it to go into the Universities, and if energetic, frequently to become a respected minister of the Church, or a distinguished member of other professions. He regretted that these inestimable benefits should be entirely, as he thought, destroyed for the purpose of establishing a system like this in its place. He took exception to the Factory Report the noble Duke had read as to ignorance of the inhabitants who were occupied in the factories. His impression was, that a great number of those employed in the factories were Irish people—and he did not consider that the Report was a good witness for the noble Duke—and he should have liked very much to know the name of the regiment of Militia to which he had referred, and in the ranks of which there appeared to be some of the worst educated people in that part of the United Kingdom. He certainly thought they would hardly find another regiment of Militia, especially in Scotland, in which there were so many ignorant persons. There would be a great difficulty at the present moment, particularly after what had occurred in England since the introduction of the Bill of 1869, in setting up in Scotland two distinct and opposite systems—and although he objected to some of the details of the Bill, he regarded it as a very good solution of the difficulty. The present system was, no doubt, objected to on the ground of narrowness, because the management of the schools was vested in the heritors and the clergymen, to the exclusion of all other denominations from a voice in the election of the schoolmasters, although the representatives of other denominations were quite as intelligent and religious as those of the Established Church. Not wishing, however, that a measure of education for the people of Scotland should not pass during the present Session, he did not intend to offer any objection to the second reading of this Bill. But he wished to make a very few remarks upon some of the more salient points in discussing the various provisions of the Bill. He was rather surprised at the manner in which the noble Duke alluded to religious education, and he confessed that throughout the length and breadth of this Bill there was not within the

691
four corners of it any recognition of religion in it. It was perfectly true that of late there had been no special enactment with regard to religious education; but without going back or entering into details, there was the celebrated work of John Knox, recognizing religious education, which had been practically acted upon up to the present time. And another very important part of the management of the schools in Scotland which ought not to be lost sight of was, that the minister of the parish was always appointed to be one of the managers of these schools. Therefore it was necessary that religion should be taught in the schools, else there was no necessity that the minister should form one of the Board. No later than 1861, the last Schoolmasters' Act that was passed embraced this principle of religious instruction—at any rate, prohibited the giving of any instruction contrary to the doctrines of the Church. Therefore, we must assume that it was intended that religion should be taught in the schools. He found not only no recognition in this Bill of religion, but there was a clause, as it seemed to him, almost indicating that everything connected with religion was to be swept out of it. He referred to Clause 75. His point was this—We see religion recognized by all the statutes from 1567 down to 1861, and by the 75th clause all these Acts are repealed. That was to say, every Act which had gone before, and which had recognized religion, was entirely repealed and put an end to by this Act, in which there was no mention of religion or indication of it. He said at once, then, that religion did not form part of the Bill. Therefore, in Committee he trusted their Lordships would accept some recognition of religion in a form which he would take the liberty of suggesting to their Lordships. He was the more inclined to do this from the very remarkable speech made by the Lord Advocate at Stranraer. The Lord Advocate entered at great length on the subject of religion, and he said it would be a monstrous thing to teach a child elementary secular education, unless it received religious education. He said further he would neither proscribe religious education nor prescribe it. He should follow the example of the Lord Advocate—and his Amendment would be conceived in that spirit—
692
and should neither proscribe nor prescribe religious education, but he should recognize it in some form or other, which he thought it was not by the Bill. He would now refer to another point—and he confessed he was very much alarmed at the proposal—that the Central Board, which was to become the Scotch Education Department, was to be located in Whitehall. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), in reply to some observations made by a noble Marquess on his own side of the House (the Marquess of Ripon) on this Central Board, informed him that he had a great respect for his opinions on various matters, but there was one subject upon which he should pay no respect whatever to his opinion, and that was in respect of the education of the people of Scotland; and he added that, of all the Departments least calculated to deal with the education of Scotland, it was the Department presided over by the noble Marquess. He (the Duke of Richmond) might say, with regard to this Central Board, that he had no respect whatever for the noble Duke's opinion. He should move an Amendment giving to the Board a Scotch, not an English character. What was the Board in England to consist of? A room in Whitehall, and the name "Scotland" painted over it. There seemed nothing real in it. He hoped that there would be a real Scotch Board, competent to deal not only with the educational system in Scotland, but also to give confidence to the people. With regard to the next point—the constitution of the school boards—he confessed he was somewhat alarmed, because he feared the character of the school boards, which had managed the schools of Scotland so well for 400 years, would be impaired. Hitherto the boards had been composed of men of education, and he feared that the high standard of education of which Scotland had been so proud would be reduced by the introduction of men of a lower education. They must recollect that there was a question of rates involved, and upon the amount of money that would come out of the pockets of the ratepayers would depend the education given. He would not trouble the House with details, and he should reserve for the Committee the question whether it would not be wiser to have a higher class of persons on the

693
board than could be expected from £4 ratepayers. Another point to which reference had been made that evening was the position of the schoolmasters in Scotland as compared with the same class in England. He had heard it stated that the position of the Scotch schoolmasters accounted for the supposed superiority of Scotch education. Well, if they put the power of electing the schoolmasters into the hands of a lower class of individuals than had hitherto managed the schools, did they not endanger that high-class education which had hitherto been given? He thought there were some other points connected with the schoolmasters which might be considered in Committee—such as the collection of school fees and other matters of detail, upon which he would not now detain their Lordships—but he should like to make a few remarks upon the Conscience Clause which was embodied in the Bill under discussion. He thought the clause as it stood in the Bill was an extremely bad one, and that for several reasons. In the first place it seemed to him that its operation would only tend to hamper the schoolmasters as to the time at which religious teaching should be given to the children under their charge. The noble Duke had expressed his opinion that no child ought to go through a school course without religious instruction, and therefore it followed that the schoolmasters ought to be able to give such instruction in those hours which were most suitable to the children instructed. He quite concurred, therefore, with the noble Duke in thinking that a Conscience Clause ought to form part of the Bill; and he also concurred in the opinion that, in order to ensure regularity of instruction, it should be a "time-table" Conscience Clause. If they compelled parents to send their children to school, they ought to let them know at what hours religion was to be taught. In his own parish children of parents belonging to the Established Church and the Roman Catholic persuasion sat side by side in the schools, where they received the same Bible lesson, and took the Bible home to prepare their lessons—facts which were within the knowledge of the Catholic priest who lived within half-a-mile of the schools, and, as far as he knew, raised no objection. This fact showed that in the case to
694
which he referred a Conscience Clause was not, perhaps, an absolute necessity; but there were many places where the necessity existed. In any case it was advisable to have a good Conscience Clause, if they had one at all. As he had said, he thought the clause contained in the Bill was a bad one, and mainly because it provided that religious teaching should only be given at the beginning or the ending of the day; and in the latter case, it must come after the prescribed four hours of secular instruction, and in many cases would prove highly inconvenient to children whose parents lived in scattered parishes, far removed from the schools. In many cases, therefore, the children would be entirely debarred from receiving religious instruction. He should, therefore, when they reached the Committee on the Bill, ask their Lordships to assent to the striking out of the 65th clause, in order to substitute for it the Conscience Clause, which stood part of the. English Act of 1870, and which had the advantage of having stood the test of two years' experience without proving to be possessed of any particular demerit. He should not at the present time trespass any further upon their Lordships' time than to assure the noble Duke that he should go into Committee upon the Bill with an earnest desire to improve it, if he could, by offering suggestions which, he believed, would have the effect of making the measure more palatable to the people of Scotland, and at the same time of conferring upon them that which the noble Duke and himself had at heart in common—he meant that greatest of all possible blessings, an efficient and religious education.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction that the noble Duke who had just sat down did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, which he regarded as most satisfactory when compared with other similar Bills that had preceded it. The noble Duke had stated that a large proportion of the children who could not read or write in Scotland were Irish; but he found from the Report which the noble Duke quoted, that the Inspector stated a large number of them to be Scotch—thus showing that an Education Bill was needed for Scotland as well as for the other portions of the Empire. With regard to the objection that no religious

695
instruction was intended to be given, he could only point to the provision that no children were to be compelled to attend school during the hours of religious teaching, as showing by inference that in the great majority of cases, religious instruction would be provided. He was glad to find, further, that the Bill proposed to give the school boards power, where they thought it necessary, to discharge the schoolmasters. At present there was the greatest possible difficulty in reference to this matter, owing to a defect—which he had endeavoured unsuccessfully to remove—in the Scotch Education Bill of 1869. He desired now to say a few words on points in which he thought the Bill now under discussion was defective. The first of these had relation to the arrangements for examination both of the schoolmasters and the schools. He found that the examiners were to be appointed by the Scotch Education Committee or Department—a very great change from the system which had prevailed hitherto, of having the examiners appointed by the Universities; and those who knew anything of the Scotch education system would recognize the importance of endeavouring to obtain, as far as possible, a connection between the primary schools and the Universities. This fact was fully recognized in the Report of the Commission of which his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) was Chairman; and it could not be too often repeated—that the theory upon which the school system of Scotland was originally conceived, was to supply the best means of education, in order to enable the superior class of students to attain to the Universities. In Scotland they would like to have a higher standard than that which had existed hitherto, and they were afraid that if the appointment of the examiners were vested in the Privy Council, this higher standard would be lost. He therefore ventured to suggest that a certain number of the examiners might be appointed by the Privy Council, and the remainder by the University Boards. With regard to the other question, he must say that, with all respect for the town councils, he did not think they were the most competent bodies that could have been selected to appoint the persons who were to examine teachers in the higher branches of education; nor did he agree with the proposal that
696
the wishes of the head-masters were to be consulted with reference to the examiners who were to be appointed. The examiners were to act as a sort of check upon the head-masters, and it was therefore a most extraordinary proposal that the masters were to be consulted as to the appointments. He should like to hear fully the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this when the Bill got into Committee. He hoped that the whole of these matters would be fully discussed in Committee. He was glad to find that the principle of the measure met with the approval of both sides of the House.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he was a humble supporter of the Bill, but he supported it not relying on any universal principle, save the principle that it was the duty of the State to promote the well-being of the people. It appeared to him that that principle applied especially to Scotland, but not to Ireland, and least of all in the case of primary education, in regard to which its result would be most disastrous. He should, therefore, most strongly deprecate the passing of this Bill being made a precedent for the settlement of the great question of primary education in Ireland.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYhoped that he would be allowed to say a few words on the subject. He confessed that he rather adhered to the expression of opinion made by the noble Duke in 1869 in relation to the Scotch Education Board. He regretted that he could not concur with the noble Duke that it was impossible to introduce into an Education Bill for Scotland the 14th clause of the English Act. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had remarked that some of their Lordships had, in a certain sense, constituents as truly as any Member of the House of Commons. Now he had himself that evening presented a Petition from a large association which had for its object the separate religious and united secular education of the people. The persons who signed that Petition declared that it would be most repugnant to their views that a public rate should in any way be devoted to the support of denominational education. On a future occasion, he should feel it his duty to give their Lordships an opportunity of expressing an opinion on that point. He confessed that he took the same view of the matter as the members of the association to whom he had referred, and he

697
should be ashamed of himself if he shrank from avowing his opinions.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) in moving the second reading of the Bill, had not stated the reasons which induced the Government to propose a measure this year based on principles denounced by the noble Duke himself in moving the second reading of the Bill of 1869. He did not believe that the people of Scottand desired the change—certainly they had not shown much indication of such a wish by their Petitions, for their own petitions Presented to the other House against the Bill were signed by nearly 20,000 persons against parts of it—especially touching religious education, from above 200,000, while not above 8,000 had signed in favour of it. He, therefore, much regretted the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had not moved its rejection. The standard of education under the existing system was as high as in Prussia, where the compulsory system existed, and the use and wont of religious teaching in the parochial schools had given to the Scotch nation the high character for persevering industry and good conduct which gained for them respect and advancement wherever they went. But he feared that in the event of this measure becoming law, the inevitable result must be that the deep religious feeling which was one of the main elements of the Scottish character would little by little decrease. If the schoolmaster were encouraged not to give, and the children not to receive, religious instruction, such would be the inevitable result. The only reason that the Bill was accepted in its present shape was, that the Free Church were in such a hurry to free themselves from the support of their schools, and have them supported from the land; and this was a poor reason for giving up a school system established by John Knox, and still working most efficiently. He would not dwell on the heavy increase of taxation under this Bill. He was sorry their Lordships accepted the Bill at all, but he was happy to think it would not pass into law without those Amendments which bore upon religious education in Scotland.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to carry into effect a Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America—Was presented by The Earl of KIMBERLEY; read 1a. (No. 191.)
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.