Sitting of 9 June 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Withdrawn—Monastic and Conventual Institutions* [38].

INLAND REVENUE (IRELAND)— MIXING SPIRITS.—QUESTION.
MR. O'SULLIVANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is a fact that spirits imported from other countries into Ireland are allowed to be mixed with Irish whiskey in Her Majesty's Custom House, under the sanction of the Custom House Officers; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government, with a view of doing justice to the manufacturers and consumers of pure whiskey, will take such measures as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such a system of trade?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is illegal to mix spirits imported from foreign countries into Ireland with Irish whiskey in bond; but it is legal to mix spirits imported from one part of the United Kingdom into the other, and therefore spirits imported from England and Scotland into Ireland are occasionally mixed in bond. There is no desire on the part of the officers of the Revenue that that practice should continue, and as far as they are concerned, they will be willing that every cask of spirits should be taken out of bond exactly as it was put in bond; but it would be a great inconvenience to the

1269
dealer if a rule to that effect were rigidly enforced, and there was therefore no intention to discontinue, or rather to prohibit the present practice; but when the spirits were so mixed, care was taken that the name of the distiller should be erased, and on each cask was impressed the word "mixed" or "blended," to show that the spirit was not pure.
MR. O'SULLIVANgave Notice that he would bring forward a Motion on the subject.

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION— THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his answer to a Question regarding a Memorial recently received from Civil Servants employed in the Ordnance Survey, in which he stated that these Civil Servants were not regarded as permanent officers, had any reference to the superannuation now granted to them?
  LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said, that if any such misapprehension existed as that which was referred to, he was much obliged to his hon. Friend for giving him an opportunity of clearing it up. The Answer which he gave on the 18th of May did not refer to superannuation. On the contrary, the Civil Servants employed in the Ordnance Survey who had qualified themselves by examination before the Civil Service Commissioners would undoubtedly be entitled to superannuation hereafter.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (SCOTLAND) (COMMUNICANTS).

  QUESTIONS. RETURNS.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Lord Advocate, If, before inviting this House to legislate on the subject of patronage in the Church of Scotland, the Government mean to lay before it Returns showing the number in each parish of the male communicants or other body on whom it is proposed to confer the right of electing their minister?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Government does not consider that the information now asked is of such importance as would have led them to move for it themselves. Even if the Returns
  1270
  be granted, there may be some delay in procuring the information, as the course of post and return to some of the more remote parishes in Scotland is very slow; and, allowing for absences of ministers and other causes of delay, complete Returns could not be expected within a short period. The Government will not delay the progress of the measure until such Returns can be procured. If, notwithstanding these circumstances, a Return of the present number of communicants in all the parishes of Scotland is still desired, the Government will grant it, and will use every means to procure the information expeditiously. If granted, it must apply to the whole of Scotland. The Return must also be of the present number of communicants. Owing to the manner in which the rolls are kept in many parishes, it would be difficult to give now reliable statements of the number who had communicated on each occasion in the last seven years.
  MR. BAXTERgave Notice that he should move for the full Return.
  MR. HORSMANsaid that, as the Lord Advocate would be aware, in the other Churches in Scotland—the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church—the ministers were elected by the communicants, as proposed in the Government Bill. He thought, therefore, it would be desirable, and he asked the Lord Advocate if he was willing, to put himself into communication with the Moderators or other authorities of those Churches, asking them, as a matter of courtesy, to give a similar return as regarded their Churches as was asked for in the case of the Established Church. He would ask these Churches to give a Return of the whole congregations, and what was the proportion of what was called hearers to the communicants.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reference to the hearers, he regretted that the last Census, which was to have embraced "information on these points, did not do so in consequence of communications made by those representing the Nonconformists. The Government of the day did not therefore press for it; and he feared it was impossible to obtain reliable information at present. He felt he could not ask Returns from Churches which were not connected with the Establishment. Under these circumstances, he was not in a position to give any promise on the subject.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, he presumed there was no objection to his Return, which he would move as follows—
  "Address for Return, with regard to the Established Church of Scotland, giving, in separate columns, the number of male and the number of female Communicants on the Roll in each parish of the several counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross, Caithness, and Sutherland, in each year, from 1867 to 1873 inclusive."
  Motion agreed to.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).—RESOLUTION.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, in rising to call attention to the state of intermediate Education in Ireland, and to move—
"That the present state of intermediate education in Ireland is unsatisfactory and requires the immediate and serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government,"
said, he brought the subject forward with the intention of asking the Government to provide a remedy for a state of things which threatened danger in Ireland. A Royal Commission which sat in 1858 reported on this subject. Their Report stated that there were a number of schools called Royal Grammar Schools, founded by James I., and intended to be free schools, but which made those who resorted to them pay for it. The endowments amounted to about £7,000 a-year. Then there were the endowments known as Erasmus Smith's Grammar Schools, and also the schools of the Incorporated Schools. That society was founded in 1733, and one of the objects assigned for it in its charter was the promotion of the Protestant religion. It had received large endowments. Then he came to the endowed schools, called the diocesan schools, of which there was to be one in every bishopric, though there were many bishoprics without them, while in some they were merely nominal. Then there were the schools of the Irish Society, and the national companies of education reported in 1858 that of the income of the Society, about £12,000 was applicable to school and educational purposes. The endowments for educational purposes in Ireland amounted to £38,000 or £40,000; notwithstanding which fact there were 91 towns in Ireland, having a population of over 2,000 each, which had no grammar or superior English school. These were principally denominational schools.
1272
The Protestant clergy generally had the management of them, and though there was no objection to the reception of Catholic students, very few Catholics attended them, nor was it desirable that the two classes should be mixed. He came now to the non-endowed schools, to which a large portion of the Irish middle classes paid. Most of these were in the hands of the Roman Catholic clergy, members of religious orders, or secular priests. The resident pupils in these schools numbered about 2,500, and the schools themselves were about 50. The teaching in those schools was undertaken chiefly by Roman Catholic priests, who gave their services gratuitously. There were also some non-endowed schools, for which there was a moderate pension charged of from £25 to £40 a-year. Notwithstanding the moderate amount of the pensions, they were beyond the reach of many members of the middle classes, whose children were sent to a day school if it was desired that they should have more than an ordinary middleclass education. Then there were the model schools attached to the National Board, at which the same subjects were taught as at the national schools, but in a more advanced manner. Some of the non-endowed schools were in the hands of Roman Catholic clergymen or laymen, and others in the hands of Protestant clergymen or laymen, and it was upon these that middle-class children depended for their education. There was, unfortunately, a great unanimity on the subject of intermediate education in Ireland, and that opinion had been forcibly set forth in a document signed by many eminent clergymen and laymen, both Catholic and Protestant. That document stated that no measure of educational reform that did not deal with intermediate education would be satisfactory. University education, it was said, produced little effect, unless there was a suitable preparatory education, the means for which did not exist in Ireland—certainly not in the southern provinces. There was no University in Ireland which discharged towards the intermediate schools the duty which the Universities of England, France, and Germany discharged towards the intermediate schools in those countries—that of raising their standard of education and compelling them to give their attention to more advanced

1273
studies. Commercial education in Ireland had been deteriorating every day, such deterioration affecting the commercial classes not only commercially but also socially. So with regard to other middle classes. An admirable system of elementary education for the lower classes existed in Ireland, and although it had not reached the whole of the population, those classes who had made it available had derived great advantage from it, and the power of the people had become greater contemporaneously with the development of their minds. What was the position of the middle classes in Ireland? Of late years they had not shown the activity that was to be desired and was necessary to give complexion to the time in which they lived. Their capacity to do so had not become less, but it had not increased, and whatever the future of Ireland might be, it would be an evil day if one of the classes of the people lost their power. They had not in Ireland the same machinery which existed in England for preserving the balance of classes. The upper classes, owing to the events of past centuries and for reasons peculiar to Ireland, did not work with the lower classes as harmoniously as they did in this country. Consequently the duty of guiding and moderating the feelings of the people was thrown upon the middle classes. The present state of the country showed that the greatest intelligence on the part of the middle classes was necessary to enable them to discharge this duty well, and the best method of fitting them for this work was to give them a sound, liberal education. It was difficult to suggest a remedy for the present state of things. If he were to ask for Irish Catholics the equality to which they were entitled, and which they would yet enjoy—if he were to ask for a re-distribution of endowments or a grant of fresh endowments—questions would arise which it would take years to settle, and Ireland could not afford to wait for years. He would not ask for a Capitation Grant payable to the masters in proportion to the success of their students, because though that might be very desirable, he could not conceal from himself the fact that it would involve an expenditure to which the House might be unwilling to consent, and it would be argued that it would be for denominational education,
1274
whether that was so or not; but he thought that a system of exhibitions might be established which would go far to remedy the evils which now existed. Prizes of £50 or £60 a-year, to be held for one or two years, might be offered to all the unendowed schools in Ireland, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, and smaller sums given in the way of prizes to other schools to be competed for by their own scholars. A distinct set of prizes ought to be given to particular classes, for the higher classics, for natural history, and for commercial—that is, for a thoroughly good English—education. The classification which would be necessary need not lead to the abandonment of general learning to which the earlier school years might be devoted. With regard to the body to administer the funds, an unpaid Board might be intrusted with that duty, or the Board which now administered the affairs of the Royal schools might with the introduction of a representative element be made available for the purpose; and the three Universities and other learned bodies would supply the Board of Examiners, as Oxford and Cambridge did in the case of the middle class schools in this country. He believed that to carry out this suggestion would involve an expenditure of not more than £4,000 or £5,000 a-year; and if he were asked where the funds were to come from he would say he thought the Queen's University might for the attainment of such an object give up some of its present grant, and he believed from what he knew of that institution that Trinity College would require very little pressure to give some of its income towards the education of the mass of the people. Then there remained the surplus funds of the Irish Church, which yielded under the late system about £2,000 a-year, raised from the income of the Protestant clergy for the support of diocesan schools. But the need was so pressing, and the evils so clearly traceable to past legislation, that he could hardly fancy Her Majesty's Government would refuse this small grant from Imperial funds if it were necessary to resort to the national purse. The State had built and endowed practically denominational schools, and the Catholics of Ireland had done their duty in building schools which were not endowed. He did not mean to say that

1275
the plan he suggested was the right one, or that another could not he found of a better description; but he had suggested one because he knew that those who in that House pointed out the need of reform were bound to show that reform was practicable. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
MR. MACCARTHYsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick. The present system of education in Ireland practically excluded the children of the middle classes from all intermediary schools, because all of them were conducted on principles purely Protestant, and from the Colleges, because the University of Dublin was carried on on the same principle, and the Queen's Colleges set aside exclusively for secular education. The Catholic youth of Ireland had no intermediate schools, no College schools, no prizes, or lecture halls, no University honours; while their Protestant countrymen had the advantage of all, and those who chose to go to the Queen's University for a purely secular education, enjoyed the same benefits. The Catholics maintained that something ought to be done for their own children, and that the State ought, at any rate, to assist towards the education of the majority, as they contributed towards the education of the minority. It might be said, why do not Roman Catholic parents send their sons to the University of Dublin or the Queen's University? But the universal answer given by them was—"No; they would follow the same course adopted by their forefathers before them, and have nothing to do with schools where the faith of their children was endangered." He admitted that the remedy suggested by the Motion of his hon. Friend was only partial; but it was brought forward in the right spirit, and he trusted the Government would give it their careful consideration.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the present state of intermediate education in Ireland is unsatisfactory, and requires the immediate and serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
MR. MITCHELL HENRYvindicated his hon. Friend's proposal as one which did not raise the question of religious education. Many valuable prizes
1276
existed in Protestant schools, founded by the State or by private benefactors, for which there was hardly any competition, and in the present state of public opinion it was unreasonable to expect that these endowments would be shared by a religion which was not fashionable in this country. He admitted that Roman Catholics laboured under cruel disadvantages, both in the higher and intermediate classes of education; but he thought that the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. MacCarthy) would have done better if he had not introduced that question into the debate. They were now debating the question of offering prizes to be competed for by the youth of Ireland who were without the means of obtaining a good middle-class education, quite irrespective of creed or party. He presumed that when the affairs of the Disestablished Church in Ireland were wound up there would be a great deal of money to be scrambled for, and perhaps squandered in many ways; but intermediate education in Ireland could not wait till that time. The real aim of those with whom he acted was to civilize the Empire and render it compact. They did not wish to grasp at Imperial funds to carry out that object; there were funds in existence in Ireland which might be made available for encouraging culture among the middle classes. He hoped that by heartily promoting that object the Government would enable them to rejoice at the advent to power of a Ministry who would have shown themselves disposed to take a practical view of the interests of Ireland.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was very much inclined to think that it would have been better if that question had been left where it was left by the moderate and sensible speech of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), and had been kept free from elements of religious difference. No doubt the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. MacCarthy) felt strongly on that subject; but he had, at the least, exaggerated the grievances under which the Roman Catholics of Ireland laboured. He did not wish now to enter into the question of University education in Ireland, but Roman Catholic students were on an equality with others in respect to University endowments, for the policy of Parliament lately had been to throw open Trinity College, Dublin, to all religions.

1277
But with regard to endowed schools for intermediate education, which had been admitted by the hon. Member for Limerick to belong exclusively to other denominations, there was at present no inconsiderable number of Roman Catholic scholars attending them. With respect, however, to the whole question before the House, it was well that they had had no exaggerated statement of the income arising from the present endowments or of the use which might be made of them in the establishment of a general system of intermediate education. The income belonging to grammar schools, and which, therefore, might properly be devoted to intermediate education was very small—the whole amount, including the annual value of buildings and residences, being, he believed, not more than £13,000 a year. Of that sum a very considerable portion, if not all, was the property of exclusively denominational foundations. Therefore, no one who looked at the question with the idea of establishing a more general and thorough system of intermediate education for Ireland would think that could be done from the existing endowments for that purpose. He did not say that those endowments could not be further utilized. Bearing always in mind, as they were bound to do, the intentions of the founders and the denominations to which those endowments respectively belonged, he thought much might be done to utilize those endowments more for the members of those particular religions. This was a question which had been from time to time considered by Royal Commissions and other bodies; but, as yet, none of their recommendations had been carried out. The Commissioners in 1858 made several most important recommendations as to the greater utilization of educational endowments. They recommended a better system of appointment and promotion of masters, also a system of inspection and a better audit and an improved mode of keeping accounts. Again, annual Reports from the present Commissioners of Education to whom were intrusted the control and management of some of those endowed schools, had been laid before Parliament. In 1870 those Commissioners, among whom were Chief Justice Whiteside and the Bishop of Meath, recommended various alterations as to the power of appointing and re-moving
1278
masters and teachers, except in cases of private patronage; the appointment and payment of inspectors; the opening of University exhibitions which were now confined to certain schools; a power to apply the funds of all public schools for exhibitions in connection with any school they might think fit; and the power of removing public endowed schools from one locality to another, and of aiding the poor endowments from the rich. He did not wish to express any opinion as to those recommendations, some of which might give rise to considerable opposition; but it was strange that, though they were made in 1870, and had since been repeated annually, nothing had yet been done in consequence of them. He now turned to the non-endowed schools where intermediate education was given. The hon. Member for Limerick had hardly fairly stated the advantage which those schools were to the people of Ireland, the Roman Catholics deriving from them the chief benefit. He had scarcely given sufficient weight to the system of Model Schools which had been adopted by the Commissioners of National Education. Those schools, for reasons into which he would not enter, might not have commanded the general confidence and support of the Roman Catholics; but they showed a very considerable attendance, and they effected a very great amount of good. He was told that the annual cost of Roman Catholic intermediate non-endowed schools was as much as £88,000, and the number of pupils 5,000, half of whom were boarders; while the Model Schools, giving a thoroughly efficient education, had an attendance of 8,700 daily pupils, and cost only £32,400 a year to the country. Therefore, considering the number of pupils educated and the small cost of them to the country, he thought the hon. Member had unduly depreciated the influence of the Model Schools of the National Board on the system of intermediate education. Without expressing any definite opinion either on his own behalf or that of the Government, he would state his belief that an urgent want existed of some improvement in intermediate education in Ireland. This was the conclusion arrived at by Lord Powis's Commission in 1870, and of all who had given any attention to the subject. The difficulty was not to admit that there was a deficiency, but to

1279
devise a proper and satisfactory remedy for it. Parliament had decided in favour of an undenominational system, both for elementary and University education in Ireland. There was a great deal to be said in favour of that decision, seeing that elementary education dealt with day pupils and University education with those who might be supposed old enough to obtain their religious instruction elsewhere. The question of intermediate education, on the other hand, could hardly be considered as satisfactorily settled by the provision of day schools only. They could not multiply them to such an extent in a sparsely populated country like Ireland as to place them within easy reach of the pupils. Wherever they were placed they would, as a matter of necessity, have to be at a distance from many of those for whose education they were intended, and if they were made boarding schools he did not see how they could be satisfactorily conducted without being denominational. Now, regard being had to the general policy of the Legislature, was it likely that Parliament would establish a purely denominational system of education in Ireland? But, could not the difficulty be fairly met in some other way? The hon. Member for Limerick proposed the foundation of a system of scholarships, gained by competitive examinations, and secured by subsequent examination by Professors, and which might be held at any College or school selected by parents for their sons. A scheme of this kind would require great consideration before it could be satisfactorily worked out. All he could say was that the matter should receive the most careful attention from the Government, and meanwhile he would ask the hon. Member not to press them to come to any immediate decision. The subject of intermediate education was of the greatest importance to Ireland. It had occupied the attention of more than one Royal Commission, and especially of the Commission of 1858; and seeing that, although it had led to so much inquiry, nothing had been done, it might be naturally concluded that it was one of the most difficult subjects that could occupy the attention of those who were responsible for the administration of Irish affairs. No doubt, Irish Members were bound to bring before the House everything that interested their country.
1280
They were doing so now; but when he remembered that no proposal on the question had been made by the late Government during their five years' tenure of office, he did not doubt that some little delay would be granted to the present Government. The matter, as he had said, would have his early and attentive consideration, and that of the Government, and he trusted that he should be able to devise a plan which would remedy the evils complained of, and insure for Ireland a better system of intermediate education.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the House might assume, after the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the Government recognized the great importance, magnitude, and difficulty of this subject, and as the right hon. Gentleman had promised that it should engage his immediate attention he would advise hon. Members connected with Ireland to be satisfied with this assurance. There were two questions connected with the matter. There were the existing endowments, and they had to consider whether they could be made more efficient for the advancement of education; and then they had to consider whether those endowments were sufficient. If it should appear that they ought to be supplemented, the question would arise, from what source the money ought to come. His own belief was that Ireland was most inadequately provided with endowments for intermediate education, such provision being far inferior to that available for elementary and University education. It was not possible to have a more striking proof of her wants in this respect than was provided by the state of the Queen's Colleges. Considering all the difficulties those Colleges had had to contend with, he thought they had been a great success; but among their many difficulties the one which he should place in the front rank was this—that in consequence of the great want of intermediate schools in Ireland, the Queen's Colleges had to give instruction to mere lads who ought to be educated at the intermediate schools. In regard to the existing endowments, it seemed to him there was no reason why they should not be made more generally available for the benefit of the Irish people. Certainly, at any rate, the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1858 with respect to endowed

1281
schools ought to be carried out—he regretted that they had so long remained a dead letter. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had recommended that a small sum—£5,000 a year—should be taken from the Imperial Exchequer and given away in prizes and exhibitions; but he (Mr. Fawcett) did not like this system of perpetual drafts upon the Imperial Exchequer. The amount was small, but the principle was dangerous and inexpedient, and no sum ought to be voted for such a purpose until the House was assured that every other source of supply had been exhausted. The Chief Secretary for Ireland—no doubt restrained by Ministerial prudence—had not hinted at the source of supply which he (Mr. Fawcett) thought it was important for the House to consider. The Prime Minister had recently stated that the surplus funds of the Irish Church would not be available for 17 years, and that then the State would come in for an annuity of £240,000. Why should they wait 17 years to utilize that surplus for educational purposes? Surely it would not be a very difficult actuarial operation to calculate its present actual value, and apply the funds based on that calculation to the purposes of intermediate education. It seemed that nothing could be more unfortunate than the way in which the late Government appropriated the surplus funds of the Irish Establishment. One part was to be appropriated to charities and lunatic asylums, another for the reduction of the county cess, which was, in fact, putting money into the pockets of the landlords. It might be by a roundabout process, but that was where it would find its way. Now, however, when it was calculated upon good grounds that there was this large sum to dispose of, he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would seriously consider how a portion at least could be apportioned to intermediate education in Ireland. Personally, he felt certain that a scheme might be framed for that purpose which would be satisfactory to the Irish people as a whole, and which would serve to bring the educational institutions of Ireland into accord with those of this country. He would be glad to see some such plan as that applied to endowed schools in England introduced into Ireland. It would be one proof to those who asked for Home Rule that an Imperial Parliment
1282
could legislate apart from partial or local influence, and would be the best answer to allegations to the contrary—namely, that they were as anxious as the people of Ireland themselves to support any measures which would promote the educational progress of Irishmen in the intermediate, and, consequently, higher schools.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the object he had in view had been attained by the discussion which had taken place, and he therefore begged to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).—RESOLUTION.
MR. MELDONrose, pursuant to Notice, to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the present position of the National School Teachers of Ireland, and the discontent which prevails amongst that important body of public servants, call for the early attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to a satisfactory adjustment of their claims."
The hon. Member said, it was now 40 years since the national school system was introduced into Ireland, and during the whole of that period there had been complaints that the position of the teachers was unsatisfactory. Occasionally, attempts had been made to improve it; but these attempts had so far failed that if something was not done speedily the whole system must fall to ruin for the want of properly trained and educated teachers. His Motion embraced two points—first, that the position of the Irish national school teachers was unsatisfactory; and, second, that the Government were bound to bring forward a remedy. With respect to the first point it was not necessary for him to say more than that ever since 1861, when the system commanded the respect and had the co-operation of the Roman Catholics, the highest salaries paid to teachers in first-class schools was £52 a-year, while the average in second and third-class schools might be taken at £37 a-year. One of the greatest grievances experienced by the teachers was the want of residences, because there was only about 14 per cent of the whole body who had residences provided for them. In many places in Ireland it was impossible to obtain residences

1283
near the schools, and the teachers, both male and female, had to walk miles in the morning to get to the schools, and the same distance back at night, often in the midst of drenching rain, to perform their duties. With the rise in prices of all kinds it was impossible for the teachers to live upon such salaries. The system itself might be said to have been successful, perhaps in consequence of the self-sacrifice of those by whom it had been carried out. Prom the first Report of the Commissioners in 1833 it appeared there were then 104,900 children attending the schools, which numbered 709, whereas there were now 924,699 children attending the schools, which numbered 7,160. Besides this the national system had been largely supplemented by voluntary efforts, so that there were now in existence 1,353 vested and 4,294 non-vested schools. These facts showed that the Irish people were anxious to work with the Government in carrying out education in Ireland. In the next place he contended that the school teachers in Ireland were as much the servants of the Crown as any other servants in the Civil Service, and that they, therefore, had a right to apply to Government and to that House for a redress of any grievance. In 1868 a Royal Commission, which had considered the subject, made three recommendations—first, that the salaries were insufficient, and ought to be increased; secondly, that residences should by provided; and, lastly, that there should be a system of retiring pensions. Instead of adopting these recommendations, however, the Government spent about £100,000 upon a system of what was called payment by results. This was only an experiment to last until the present year; and it had practically failed, because the amounts obtained under it by the teachers were insufficient to give any substantial increase of income to them; because certain allowances before granted had ceased; and because also the school fees diminished when the parents knew that the teacher was paid by results. In infant schools also the system worked very badly indeed. The dissatisfaction which existed with the service was shown by the fact that during the whole time that the national system had been in existence no less than 5,745 teachers had voluntarily left the service; and each of them had cost
1284
the country in training about £50. Another result of the present state of things was that a very inferior class of men were offering their services as teachers in the Irish schools. In England the cases of the teachers were better. Twenty-five per cent of the English teachers had residences found them, and first-class male teachers received £103 4s. 10 d. per annum, and first-class female teachers £62 9s. 1d. per annum. In Scotland the average salary was £110, so that in Ireland, whore the average was £42, the teachers had to support their families on one-half the sum received by their brethren on this side of the channel and maintain themselves in respectability. Besides, no pensions were granted, though gratuities at the rate of £10 for 10 years' service were occasionally awarded to teachers who became disabled; and there were no less than 111 in the workhouse, and as many as 26 in one union. The system under which these miserable sums were paid was a State system, and he thought it a disgrace to the Legislature that State servants should be so wretchedly remunerated. Their demand was a very moderate one—namely, that those of the third-class should receive a minimum salary of £1 a week, those of the second-class £1 10 s., and those of the first-class, of which there were only 120, £2. They asked to be enabled to live, and nothing more. If the House looked at what was expected of these teachers, it would wonder at the small sum asked by them. The questions asked of these men in examination demanded great knowledge, some of which was not very common. In some of the papers recently set, candidates were asked such things as the number of vertebrae in the neck of a mammal—and the number of forms which might be adopted by a Member of the House of Commons who wished to oppose a Motion. The police constable was better paid than these men, and he did not ask too much when he asked that an immediate remedy should be applied to a crying evil.
MR. R. SMYTHsaid: I shall detain the House only for a short time in seconding the Motion, which has been so fully explained and so well enforced by the hon. Member for Kildare. I am sure, if facts and arguments are to have due weight attached to them, it will

1285
be admitted that the hon. Member has made out a conclusive case for a body of men and women who are discharging duties admitted on all hands to lie at the very foundation of the future prosperity of Ireland. And yet I should like to present the subject in a somewhat different light from that which has been so well and so copiously thrown upon it by my hon. Friend. I would not make this question one that concerns only the national teachers, or present any ad misericordiam appeal on their behalf. We ought rather to regard it as one which concerns deeply the honour and welfare of the country. Hon. Members of the House generally must have listened with pleasure to the testimony borne by the hon. Member to the success of the national system, and to the benefits it has conferred on Ireland during the last 40 years, and this testimony is all the more valuable because my hon. Friend has a right to speak for that large portion of the Irish people who have had their misgivings for some years as to the appropriateness of the national system to the wants of the Irish population. I do not wish to take more out of the hon. Member's words than they conveyed; but I must express my recognition of their wisdom and patriotism. I was going on to say that this is a question that affects the country rather than the teachers, for I can hardly imagine a greater misfortune to befall Ireland than to allow the education of the young to fall into the hands of incompetent men, and this must be the result unless Parliament see to it that adequate inducements are held out to men of efficiency and competence to enter upon the work. The national school teachers of Ireland have hitherto lived in the hope of seeing their just claims conceded, and I am happy to know that there is still a considerable number of them who are bringing to the service of the State an intelligence and zeal which must be their own reward, for they are but miserably requited in the small pittance they receive for their labours. But the House needs not to be told that this state of things will not and cannot last. Those who have already embarked upon the life of schoolmasters must now make the best of it; but their unsatisfactory position and their complaints will deter others from following their example, and the competence of national teachers will
1286
inevitably be impaired. The hon. Member who introduced the subject has brought forward facts as to salaries which can scarcely be thought of as anything but a scandal to the State. £40 a-year for a man and his family, living as a schoolmaster ought to live, would not do more than keep the wolf from the door. A pound sterling this year is not, and does not mean, the same thing it did in 1832, or even 10 years ago. A fixed salary, with a changeable price of commodities, is an absurdity. There is hardly anything absolute in the world—all is relative; and if there is one thing more than another which is relative to other things it is the value of money. In 1832 a labouring man in Ireland got 8d. or 10 d. a-day for his work—he now gets 2s., and for spring and harvest work he gets sometimes 4s. a-day. No doubt this arises partly from a decrease of the labouring population, but it springs principally from an increase in the price of commodities. He could not live on that which gave him and his family bread in 1832, or even in 1852. I admit that you may get the children of Ireland educated at the same price that education cost 20 years ago, but it will not be the same education. We have heard of 12 razors being bought for 1s. 6d; but the man who tried to shave with one of them is set down in history—or at any rate in poetry—among the ignoble army of martyrs. There is no use in thinking that you can get education of the same kind, at the same price that it cost, some years after the Irish famine. You will restore the old hedge-school system of training, and the education of the people will become a mockery and a mischief. If there is one thing in which this House of Commons ought to divorce itself from economy, it is in its Votes for educational purposes. Whatever may have been the parsimony of the late Government in some Departments—and I am not going to repine at that parsimony—no one, I think, could fairly charge it with a desire to starve the educational interests of the country; and so far as Ireland is concerned, we are aware that it was not the fault of the late Government if Ireland did not get a considerably increased grant for the promotion of the higher education of the Irish people. Well, perhaps the present Government may not wish to project measures

1287
so ambitious—not, however, too ambitious for an earnest and powerful Ministry—but surely the placing of the elementary system in Ireland on a more secure foundation, as regards the teaching department, is an aim which involves no risk, either political or economical. I am informed that a substantial increase is to be made to the salaries of some of the higher functionaries who are at the head of the Education Department in Ireland. I make no objection to that. Men in high office must be paid for their administrative abilities, and we have as resident Commissioner of Education in Ireland a gentleman whose merits, as an administrator, will always be more than abreast of any reward you will give him. But I earnestly ask the Government to consider the comforts of the men and women who are doing the hard practical work throughout the country, who are coming into daily contact with the minds of Irish children, forming their opinions, and really determining what the Ireland of the future is to be. I am not alone in thinking that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary has the good of Ireland at heart, and, what is more important still, that he takes on many questions just and enlightened views of public policy for that country. It is somewhat to be regretted that Ireland is not deemed of sufficient consequence to give the Minister who presides over its affairs in Parliament an opportunity of enforcing his opinions in the more secret counsels of the Cabinet. But I shall not dwell on any general topics of that kind. What we have before us is this—the hon. Member for Kildare has read us statistics to show that there are 9,000 national teachers in Ireland, who receive on the average a little over £40 per annum, or in the gross £364,000. How far would that sum go at the Admiralty? We could not get one ship for it. We have heard it asserted from a bench below the gangway on the other side of the House more than once this Session, that we have no Navy. Now, suppose we were to set about getting a Navy, what would £364,000 do towards its construction? Why, you would vote millions and millions before you would begin to grudge it. Without disparaging the defensive armaments of the present or future, I venture to express the opinion that for the credit, the defence, and the ultimate
1288
power of this country, the 9,000 national school teachers of Ireland are worth a great deal more than one iron-clad ship. For all the reasons I have stated, I cordially second the Motion made by the hon. Member for Kildare.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, the present condition of the National School Teachers of Ireland, and the discontent which prevails amongst that important body of public servants, call for the early attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to a satisfactory adjustment of their claims."—(Mr. Meldon.)
MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, that it would be a misfortune if this debate were taken part in only by hon. Members of the Liberal side of the House. He complimented the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) on the ability and good taste with which he had brought the subject before the House. Many questions relating to Ireland had been discussed, and had received the attention of Parliament this Session; but none was of such vast importance to the country as this. It was a discredit to the Legislature and to the House of Commons that such a state of things should have existed so long without any united effort having been made by both parties to put an end to it. Many hon. Members, of various political opinions, earnestly hoped that the subject would receive not only the immediate, but the most favourable consideration of the Government. As an act of justice to the teachers, to the children they instructed, and to the national education system itself, which the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion admitted to have been in the past a success, the system ought to be made a complete and permanent success, and the way to produce that result would be to show common justice to those who were entrusted with the education of the younger classes. He could assure the Government that there was a very strong feeling upon the subject among Irish Members on his side.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to move an Amendment by adding a few words to the Resolution. He thought it desirable that the teachers should be paid better; but the Resolution did not say from what sources the increases should be derived, and he proposed to supply the deficiency with the words "by means of increased allowances from

1289
local sources." He was glad to learn from an Irish newspaper that when a deputation recently waited upon the Lord Lieutenant on that subject, the noble Duke told it that for any addition to the salaries of local teachers it must look to local sources. It had been said that the 9,000 teachers received only £300,000 a-year. It was true that in a printed statement that income was given at £324,000; but by another, and, as he ventured to say, higher authority—namely, the Report of the Commissioners of Education—the amount was stated to be £436,950; and in another part of the same Report, having reference to the additional grants which had been made on account of results, it was stated that the teaching staff of the schools in connection with the Board appeared to have received £501,053. Again, of the whole expenditure for the schools, only 13 per cent was locally provided, 87 per cent being supplied by means of Government grants. He thought that was a state of things which was not at all right in relation to the other ratepayers of the United Kingdom, who might justly claim that as they had equal rights and privileges, so there should also be equal burdens. It was discreditable to the landed interest of Ireland that it only contributed £13,000, while England and Scotland paid two-thirds of their school expenses from local sources. He did not wish to enter into statistics connected with that subject; but he must remark that while Ireland received £547,000, Scotland received only £130,000, though Scotland contributed to the Imperial Exchequer about £1,000,000 a-year more than Ireland. Did it not come to this—that England and Scotland, and especially Scotland, were mere "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for Ireland? He contended that such a system was altogether unjust. He admitted that the Irish teachers ought to have larger pay than they now received; but as the Lord Lieutenant told the deputation of which he had spoken, they ought to obtain it from local sources and not from the national Exchequer. Though the Irish scholars were said to be nearly 1,000,000, the average daily attendance was only 38 per cent. or 373,371, while in England and Scotland it was 84 per cent. The average attendance at each school was only 38, as compared with
1290
140 in the sister Kingdoms, a fact indicating that schools had been multiplied for the purpose of obtaining grants. Before coming to any conclusion on that subject, the Government would do well carefully to consider the whole matter. In England and Scotland the expenditure on education, according to the Privy Council's last Returns, amounted to £2,146,572, of which the Government paid only £755,049, and the rest was raised from local resources. It had been said that the Scotch teachers received on the average £110 each, besides a house to live in. He was afraid the average was not quite so high as that; but the reason why those salaries were now paid was that when Scotland was almost a barren heath, two centuries ago, landowners by an Act of the Parliament of Scotland, assessed themselves to build a school and a schoolmaster's house in every parish, and to pay the whole of the schoolmaster's salary, and other expenses of the school; and now every cotter rated at £4 contributed to the support of the system. His advice to the landowners of Ireland was, "Go and do likewise." He therefore moved the addition to the Resolution of the words, "by means of increased allowances from local sources."
MR. KINNAIRDseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to add, at the end of the Question, the words "by means of increased allowances from local sources."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the brief statement of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), and the Amendment with which he had concluded, showed that the question was hardly in a position at which it would be satisfactory for the House to come to a definite conclusion upon it that evening. The matter to be decided might be arranged under three heads. "Was the position of the national school teachers of Ireland unsatisfactory? If unsatisfactory, how could it be best remedied? and, if a remedy were to be applied, out of what fund or resources was the money to come? With regard to the first part of the question, he considered the hon. and learned member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon)

1291
had stated the case fairly, and had shown that the present position of the teachers was not only unjust to themselves, but injurious to the interests of education. It was, however, an exaggeration to state that they had been driven to the workhouse. This question had been recently considered by the Government, and to a considerable extent the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1868 and 1870 had been carried out. It was quite true, as had been stated by the hon. Member, that 5,745 teachers had left the service, but he forgot to mention that those secessions extended over a period of 40 years. The last Returns did not appear to show that the insufficient pay of the teachers led any great number of them to leave the service. Out of 3,518 trained teachers, only 159 retired in 1873, of whom 32 received retiring gratuities. Of the 9,150 teachers alluded to as receiving an average salary of £42 a-year, it was omitted to be stated by the hon. Member for Kildare that 2,500 were only assistant-pupil teachers, who should not, of course, be included in the average, as they were only learning their work, and would not be included in a similar average for England. The salaries of the principal teachers were—male £52, female £42, with considerable grants in the shape of fees for results. The salaries of the third class assistant teachers were, men £24, women £20 a-year, with the money derived from results which might be added to those sums. These were not by any means large salaries. Not very long ago, in accordance with a proposal made by the noble Lord the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the sum voted for salaries had been increased by £104,000 in the shape of payment for results. Still, the salaries now paid in Ireland did not compare favourably with those paid to the teachers in England. Yet it must not be forgotten that the quality of the work done might not be so good. The English certificated teachers spent two years in a training college to fit them for their duties, while in Ireland a teacher was regarded as trained after a period of five months similarly spent. It was scarcely to be expected under those circumstances that the Irish teacher should obtain quite as high a salary as the English; but undoubtedly there was a very considerable
1292
difference between the position of the teachers in the two countries, and he thought the Irish teachers had a very fair ground for saying their present position was unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Kildare had mentioned three respects in which it was unsatisfactory—namely, in the amount of the salaries, the want of pensions, and the want of residences. The last of those three points seemed to him the most important of all. Particularly in thinly-populated districts, where they now had to go considerable distances to their schools, it would obviously be a very great advantage to the female teachers, especially, to have convenient residences provided for them. He might add that, looking at the mode in which the Government at present made grants for the erection of schools, which were vested in the National Board—namely, by finding two-thirds of the cost, it did seem to him that the time had come when the same system might be extended to residences, also to be vested in the National Board. If that were done it might be considered how far it would be possible to apply sums disposable for the purpose in order to provide allowances for rent for the teachers of those non-vested schools, for whom it would be very difficult for the State otherwise to provide. Now, with regard to pensions, the teachers had made a claim to be placed on the footing of Civil Servants, but it ought to be remembered that there was this difference in their position—that the teachers were appointed, and were liable to be dismissed by the local managers of their schools. He therefore thought that the only way by which those wished-for pensions could be provided would be by stoppage from the salaries, if the salaries were sufficiently augmented to allow of it, by which means, after some time, a sufficient sum for the purpose could be raised. That led him directly to the question of salaries. Now, as he had already said, they had in the last two years, been largely increased. That increase, in the shape of payment by results, was given only as a temporary experiment. It was to last for three years, and the third of those years was now running. The result seemed to him so satisfactory, that the experiment, so far as it had gone, must necessarily be permanent. But if the salary was to be increased,

1293
the question would arise whether the best means of doing that would be by increasing the salary itself, or by increasing the payment by results. Now on that point he would observe that the national school teachers of Ireland had an advantage over those of England. In England the teachers had no fixed salary, and were paid only by results. In Ireland the teachers received a large portion of their remuneration in the form of a fixed salary. On any proposal being made, therefore, to increase the salaries of the Irish school teachers, he thought, at any rate, that the whole increase ought not to be made in the way of an addition to the fixed salaries. He thought there was great force in the arguments in support of the principle of payment by results; and though, no doubt, there might be difficulties—from causes which were felt more seriously in Ireland than in England—in teachers obtaining a good attendance of scholars, there was no doubt that the fact of the large grant of £104,000 being earned, proved that they could in some way or other obtain those attendances. Now supposing that there were fair and proper grounds for this demand of the teachers to be placed in a better position, the question arose, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), from what source should the necessary funds be derived? He did not want to lead the House into a discussion of the relative position of England, Scotland, and Ireland in reference to this question; but he might mention a fact which had been stated to a deputation which waited on the Lord Lieutenant on the subject—namely, that while the local or private contributions in England amounted to £64 8s. per cent of the whole expenditure, in Ireland they amounted only to £13 14 s. There was no doubt, however, that the two systems were not on the same footing. There were laws for enforcing local contributions in England, by compelling localities to be rated. The national system which was in force included no such power; but after many difficulties and struggles, had gained a position which he was glad to hear so fully admitted by the hon. Member for Kildare. But he thought it idle to expect that in Ireland such large sums could be contributed to meet the Parliamentary
1294
grant as were contributed in England for the same purpose. He must say, however, that it did seem to him that it would be a question that would well deserve the serious attention of the Government and of Parliament, whether a further amount in addition to that now provided ought not to be obtained from local sources in Ireland? He trusted, therefore, the House would not on that occasion, either by the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, or by the original Motion, pronounce any decision upon the question, whether the increase should be obtained from local or Imperial sources? He would ask the House to leave it in the hands of the Government. He hoped he had not shown himself insensible to the demands of the Irish teachers, and he could fairly promise, on behalf of the Government, that they would endeavour to meet those demands with a due consideration for the interests both of local and of Imperial contributories to the expenditure.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had correctly described the action of the late Government in this matter in speaking of it as an experiment of a temporary character. It was not the fact, however, that the temporary character of the experiment was due to any doubt entertained by the late Government as to the value of the principle of payment by results. It was intended by the late Government that the experiment should be extended over three years, after which it should be for Parliament and the Government to consider the terms on which the original salaries were granted. As he had said, it was not from any doubt of the practical value of payment by results that the late Government made the proposals they did; but it was felt that when Parliament was making considerable additions to the salaries of the teachers the system could not be regarded in other respects as perfectly satisfactory. It was felt that the addition then made to their salaries was as great as ought to be demanded from Parliament; and he hoped that the time had now come when some scheme might be suggested whereby additional assistance could be obtained either from the ratepayers or from private sources. Holding the opinions he did, it was impossible for him to

1295
vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Kildare. The termination of the period of three years pointed to next year as the time when this question should be reconsidered. It would then be impossible for Parliament to look upon this as a mere question of the payment of school teachers. It was evident from what they had heard that evening, that under the present system there was no prospect of obtaining larger contributions from private sources. Those contributions, it appeared, were actually falling off, and the tendency of the present system was that the whole payment should fall upon the State while the State retained in its own hands very little or nothing of the management of the schools. He could conceive the State taking upon itself the entire payment of the teachers, and then retaining, if not the entire share, at all events, a very large share, of the management. They knew that managers were not very much disposed to relax their share of the management, yet they hardly did anything themselves for the support of the schools. Whether a school rate ought to be adopted for Ireland he did not know; but whenever the addition to the salaries of the teachers came before the House for reconsideration it would be necessary to decide whether it would be possible to go on very much longer increasing the contributions of the State, while the State did not increase in any degree its share and influence in the management of the schools.
MR. SYNANconfessed that he was not disappointed at the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Good intentions and general assurances were as much as could be expected from him under the peculiar circumstances and novelty of his position. The answer to the arguments and objections of the hon. Member for Edinburgh was that local aid and local taxation could not be resorted to for the support of a Government scheme of education not in harmony with the opinions and sentiments of the people. He (Mr. Synan) maintained that properly educated men could not be got to undertake the duties of teachers, because the salary scarcely exceeded the pay of an agricultural labourer, and contended that the whole question of education in Ireland was being imperilled and endangered owing to the system of starvation at present in vogue. He admitted
1296
the justice of the principle of providing pensions out of the salaries; but in this instance there was so little from which to deduct that an increase must be made before any deduction could be thought of. It was idle to draw a comparison between the state of things in Scotland, where the system of education was in every sense national, suited to the habits, and framed to meet the wishes of the people, and where all had been done by voluntary effort, and in Ireland, where the system they had was one which was forced upon the population. It was impossible to deny that the teachers were shamefully treated, and that this treatment had the worst possible effect upon the education of the country.
MR. O'REILLYobserved, that it was admitted on all hands that the salaries of the teachers were inadequate; that their position was a sad one; and that their labour, generally very well performed, deserved better treatment. It was a mistake to suppose that there was any tendency to multiply schools, and the reason why they appeared more numerous in some cases than necessary was owing to the sparseness in many quarters of the agricultural population. The question was, how was the additional money for the school teachers of Ireland to be obtained? The system of payment by results had worked admirably. He knew 20 schools, situated in four different counties in Ireland, and there the system had worked well, and from information received he learned that it had worked well elsewhere. It corrected the great evil in the system, and that was the absence of children. If they wished to look forward, however, to an increase in the system they must depend in a great measure on local contributions, and if they were not liberally supplied he, for one, would support the establishment of a school rate in Ireland. He had heard with pleasure the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
MR. BRUENsaid, that while advocating the claims of the national school teachers to some increase of their salary he must bear testimony to the fact that a very large amount was subscribed every year for the support of those schools which gave free education. He was glad the question had boon brought forward by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), and recognized by

1297
that House, but he would advise the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.
MR. POWERadmitted that the question was surrounded with difficulties; but he never knew any question affecting a large class of Her Majesty's subjects that was not in the same position. He thought the time had arrived when this question of the additional payment of Irish school teachers should be boldly met and determined. He trusted that the Government would consider the recommendation which had been made by an Inspector of National Schools in Ireland in reference to the increase of the salaries of the Irish teachers and the very general expression of opinion on both sides of the House that they had a grievance which urgently called for a remedy. He hoped his hon. Friend would not withdraw his Motion.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he sympathized with the case of the Irish national teachers, but thought that after the promise made by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Motion ought in their own interests to be withdrawn.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYobserved, that the House found itself placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. The question under discussion had not come before it that night for the first time. It had been dealt with by the House two years ago, with the intention that in the third year the whole matter should be reconsidered; and now, in the second year, the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), having, no doubt, a strong case on behalf of the Irish national teachers, brought forward the present Motion. Not content, however, with that, he had laid down a particular scheme for the adoption of the House and the Government. To such a course the Government could not possibly assent. They would not bind themselves to take any particular step as to the source from which it would be necessary—as he believed it would be-to increase the salaries of many of the teachers in Ireland. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), on the other hand, would also force the House into a false position. If the hon. Gentleman went to a division, he should vote against his Amendment, as he would then be compelled to do against the Motion, because he did not wish the Government to be
1298
tied down to the particular interpretation placed upon it by the hon. Member for Kildare. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had suggested a scheme as to residences which was certainly worthy of consideration; he had also admitted that there existed grievances which ought to be remedied; and what he (Mr. Hardy) would suggest was that, under the circumstances, the Motion and the Amendment should both be withdrawn, as a division on either would not elicit the real opinion of the House.
MR. MELDONobserved, that after the expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to the effect that a grievance existed which ought to be remedied, he would not press his Motion to a division.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
CAPTAIN NOLANregretted that the opinion of the House had not been taken on the subject of the Resolution.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. NEWDEGATErose to move for an—
  "Address for Copies and Translations of any Laws, Ordinances, or Regulations relating to Monastic and Conventual Institutions connected with the Church of Rome, and to the inmates or members thereof, especially to the regular Orders of the Church of Home, which may be enforced by the authority of the State, and are at present operative in France in the German Empire, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the Russian Empire, in Italy, in Sweden and Norway, in Belgium, in Spain, and in Switzerland; and, of any projects of Law relating to these subjects that may have been proposed by the Governments, and are under the consideration of the Legislative Assemblies of the above States."
  The hon. Member was proceeding to address the House in support of his Motion, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates * (93); Revenue Officers Disabilities * (94).
Second Reading—Infants Contracts (80); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * (82).
Committee—Church Patronage (Scotland) (72–95); Public Worship Regulation (re-comm.) * (62–96).
Committee—Report—India Councils (79); Wenlock Elementary Education* (84).

INFANTS' CONTRACTS BILL—(No. 80.)
(The Viscount Midleton.)
INFANTS' CONTRACTS BILL—(No. 80.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to amend the law as to the contracts of infants, and as to the ratification made by persons of full age of the contracts entered into by them during infancy, and as to necessaries supplied to infants. Their Lordships were aware of the very objectionable circulars sent to young officers of the Army and the Navy, a largo proportion of whom were under age, holding out temptations in the shape of loans and of goods on credit. Or, take the case where the parents of a young man at the University refused to pay for things supplied, on the ground that they were such things as no tradesman ought to supply to youths under age, the creditor brought an action in local or other Courts, where a jury of his own class had to decide the question whether the goods were "necessaries" or not, and they seldom had any difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that they were necessaries. He would mention two or three cases in illustration of his meaning. An Oxford jury held that champagne and wild ducks were necessaries for an undergraduate; another jury of the same place found that studs of emeralds set in diamonds came within the same category; and a third jury found that expensive prints—proofs before letters—were necessary furniture for the rooms of an undergraduate of moderate expectations. The first clause of this Bill provided that contracts by infants for
  1226
  the repayment of money lent or for goods supplied, except for necessaries, should be absolutely void; the second, that no action should be brought on ratification of an infant's contract made after attaining full age; and the third, which was the most important, that in respect of goods supplied to or work and labour done for an infant the question whether the goods supplied or the work and labour were necessaries or not should be for the Court or Judge, and not for the jury. If their Lordships passed the Bill he was happy to say one of the Law Officers had consented to take charge of it in the other House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Viscount Midleton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not propose to offer any objection to the second reading of the Bill. On the contrary, he thought the object of the Bill of his noble Friend was likely to be beneficial; but, at the same time, he would suggest to the noble Viscount to bring the measure under the notice of the Common Law Judges, as the persons of the greatest experience in these matters, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they would approve its provisions.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(Nos. 72–95.) COMMITTEE.
(The Lord President.)
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he had given Notice to move on the Motion that the House be put into Committee—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to give power to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to frame rules (if they shall think fit) under which persons other than communicants as defined in this Act may become qualified to elect and appoint ministers to vacant churches and parishes in Scotland"—
He had been advised that it would be competent for the Committee on the Bill to deal with the subject referred to in his Instruction; and therefore he would not proceed with the Motion.
THE LORD PRESIDENTacquainted the House, That Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to signify that she had placed at the disposal of Parliament

1227
her interest in the several rights of advocation, donation, and patronage of churches and parishes in Scotland be-longing to her.
Then it was moved that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill: The same was agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 3 (Repeal of Acts 10 Anne, c. 12, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 61. Appointment of Ministers in future).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the object of this measure, as stated by the Lord President, when he introduced the Bill to your Lordships, is to strengthen the Church of Scotland, and the mode which the Bill adopts is by removing patronage from the hands of the patrons who have exercised it hitherto, and placing it in the hands of the communicants. Now, my Lords, I want to know, in the first place, how does this removal of patronage in any way strengthen the Established Church of Scotland? It appears to me that, apart from the objections that exist to the communicants, the effect of this change is not to strengthen the Church by any enlargement of the basis upon which it rests, or by giving it some additional hold on the affections of the people; but the effect of the change is simply to give a statutory recognition to what has for long been a matter of fact—namely, to enact by statute that for the future, presentations which practically have been for a long time in the hands of the congregations, are actually to be vested in the hands of a portion of the congregation. Indeed, as I have already pointed out to your Lordships, so far as this is a change at all, it really is a restriction and not an enlargement of the Church, because hitherto the patrons themselves have for the most part not been members of the Church of Scotland, and where they have renounced their patronage they have given it up into the hands of the congregations, who have exercised it directly or through the hands of a committee. Now, this change, so far as it is a change at all, is a change in a restrictive sense, because henceforth the patrons who are not members of the Church of Scotland will have no voice in the presentation, nor, as the Bill stands now, will that portion of the congregation have any voice who are not
1228
communicants. Now, my Lords, does this new electoral body as defined in the Bill in any way really strengthen the Church of Scotland? Does it alter the basis upon which the Church is constituted, so as to enlarge it as a Church in any way? Does it bring into the Church any person who is at this moment without its pale? But, apart from these questions, there are objections which I would entertain to the very qualification of communicants. In the first place, the qualification is the institution of a sacramental test—a form of qualification which has been universally rejected for many years in all legislation with regard to England. I was mistaken the other day when I said that the communicants up to this time were a body unknown to the Legislature in Scotland, because—as the noble Lord opposite who corrected me afterwards very properly observed—in the year 1870 a Bill was passed with regard to certain churches in Edinburgh which undoubtedly did constitute the communicants for the future the elective body. But I submit to your Lordships that this qualification of communicants is a narrow and not a broad qualification, and it is one which we ought not to sanction in a Bill of this kind, which has for its object the strengthening of the Church Establishment in Scotland. In the next place, I would point out that the patrons who have up to the present time presented to the livings have been recognized in Acts of Parliament, and that their title is a Parliamentary title. I submit to your Lordships that a Parliamentary title is the title upon which alone any persons who have a right to present to livings of the Church in connection with the State should base their claims. Now, my Lords, what are we going to do in this Bill? I find it, first of all, in the Bill—I find afterwards repeated on the Amendment of the noble Duke beside me (the Duke of Argyll)—that in the case of the communicants their qualification is to be defined by the General Assembly. The communicants are to mean all male persons whose names appear on the communion roll of the vacant church and parish. Now, I took the opportunity of stating to your Lordships on a previous occasion—and it is probable some of your Lordships may know it—that this communion roll may depend, to a great extent, on the will of the clergyman of a parish. The

1229
clergyman of a parish has the power, if he likes to exercise it, of raising any objection, and he might say that a certain person should not communicate. I admit that, in the event of a clergyman so acting, the person against whom the objection is raised has the right to appeal to the General Assembly; but I submit to your Lordships that it is not right that the qualification of those who are in future to elect the ministers of the Established Church should depend upon the action either of the minister or of the General Assembly, and feel convinced that the country will only be satisfied with the qualifications of the electors being determined by Parliament, as has heretofore been the case. Now, my Lords, I desire to be brief; but there is one more objection which I must take the liberty of pointing out to your Lordships, and it is this—that there are many parishes in Scotland in which this qualification of communicants cannot possibly work in a satisfactory manner. There are many parishes in the Highlands in which there are very few persons connected with the Established Church, and, consequently, very few communicants. To such an extent is this the case that in the course of a debate which took place lately in the General Assembly, a proposition was brought forward by, I think, a minister of the Established Church, that in parishes where there was not above a certain number of communicants the electoral franchise, as I may call it, should be extended to persons who were not members of the Church of Scotland. Now, my Lords, having said this much I will proceed to state the purpose of my Amendment. But I wish to make one general remark, in which I am sure all your Lordships will concur—namely, that it is a very dangerous thing to meddle or in any way, if I may so say, to tinker, with any Establishment. Unless there are very grave reasons of State why we should introduce some changes into it, I am sure that all the friends of the Establishment will be of opinion that it is much better to leave the Establishment undisturbed; but if it is conceded that there are such reasons in this case, and if it is necessary to change the principles upon which patronage has been hitherto administered, I submit to your Lordships that we ought at all events to seek some wide and comprehensive basis
1230
upon which the Church may really rest—that we ought to extend the franchise so as to give satisfaction and excite an interest in the general body of the Scotch people, and that we ought not, as proposed in this Bill, merely to recognize in words a state of things which has actually existed a long time in practice. I have looked at the various qualifications which have been proposed from time to time by different persons, and I must say that I take the same exception, though in a much less degree, to the substitution of "congregation" instead of "communicants," as is proposed in this Bill. It appears to me that we cannot get from the General Assembly any definition of "congregation" which is really final, and which it is beyond the power of anyone to change. I submit that the electoral body ought to be defined by Parliament, and without the consent of Parliament there should be no means of changing its constitution or of altering the mode of electing ministers of the Established Church of Scotland. Now, I may observe to your Lordships that all matters which affect the constitution of the Church, even if not an Established Church, are really determined by some Civil Court or by Parliament. I have read a good deal recently of the liberty, for instance, which the Free Church has obtained. But many of your Lordships will remember the famous decision in the Cardross Case, which laid it down that the Free Church has a constitution, that that constitution must be defined and decided by the Civil Courts, and that it is not competent for any member, or any majority of members, to set aside the rules which they have once established for themselves. If this is true with regard to the Free Church, how much more true is it with regard to the Established Church. I have gone through the various qualifications proposed from time to time, and until I arrived at the ratepaying parishioners I have not been able to find one single qualification which, in my opinion, really places the Established Church upon a reliable and sound foundation, from which it cannot be removed without legislative interference. I have no superstitious veneration for the rate-paying parishioners, but a ratepaying parishioner is a person whose qualification your Lordships will readily understand: and if it is represented to me—

1231
as it was the other night—that in the first place there are many ratepaying parishioners who do not belong, not only to the Established Church, but to any Protestant denomination whatever, and, in the second place, that there are many ratepaying parishioners who are hostile to the Established Church, I think I can show your Lordships that the Established Church of Scotland, if she really seeks to be the Established Church, need not be afraid of making this change. In the first place, I do not think there are a great number of ratepayers in Scotland—at all events, such a number as the Established Church need be afraid of—who belong to denominations entirely foreign to Presbyterianism in some form or another. There are no doubt Roman Catholics in considerable numbers; there are Jews, and there are persons belonging to other religious persuasions; but if Presbyterianism has that hold upon the feelings of the Scotch nation which I believe it has, I do not think we need apprehend from these persons any upsetting of our national religion. I think it has not generally been found to be the case that persons who do not agree to particular sets of religious tenets therefore constitute themselves, when they can got the opportunity, into open enemies of an existing Establishment. It has been said that the Voluntary bodies of Presbyterians will not join the Church even if we make the change I propose. The noble Earl who represents the Free Church in this House (the Earl of Dalhousie) has stated what has already been stated in the General Assembly of the Free Church itself, that although they are glad to see that patronage is being abolished, yet that the differences between them and the Established Church are not thereby removed, and that they remain as hostile to the Church, and as unable to re-enter it, as they were in 1843. Dr. Chalmers said, in his first speech as Moderator in the Free Church—
"Although we quit the Establishment, we go out of it on Establishment principles. We quit a vitiated Establishment, but we would rejoice to return to a pure one. We are the advocates of a national religion, and not Voluntaries."
Now, that declaration shows that the Free Church at that time was not in opposition to the Establishment. And not only that, but your Lordships will see that within the last fortnight, letters
1232
have appeared in the newspapers to this effect—that although the Free Church has declared by a great majority in its Assembly that it is opposed to the principles of the Establishment, yet there are many persons who have written to say they themselves do not agree with that decision, and who do not object to the principles upon which this Bill proceeds. I submit to your Lordships that if we wish once more to receive within the arms of the Church those persons who have left it, or are no longer connected with the Establishment, it is expedient and wise to open the arms of the Church as widely as possible; and, at all events, if, from whatever reason, those who now belong to the Free Church should refuse to rejoin the Church which they have quitted, yet the Establishment ought to have it in its power to point out that she has recognized them as electors, and that she holds that she is still the Church of the country, the Church of the parishes; that her ministers are the ministers of the parishes; and that she does not in any way admit that, because they have quitted her fold, they are therefore unable to return to it. If the Church of Scotland is to continue to be the Church of Scotland—if it wishes to make its way in the affections of the people—it must, when it makes changes in its constitution, accept for itself some basis which will, without any difficulty, comprehend all the members of the Presbyterian Church. My Lords, it is for that reason that I propose to your Lordships to add the words, "rate-paying parishioners." When I spoke upon the former occasion, I proposed to strike out the word "communicants;" but it has been represented to me that many persons feel great interest in the Church who are not ratepayers, therefore I propose to insert, immediately after, the word "communicants," the words "and rate-paying parishioners."
An Amendment moved page 2, line 2, after ("communicants") add ("and rate-paying parishioners").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYopposed the Amendment. He thought it was certainly comprehehensive enough; but it did not appear to him to have any other merit. The connection between the ratepayers as such and the Established Church was of the slenderest kind,

1233
and had never been recognized. If their Lordships proceeded on old historical lines, they might define what the elective body was to be, because in various Acts they would find mention made of the "congregations;" but he could not find that it had ever been considered by the Established Church of Scotland that the appointment of her ministers ought to be vested in the ratepayers.
EARL GREY: Although no noble Lord connected with Scotland has supported the Amendment of my noble Friend (Lord Camperdown), I cannot allow it to be rejected without stating my reasons for believing that if we are to have the ministers of parishes in Scotland appointed by election, the ratepayers, as proposed by my noble Friend, would, on the whole, form the best electors. We must consider what other qualification for electors could be adopted instead of that now suggested. The proposal of the Bill is that the right of voting for ministers shall rest with the communicants. Even my noble Friend the noble Duke behind me (The Duke of Argyll) in so strongly supporting the Bill, took exception to giving the right of voting to communicants. [The Duke of ARGYLL dissented.] I beg pardon of my noble Friend for having mistaken him, but I certainly understood him to say that he did not approve of making the right to vote depend upon being a communicant, and I was confirmed in that impression by the Amendment of which he had given Notice, for substituting the "congregation" for the "communicants" as the voting body. But though the noble Duke may not object to making the fact of being a communicant the qualification for voting, I have myself an insuperable objection to such a proposal. In the first place, I consider it a desecration of this holy rite of our religion, and as tending to induce men to take part in that rite, not from religious, but secular motives. In the second place, it would place a dangerous power in the hands of the Kirk Session. It rests with this body—as was explained to us on a former night—to determine who are to be admitted to the communion, and to settle the roll of communicants. When being placed on this roll is to give a right to vote in the election of ministers, there will be an obvious temptation to abuse in settling it, while the mere suspicion of any such
1234
abuse or partiality would be injurious to the discipline of the Church. I do not see how these objections to making the roll of communicants the list of voters can be met. Another proposal which is to be submitted to us this evening is that the right of electing the minister should be given, not to the communicants, but to the congregation. This would be a less narrow, and therefore, to that extent, a better qualification; but besides other objections, it has the great fault of being too vague. When you are creating a qualification for voters in elections, which will excite much interest, and cause many contests, it is absolutely necessary that the right of voting should be so clearly defined as to make it easy to determine with certainty who are, and who are not, entitled to it. But I do not find that the Amendments of my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) would provide this required definition. He evades the difficulty by empowering the General Assembly to frame rules to guide the Kirk Session in making out a list of the congregation. I cannot regard this arrangement as satisfactory. If Parliament decides that the congregation is to form the electoral body, it is bound to define the conditions of admission to it, and is not entitled to make over to the General Assembly the duty of such supplemental legislation. I must add that, looking to its past conduct, I should feel much distrust as to the manner in which it would exercise this power. I fear that the rules for deciding who are to be regarded as members of the congregation might be framed by the Assembly in a narrow and sectarian spirit. There is still more reason to fear that such a spirit might be shown in the application of these rules by the Kirk Session. Religious parties are almost sure to be formed, and we know that religious parties are apt to be even more bitter than political ones; and when party divisions ran high in a Scotch parish, the power of admitting or excluding persons from the congregation would not be likely to be very fairly exercised by the majority of a Kirk Session anxious to keep up its own ascendency. Perhaps the election of a new minister might be approaching when the question arose whether such and such persons had not avowed opinions not sufficiently in conformity with the doctrines of the Church

1235
to justify their being included in the congregation. In such circumstances, would there not be a danger that such questions would be decided in a manner to render the church congregation more and more narrow and sectarian? This mode of forming constituencies for the election of ministers seems to me directly calculated to create and exasperate religious animosities in the parishes of Scotland. And these animosities would spread from the parishes to the Presbyteries and Synods, to which, as the higher Church Courts, questions as to the exclusion or admission of members into the congregation would be carried from the Kirk Session by appeal. Nor is this all. When being admitted to the congregation carries with it a valuable privilege, and exclusion from it a denial of that privilege, I apprehend that it will be impossible to prevent those who may consider themselves unjustly excluded from the congregation from appealing to the Civil Courts, and asking those Courts to decide whether the privilege Parliament had meant to confer upon the parishioners, of taking part in the election of ministers, had not been unduly narrowed by the rules of the Assembly, or the application of those rules by the Kirk Session. In the case of a national institution, and of a question as to rights derived from an Act of Parliament, I do not see how jurisdiction can be refused to the Civil Courts, and if it is exorcised, we may be sure that the cry against Erastianism will again be raised. By adopting the proposal of the noble Duke, I cannot doubt that we should be sowing the seed which, sooner or later, would produce the fruit of fresh conflicts between Civil and Ecclesiastical authorities in Scotland, and new perils for the Church Establishment. There is another and a yet stronger objection to the proposal, that the choice of ministers for the parishes of Scotland should be determined by an election, in which only the members of the church, whether described as "communicants" or as "the congregation," should have votes. If the Church of Scotland is still to be considered to be a national institution, the whole nation must be regarded as interested in its welfare. For one, I have always held that it is impossible in argument to defend the maintenance of an Established Church, except on the ground of its utility to the nation at
1236
large. On that ground, but on that ground only, I hold that a well-constituted Church Establishment may be successfully defended as one of the most important of national institutions. An Established Church ought to be, and I believe it is, both in England and in Scotland, of the greatest benefit not only to those who belong to it, but to the nation, because the nation at large is deeply interested in the existence of such an instrument for diffusing and keeping alive through the whole community religious knowledge and a sense of religious responsibility. Hence, though I am not a Scotchman, but an Englishman, and prefer our own Church to a Presbyterian Church, still as a British subject I feel a deep interest in the success of the Established Church of Scotland as promoting the welfare of the whole United Kingdom. And this interest must be felt much more strongly by a Scotchman living in Scotland. Though his own feelings and opinions may lead him to join in the devotions of some other form of Christianity, it is a matter of deep concern to the inhabitant of a Scotch parish, that the person selected for the office of minister of its national Church should be a truly able and pious man. Surely, then, it is not just that a man of education and intelligence deeply interested in the welfare of a parish should be denied any voice in the choice of a minister because he is not a member of the Established Church, while men far less likely to exercise the privilege with judgment are allowed to vote. Among the electors there may be men who owe the privilege to an adherence to the Church far more nominal than real—worldly, selfish, and indifferent to the public good. It is neither just, nor calculated to promote the welfare of the parish or of the nation, that such men should be allowed to vote in the election of ministers because they profess to adhere to the Church, while men far superior to them, and far more truly interested in the good choice of a minister are excluded from voting because they are members of a different religious body. Consider how this would work. My noble' Friend behind me (the Duke of Argyll) told us the other night that many of the persons holding patronage in the Scotch Church did not belong to it. He is himself a large holder of patronage which he uses admirably, and

1237
he is also a member of the Establishment; but there is another noble Duke, not now in the House, who is, I believe, the patron of a still larger number of parishes, and who told us that he is a member of the Church of England and not of the Church of Scotland. Now, I believe nobody will deny that the Duke of Buccleuch has used his patronage as well and as conscientiously as my noble Friend behind me, and that he has a deep interest in the welfare of the parishes where he exercises this power. Yet under this Bill the Duke of Buccleuch will not only be deprived of the patronage he has used with so much benefit to the public, but he will not even be allowed to give a vote in the choice of the minister of the parish in which he lives, though he is so deeply interested in the choice which will have to be made. I repeat that this is neither just nor calculated to promote the public good; and I contend, therefore, that if we must have an elective ministry for the Scotch Church you ought not to confine the right of election to its members, and I know of no other body to which it could be entrusted with so much propriety as those who are most truly interested in the welfare of the parish as its rate-paying inhabitants. There may be some doubt whether the ratepayers would not in some cases be too numerous a body of electors, and whether it would not be better that they should be enabled to exercise their power indirectly instead of directly by giving the nomination of the minister to the school board elected by the ratepayers. But without venturing to give an opinion on this point, I must express my conviction that maintaining the Church as a national institution implies that the whole nation is interested in it, and that to establish a system by which its ministers should be elected only by those who are members of it is entirely inconsistent with this view of its position. While ministers are appointed to churches by the Crown, or by private patrons, acting in the character of trustees for the nation and the parishes, and while every inhabitant of the parish is entitled to share if he chooses in the use of the Church, and the services of the minister, the position of the clergy is obviously totally different from what it will be if they are to be elected only by a section of the parishioners, and in some cases by a very
1238
small section of them. If this change is made, I am persuaded that no long time will elapse before the question what is to be done with the Scotch Establishment will again come before us in a more difficult and complicated form than it now presents. In contending that the right of voting in the election of ministers ought not to be narrowed by excluding parishioners who are not members of the Church, I have not forgotten with how much power the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) argued the other evening in his very eloquent and impressive speech against allowing the enemies of the Church to have a share in the appointment of its ministers. I cannot deny that this was a weighty argument, but admitting its force, it seems to me rather to suggest a doubt as to the wisdom of having brought forward this measure at all than to justify the adoption of so dangerous a course as that of creating a narrow sectarian constituency for the purpose of chosing the ministers of a national Church. My noble Friend's speech, as I told him at the time, led me to the conclusion that it would have been far better not to have meddled with the subject at all. I do not mean to find fault with the Government for having done so; considering the strong wish which has for several years been displayed by the General Assembly of the Church for the proposed change, and the very large majority in that body by which the demand for it has been supported, I am not surprised that the Government—having before its eyes the unhappy results of a difference with the Assembly 30 years ago—should have shrunk from again engaging with it in a controversy of the same kind with that which ended so badly. But though I do not presume to condemn the Government for what it has done, I most deeply lament that the leaders of the Scotch Church should have been so ill-advised as to raise this question. When I listened to my noble Friend, as he described how well the existing system had worked, it seemed to me that he was proving in the most conclusive manner, how much wiser it would have been to abstain from disturbing an arrangement under which the parishioners have no practical grievance to complain of, for the purpose of introducing a new system which will be attended with so much risk of failure

1239
For let me remind you what it was that we heard from the noble Duke. He told us that in the present state of things, it was practically impossible that a minister to whom there was a serious objection on the part of the people could be intruded upon a Scotch parish; he showed us that if a patron were so wanting in a proper sense of his duty as to wish to inflict such an outrage on a parish, there exists a moral power to prevent him from doing so, which it is simply impossible for him to overcome. The noble Duke went on to describe his own practice—which he said was that usually followed by other patrons also—when a parish was vacant. He told us that he consulted some of the leading Churchmen of the parish, and that they—after learning the opinion of their fellow parishioners—recommended to him, as the patron, the minister they thought most likely to be acceptable to the congregation. Can any man say that, under this arrangement, any practical grievance exists? Does it not, in fact, come to this, that, at the present moment, the parishes of Scotland enjoy the benefit of having their ministers appointed by a kind of virtual election, but without all the disturbance and the risk which must follow from making the election a formal and a legal one, with the necessity which flows from this, of defining by law, who are to be the electors? The heads of the Church of Scotland have therefore, in my opinion, committed a grievous error, by inducing the General Assembly to insist by such large majorities in asking for legislation on this subject; but as they have been so ill-advised as to do so, and this measure is brought before us by the authority of the Government, I should be the last Member of your Lordships' House to ask you to reject it. But in assenting to it, it is our duty to endeavour to pass it in the shape in which it will be likely to give rise to the fewest difficulties, and to the least danger hereafter; and of the various constituencies suggested for the election of parochial ministers in Scotland, the one proposed by my noble Friend who has moved the Amendment—namely, the ratepayers of the parish, is, in my judgment, that to which, on the whole, there is least objection.
THE DUKE OF AEGYLL*: As on Tuesday last, on the second reading of this Bill, I had the honour of stating to
1240
the House several arguments which appear to me conclusive against allowing the ratepayers, as such, to elect ministers of the Gospel, I shall not require to detain your Lordships long in urging some further objections to it. But I cannot allow to pass without reply the two speeches which have just been delivered—one by a noble Lord who was connected with the late Government, and the other by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) on the cross-benches, misrepresenting in the most grievous manner many facts which ought to be understood by everyone conversant with the history of the Church of Scotland, and advancing arguments in favour of a proposal which I really can hardly conceive being deliberately made by any sane man—the proposal, I mean, to give the election of ministers of the Established Church to ratepayers indiscriminately. In the first place, my Lords, I must observe that it is absolutely a revolutionary change. There has been nothing like it in the whole history of Churches either of England or of Scotland; and when we undertake to deal with ancient institutions, avowedly for the purpose of reforming and strengthening them, it is our habit to act in the spirit of those ancient institutions, adapting them indeed to the new circumstances and new conditions of society, but not to adopt proposals which are absolutely inconsistent with the fundamental principles on which Parliament has proceeded in former times.
My Lords, I do not consider myself in any sense a High Churchman—for there are Presbyterian High Churchmen as well as Episcopalian High Churchmen; I hold that the attitude in which all Churches should address Parliament is that of ordinary societies, whatever may be their opinion as to the peculiar sacredness of the source from which their privileges are derived. But it is fatal, not merely to a Church, but to any society, to introduce into it—and confer powers of government upon—those who do not belong to it, and who do not desire to do so. Are we prepared to introduce the principle of this Amendment into any other Church? We cannot adopt it in this case on the plea that it is essential to the position of an Establishment without admitting a general principle applicable to the Church of England also. The professed object of the Amendment is to widen the Church

1241
of Scotland; but I have no hesitation in saying, that in the peculiar condition of opinion in Scotland—a condition which has always existed—it would make comprehensiveness as regards the Dissenting Churches absolutely impossible. There is not a Presbyterian Church in Scotland which would not reject the proposed terms of membership, and which would not be repelled from joining' the Established Church by the very fact that such a clause had been enter-rained. The Dissenting Churches would say, with truth—"We have got our freedom by seceding from all connection with the State; we always told you that connection is fatal to the freedom of Christian Churches. You of the Established Church denied it, and applied to Parliament to reform and strengthen you, and what have you got? You have got an Act of Parliament which forces upon you vast numbers of men who belong to no Church whatever." And yet my noble Friend (Earl Grey) talks of the danger of collision with the Civil Courts because we propose to leave something to the regulation of the Church itself. He refers to this possible collision as likely to increase the prejudice of "Erastianism" against the Established Church, whilst he supports the Hyper-Erastian Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown). As to the danger of Erastianism being charged against the Church because the Civil Courts may have to decide on the interpretation of this new law, that cannot be avoided. There can be no Established Churches without Acts of Parliament, and there can be no Act of Parliament which may not ultimately come before the Civil Courts for decision and interpretation. The certainty that a ratepaying constituency for the election of ministers would be fatal to the possibility of comprehension with the other Presbyterian Bodies is so important that I wish to impress it on the House. The mere fact that the Established Church had submitted to such a claim would be to all other Presbyterians final and conclusive against their ever joining it. Anyone who knows the opinions of Scotchmen must know that the Bill, in its present form, is beyond all question that which best removes the difficulties in the way of other Presbyterians joining the Established Church. Look at the indications of this which are now
1242
being given. Look at the alarm this Bill has caused among the leaders of the voluntary Churches. And why this alarm? Because they know that the proposed constituency—so objected to here—is the very one which places the Established Church on the most popular basis in Scotland. But adopt this Amendment, and the whole virtue of the Bill as regards popularity and comprehensiveness is gone.
Then, my Lords, I have another objection as regards the practical working of such a system. There are some parishes in Scotland, as in England, in which the patronage is in the hands of the ratepayers. In England it is notorious that these are the most unfortunate parishes in the country, and the same may be said of the corresponding parishes of Scotland. I have a Petition here from one of them, the parish of North Leith, and Dr. Smith, the minister, and the whole Kirk Session declare that the operation of this indiscriminate popular patronage is most injurious. Within the last half-century no vacancy has been filled up in a shorter period than two years on account of the squabbling, quarrelling, and electioneering tactics that were resorted to. Yet this is the condition of things which the Amendment would make universal in Scotland. My Lords, there is no analogy between election by ratepayers and selection by a congregation. The conduct of bodies of men depends on the spirit in which they are brought together. Congregations have a pride and a real personal interest in the ministrations of the Church. They are an organized body with its own esprit de corps. Its members have a sense of responsibility towards each other and towards the Church. But the ratepayers as such have no esprit de corps; the election of a minister, therefore, becomes a scramble, which is conducted without principle, without the sense of responsibility, and must end, as it always does, in disorder and confusion.
And now, my Lords, I pass to another objection to the Amendment of my noble Friend, to which I referred also on Tuesday last, but which has acquired new force from the proceedings of this night. For what, my Lords, have you already done to-night? You have passed one clause of the Bill which repeals Lord Aberdeen's Act—an Act, indeed, to which there are many objections, but

1243
which has at least this advantage, that it does afford an important protection to parishes against the intrusion of improper men, by giving to congregations the power of making objections against a presentee, and by giving to the Church Courts power to give effect to those objections. Now, it is proposed to vest the election of the minister in a committee of ratepayers—men infinitely less responsible than the existing patrons—and to enable them to put a man in over the heads of the members of the congregation, withdrawing at the same time from the congregation even the protection of Lord Aberdeen's Act. Was ever such an act of tyranny towards a congregation and a Church proposed before? If it be said the Amendment is to be itself amended, and protection against the intrusion of improper men is to be given by recognizing the right of veto on the part of the congregation, and by allowing it to be exercised toties quoties so long as unacceptable men are presented—then you come back to a virtual election by the congregation, but you arrive at this result in a roundabout and most inconvenient way. But as the Amendment is now proposed to the House there is no security whatever against a majority of ratepayers putting in a bad man on purpose to disgust and destroy the Church. My Lords, I see that in the Press, and in letters, I have been taken to task for suggesting that such a Machiavellian policy could be adopted. I confess I have a profound distrust of the temper in which religious parties will act towards each other when they have the power. Moreover, we are not without experience in this matter. There have been cases in which it is alleged with apparently too much reason that this has actually been done. There have been cases in which municipal bodies holding the right of patronage and governed by Dissenters have been strongly suspected, and, I fear, on good grounds, of presenting inferior men on purpose to disgust and disperse the congregation. Some of these cases, and one in particular near Edinburgh, have been among the most scandalous cases of disputed settlements. But, my Lords, this is not all. Look at what the voluntary Churches are doing now in resisting this Bill. I said the other night that the United Presbyterian Church did not venture to oppose
1244
this Bill on its merits, and I have had some indignant remonstrances addressed to me saying that they do. Well, I saw some United Presbyterian friends of mine the other day, and said to them—"How on earth can you oppose this Bill? It proposes a mode of selecting ministers which you yourselves have adopted; and not only that, but which you declare to be a matter of divine right. How, then, can you refuse to your fellow Christians in the Established Church that which you yourselves declare to be the divinely appointed right of every Christian Church?" Their answer was—"It is a divine right provided the Church is disestablished; but it is not a divine right if it is established." Now, men who deceive themselves to such an extent as to the conduct which real Christian principle requires them to pursue towards others, are quite as capable of thinking that an individual parish has no right to the services of a good man as that the whole Church has no right to a good system of appointing her ministers. Of course, I do not say that all Dissenters would act upon such principles; I know they would not. The high-minded men among them would refuse to have any part in the election. But, then, who would take part in it? The men of a lower class of mind—the bigots, the fanatics—and others who may not be scrupulous as to the means of embarrassing the Church.
My Lords, there is another argument with regard to the ratepayer to which for a moment I desire to call the attention of the House. Not many years ago the minister of the Established Church had many civil functions; he was head of the education of the parish, he was head of the Poor Law Board, and had many other statutory rights and privileges strictly connected with civil matters. At that time there might have been at least some plausibility in the argument in favour of ratepayers having some voice in his election, although even then it would have been monstrous not to allow the congregation at least a veto. But all this has been changed within the last few years, and the Established Church of Scotland and her ministers have been dissociated from all those civil powers and duties which formerly belonged to them, so that they have now purely spiritual functions to

1245
discharge, and are merely the spiritual guides of their own flocks, including, of course, all who desire to belong to these.
And now, my Lords, there is another argument of some delicacy, which, however, I should be ashamed wholly to avoid. It is impossible not sometimes to ask the question whether the power of the Christian pulpit is not on the decline. It has, I think, lost much of its authority in this country, owing to other competing influences—to other modes and forms of discussion. But this may be said with perfect truth, that over a large part of Scotland the pulpit is still what it has ever been—the centre of intellectual and religious life, upon which many depend for the highest interest and comfort of their lives, and for the consolation which the services of religion can give them in the hour of death. I do not envy the responsibility of those—a responsibility in which I will take no share—who would place the election of ministers in the hands of men who may not be Christians at all—who may take no interest in the services of religion, and who make no profession whatever of the Christian life. Is it fit that such men should be the judges of the powers of the ministers of the Gospel rightly to handle the word of truth? Will the House of Lords import such a precedent into its legislation—a precedent which, once established as an essential feature in Churches connected with the State, will soon be extended to the Church of England also?
My Lords, the Bill of the Government stands on this strong foundation; it is founded, in the first place, on the universal practice and custom of all the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland; it is founded, in the second place, on the adoption by the Legislature of the very same constituency on the very last occasion on which it has had to deal with the subject. Only four years ago Parliament, when many Established Churches in Edinburgh were disconnected from the Annuity Tax, decided that the constituency for the election of ministers should be the congregation, expressing its opinion through the communicants. That is the precedent adopted by Parliament, and it is for those who object to show conclusive reasons for their objection. Lord Minto, in a letter to a public journal, and my noble Friend
1246
near me, have endeavoured to represent the Communion as a test by means of which a man might be arbitrarily excluded by the minister of the parish. But that is not the constitution, that is not the practice, of the Church of Scotland. The practice is that the desire of persons to go to Communion is considered, not by the minister alone, but by the minister and the Kirk Session, the elected representatives of the congregation; and I think I can say of my own knowledge as a fact that everybody is admitted to the Communion as a matter of course, except those who are leading notoriously scandalous lives. My Lords, I have known cases in Scotland in which a refusal has been given, but those cases were not in the Established Church. I have known a case in the Episcopal Church of Scotland where a man has been repelled for having written a book which was certainly not against the interests of religion; and another in which Church Ordinances were refused to parents because they had sent their children to a school connected with the Established Church; but that was in the Free Church. The truth is that the Communion Roll is by far the best foundation, if you desire comprehensiveness as regards all the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. In England, indeed, when a Dissenter goes over to the Established Church he takes a great step—perhaps I may say a very wide stride. But in Scotland he has to take no step or stride whatever—there is nothing different in the worship—nothing in the forms of Communion—no quarrels about symbolism, or about the more important things which that symbolism is intended to represent. In that weighty speech which we heard the other night from the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) on the English Bill, he said—"Do not let us quarrel about the position in which a minister may stand in administering the Holy Communion; let it be to the south, the west, or the north, do not let us quarrel about it." Well, my Lords, that may be a wise thing, I believe it to be a necessary thing as matters stand in England; but let us not deceive ourselves as to what it means. It means "Don't let us mind, don't let us care, don't let us as a Parliament inquire, whether this Sacrament is dispensed as a Protestant Communion or as a Roman Catholic Mass." But

1247
did I not hear my noble Friend on the Bench below (the Earl of Harrowby) declare the other night that the existence of those ritualistic practices in the dispensing of the Communion was an effectual bar to many persons joining the service? In England, therefore, the Communion may be a test, and the communicants in a particular parish may be confined almost to one religious party. But in Scotland there are none of these differences, and therefore the members of one Presbyterian Church may pass with perfect case and freedom to another. My noble Friend (Earl Grey) said that the other night I had disapproved of communicants as the constituency for the election of ministers. I never said so; what I did say was that "communicants" was not the word used in the old statutes, but that "congregation" was the old word, although formerly no doubt "congregation" was synonymous with "communicants." Nevertheless I think it would be expedient to give power to the Church to include among those who are to elect the minister members of the congregation who are not communicants. Practically at the present moment, when the selection of ministers is left to the congregation, the opinion of the whole body, whether communicants or not, is consulted; although no doubt in the event of agreement not being attained, and a vote being taken, it is the communicants who alone generally vote in all the Presbyterian Churches. My Lords, the other day I mentioned the parish of Bonhill, in the Vale of Leven, which at the present time is vacant. In pursuance of my usual practice, I put the patronage in the hands of the congregation, and since the previous debate I have received from my hon. Friend (Mr. Smollett), for many years M.P. for Dumbartonshire, and one of the chief members of the congregation, a statement of the number of communicants, and also of the number of adherents who usually sit in the parish church. From this it appears that the number of communicants is 820, but besides these there are other 420 adherents and regular sitters in the church. I think it is not expedient to preclude the Church, by the wording of an Act of Parliament, from assigning to them some part in the election of a minister merely because they did not choose to
1248
communicate—if the General Assembly can see its way, as I do not doubt it can, to some reasonable rule as to the definition of those who are bonâ fide members of the congregation. If Her Majesty's Government should think this Amendment opposed to the principle of the Bill I will not press it; but I am unable to perceive that it is in any way inconsistent with such principle. I think it will place in the hands of the Church a useful freedom, and a freedom, moreover, which is at the present moment exercised; for both in the Free Church and the Established Church, where this freedom is allowed by the patron, all the congregation, and not merely the communicants, are consulted on the choice of the minister, although, no doubt, if it came to a vote, the communicants only may take part in the election. My noble Friend on the cross-benches has said that by avoiding the definition of a congregation we shall impose a very difficult task on the Church. I cannot agree that such will be the case. There are at the present moment some hundreds of parishes in Scotland which are termed quoad sacra parishes. These are not in the gift of patrons, but the ministers are often presented by the seat-holders of 21 years of age and upwards who have been attendants in the church for one year. I see no difficulty whatever in the Church enacting a general rule that, in addition to the communicants, those who have occupied seats in the parish church for a twelvemonth previous to the vacancy should take part in the election of the minister. I do not agree, however, with my noble Friend (Earl Grey) that there is any danger of persons partaking of the Communion with the sole object of becoming electors. In the first place, it is not practically found that such danger exists, although the constituency is the same in all the voluntary Churches. Indeed, as I am not aware that people can see beforehand the death of a minister, and as the Communion Boll is ordinarily made up once a year, it would not appear that there is much temptation or much facility for the conduct my noble Friend refers to. My noble Friend has apparently never been able to get out of his head the old controversy about the Test Acts. My Lords, no one can entertain a greater horror than I do of those Acts, for it was a

1249
profanation of the Sacraments of Religion to compel men to partake of them for the purpose of acquiring civil rights; but all Churches are connected more or less with creeds, confessions, and articles of belief; and what are these but religious tests? Indeed, I do not know what is meant by a Church unless it be a body of men bound together by some community of beliefs. These may be so drawn as to be wide and comprehensive, or they may be narrower and more restricted. But every Church must have some definition of its beliefs—some test of a religious character whereby to define its membership. Therefore, to object to Communion being made a test for religious purposes because it is utterly abominable and detestable in civil matters is surely a strange confusion of thought.
As usual, my noble Friend on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) agrees with nobody but himself. According to him, every possible alternative is bad—the provision in the Bill being worst of all. Then he expressed astonishment that the Government should have undertaken to do anything at all, and asked what could be the reason of it. Now, I must remind my noble Friend that there exists in Scotland a Body called the General Assembly, with a full representation of the laity as well as of the clergy of the Church. Well, that Body, by over 400 votes against 16, determined to accept this Bill, and sincerely thanked the Government for bringing it forward. Your Lordships may, I think, safely assume that a body of that kind knows its own interests. For my own part, my Lords, I envy the noble Lords opposite the honour of having introduced this Bill, and I envy them still more the power of passing it; but I should feel ashamed if I were to allow any feeling of envy to interfere with the cordial support which, in my opinion, this measure deserves. My Lords, this Bill has no necessary connection with party politics; but no question can be brought before Parliament in the present day connected with an Established Church, without touching on its outskirts various prepossessions of the great political parties. For example, this Bill does offence to some of the political prepossessions of the party opposite, which prepossessions it is most honourable in them to abandon. There has always been a very
1250
strong feeling on that side of the House, and also on this side of the House, in favour of lay patronage as a right of property. I hold, therefore, that a Conservative Government which brings in a measure to do away with lay patronage has sacrificed a good many of the strongest prepossessions of their Party. With regard to the Liberal Party, I should have thought that there were some elements in this Bill which would have recommended it to them. It carries with it some extension of popular power and popular privileges which, within due limits, the Liberal Party has been accustomed to regard with favour as expedient and just. I am well aware that a section of the Liberal Party is opposed to all Established Churches; but, even if Free Churches should ultimately be the rule in this country and throughout the world, at least it ought to be admitted that as long as Established Churches exist we should deal honestly by them, and legislate for their good and the spiritual interests of their members.
There is another thing, my Lords, which I confess recommends this Bill to me as a Member of the Liberal Party, The Liberalism of Scotland has been an historical Liberalism, founded upon clear, definite, manly conceptions of the nature and duties of the Christian Church, and also of the nature and duties of a Christian State. It has never been the modern slip-shod Liberalism, which is indifferent to all principles of this kind, or which looks for some Church which is to be without any faith, and for some theology which is to be every man's religion in general and no man's religion in particular. The Liberalism of Scotland has been made of very different stuff—founded on definite conceptions on all these matters, and it has been because of its possessing this character that it achieved such great things in the history of the country. I think I perceive on the horizon controversies yet to come in which the same principles will yet play an important part. I agree with my noble Friend, that it would have been better not to touch this question at all rather than to adopt any of the alternatives to the Government Bill which have been proposed. But if this Bill passes, it will, I believe, strengthen the Established Church, and will do lasting honour to the House of Peers.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK, who was very imperfectly heard, opposed the Amendment, observing that whatever course was taken, he hoped the noble Duke would not give this power to the General Assembly, as it was a body eminently unfitted to discuss such questions. He hoped the Government would look narrowly at the clause again, and see if some better means could not be provided of defining those bodies who were to elect the ministers.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that in the Instruction which he had intended to propose to the Committee, but which he had withdrawn, he had gone a step further than the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll.) The Instruction was in effect to give to the General Assembly power to frame rules under which persons other than communicants as defined by this Act might be qualified to elect—in other words to define who were members of the congregation qualified to vote. His noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) argued at great length against the ratepaying qualification; but he (the Earl of Airlie) only proposed to admit those to whom injustice would be done if it was left to the general body of the ratepayers to elect the ministers. It would be very dangerous when dealing with the Established Church to lay down the principle that no one who was not a member should have anything to do with it or any of its regulations. His noble Friend said that the United Presbyterians would not allow any interference by those outside. But that was not an Established Church—which made the case entirely different. He did not think that the illustration of the noble Duke with respect to the disendowment of certain churches in Edinburgh bore on the matter. If the Amendment were carried a good many bodies, including the town councils and heads of houses in Scotland, would be excluded. He had not heard any reference made to the Highlands, in which there was a very large population, of whom the members of the Established Church were a very small section indeed. In some of the parishes of the Western Highlands there were no members of the Established Church at all. What would be the position of things there? It was said that they left the Church because they had no voice in the election of the minister; and now they were not allowed
1252
to have any voice in it because they did did not come to church. They might get over the difficulty of the appointment of minister by having him elected by the General Assembly; but they would by so doing bring the church in those parishes into opposition. They knew in Wales there were hardly any members of the Established Church. Would it strengthen the cause of the Church in Wales if they were obliged to put the election of ministers in the hands of the Bishop or the Dean and Chapter? But the case was stronger, because the people in the Highlands had left the Church for the very cause that they had no voice in the election of ministers. They were making it much more difficult for the Dissenters in the Highlands to come back. What they said was that those men should never have a voice in the election of ministers unless they stultified themselves by coming back to the Church first. Instead of opening wide the doors of the Church—as wide as possible—they were closing them, and really ostentatiously slammed the doors in their faces. The truest friends of the Church were, in his opinion, those who would entrust the election of her ministers to a large and not to a limited body. The Resolution proposed in the General Assembly, which could not be put, would have opened the doors of the Church far wider than the present Bill, and he would point out that many distinguished writers would be excluded by their very eminence. He knew that the noble Duke opposite would give a very fair consideration to the objections of those who differed from the Government, and therefore he would leave the matter in his hands.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that he quite concurred in the sentiments of the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Airlie) with respect to the parishes in the north of Scotland, in which the communicants were so very few that it would be absurd to leave the election to them. He would suggest that where there were less than 20 communicants in the Established Church, the Free Church communicants should be allowed to vote.
EARL GRANVILLE, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he would give every assistance to the Government in carrying the measure; but he thought the question was

1253
a much larger one than the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) seemed to be aware of when introducing the Bill.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, he did not think the Amendment would be agreeable to the House or to the country. He hoped, at least, that the word "congregation" would be added to "the communicants," because, if not, one half of the heritors would be disfranchised, although they might have pews in the Church. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had expressed great thanks to the Government for bringing this subject forward; but he (the Earl of Lauderdale) could not concur with him, for he never was more surprised in his life than he was in finding that a Conservative Government should have brought in a Bill to upset the Church of Scotland, when even the late Prime Minister thought this a subject with which he could not deal.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I do not know what the mind of the late Prime Minister may have been; but as my noble and gallant Friend speaks of the motives and feelings that actuated Mr. Gladstone when in office, I am sure he would not bring them under our notice unless he had special grounds for being his mouthpiece. My noble and gallant Friend expressed his surprise that Her Majesty's Government should have dealt with this question; but I think he should rather have adduced some arguments to show that the abolition of patronage in Scotland would tend to injure rather than to strengthen the Established Church in that country. I do not know whether my noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Argyll) called your Lordships' attention to the fact that the General Assembly, which is supposed to know more of the requirements of the Church than any other body, has, by an overwhelming majority, arrived at the conclusion that it was expedient to pass the measure in the shape in which we have brought it before the House, and have rejected all other modes of dealing with the question. I wish, I may add, to remove the idea that it is only since our recent accession to office, that I, as a Member of the Government, thought of bringing this subject under the notice of Parliament. The fact is this—It has been my duty, connected as I am with that part of the country, to consider all matters relating to the welfare
1254
of the Establishment in the country; and I pointed out the other evening that, on the Motion of my noble Friend, when he was dealing with this subject some Sessions ago, I said that the question ought to be dealt with by any Government to whom it appeared that the opportunity had presented itself of bringing legislation with respect to it to a successful issue. That opportunity has, in my opinion, arrived, and I hope we shall be successful. I must take this occasion of expressing my deep sense of gratitude to my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) for the large assistance he has given us; and I felt that if I could obtain his support, knowing the great interest he takes in this subject, and the great attention he has paid to it, we should have no great difficulty in passing through Parliament a measure which would strengthen the Church in Scotland. I propose to deal with all the Amendments that are on the Paper at once, as being a more convenient course than criticizing them in detail—because I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships that if a division should be taken on one of these points, it should indicate the feeling of the House. With regard to the whole of these Amendments, I shall state as briefly as I can the view of the Government upon them. The noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), in proposing the Amendment, said that what you really want, in selecting a minister of the Church is, that the persons who take part in the selection or election of the minister are the persons who are most likely to be benefited by his ministry, and who are likely to be brought most frequently into contact with him, and whose interests would be identical with his and with the interests of the parish. The proposition that, in a large parish, where possibly the Established Church does not count among its adherents the majority of the ratepayers, you should give to the ratepayers of the parish the power to elect the minister, astonished me more than I can express; and, indeed, I did not think I could be more astonished till I heard the proposal of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntley). But by way of healing all the heart-burnings and all the jealousies which, for the last 30 or 40 years, have disturbed the Church, that he should propose that the electing body should

1255
be thrown sufficiently open so that they might elect a minister of the Free Church, is to me even more astonishing still.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLEYexplained that his proposal only applied to cases where there were not more than 20 communicants.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: With regard to the question put to me by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare), I ought to mention that those points are under consideration; but it will be difficult to meet the cases of some of the parishes in the North where the communicants are few in number. It will require some machinery to place these parishes on a satisfactory footing. With regard to the ratepayers, the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) would make out that they are the only proper body to elect; but I could not see by what process of reasoning he made that out. The noble Earl objected to the Communion Roll, and said that the clergyman might exclude persons whose views did not coincide with his own, but he seemed to forget that, so far as the election of a minister is concerned, the interest of the clergyman is a posthumous interest, because the election of the clergyman will not arise till after the clergyman, who sought to exclude the elector, was dead and gone. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has completely disposed of that objection. Besides, I have too high an opinion of the clergy of Scotland to suppose that they would be guilty of so discreditable and so foolish an act—which might be described by a somewhat vulgar expression as "cooking" the Communion Roll. The ratepayers, therefore, I think, are not the proper persons to elect the minister, and I cannot accept the proposal of the noble Earl. As I said before, it seems to me that you want to have the interest of the parish identical with the persons who are to elect the minister. Moreover, there has been no real feeling in Scotland in favour of any such proposal as that of the noble Earl—at none of the meetings on this question has there been the smallest hint that the ratepayers were the proper persons to be entrusted with so important a duty. With respect to the proposal of my noble Friend (the Earl of Airlie) who spoke last, I am unable to accept his Amendment.
1256
The views he has so ably expressed do not commend themselves to my mind as to what would be the best electoral body. I do not think the words he has suggested are sufficiently fenced off to warrant me in accepting his proposal. This brings me to the proposal of my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll), who has very consistently advocated that the word "congregation" shall be inserted as well as "communicants." I think there has been some misapprehension on this subject, as if my noble Friend had proposed to substitute "congregation" for "communicants;" but the words of the Amendment are most distinct, for it says after "communicants" insert "and other members of the congregation." I am not sure but that in some of the northern parishes the very addition of these words would remove some of the objections to the smallness of the number of the communicants. I have very carefully considered the question raised by the noble Duke since I had last the honour of addressing your Lordships on the subject. I have endeavoured to find words which will meet the difficulty raised by my noble Friend; but I confess I have been unable to satisfy myself with any words in the sense in which the noble Duke seeks to amend the clause. Perhaps it-would be better to retain the Bill in the form in which I introduced it; but there is so much force in the reasons given by the noble Duke for inducing your Lordships to accept his Amendment, that I have, on the part of the Government, come to the conclusion to accept it. Before I sit down I will say a few words on the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Napier and Ettrick).
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: I have not moved it.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I can anticipate what the noble Lord will say. He intends to propose that the heritors shall participate in the elections. Now, heritors are not necessarily members of the congregation. Therefore that point of the Bill that the congregation and the communicants are identical in interest with the minister is lost sight of entirely if you include the heritors, because you may include men who possibly were never in the parish. I shall resist all these Amendments, with the exception of that of the noble Duke; but his Amendment I, without hesitation, accept,

1257
In reply to EARL GRANVILLE,
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would be prepared to state on the Report how he proposed to deal with the small parishes.
EARL GRANVILLEobserved that the noble Duke's Amendment on the 3rd clause proposed to add after "communicants" "and other members of the congregation." In the 9th clause he proposed to define "congregation."
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the 9th clause was the Interpretation clause, and it might cause some alarm if the word "congregation" did not appear in the principal part of the Bill. In a mere question of grammar, some weight might be given to popular impressions. With regard to the question that had been asked as to the parishes where there was only a small number of communicants, this was one of the arguments that might be used against any Bill. Their Lordships would be grossly deceived if they supposed that in all cases the number of communicants was an index of the number of adherents of the Church. In some Highland parishes, where there prevailed as strong a feeling about communicating, amounting almost to as great a superstition as prevailed in the Early Church with regard to the Sacrament of Baptism, there would be found, perhaps, 25 communicants to 250 adherents; but the 25 were accepted as a committee of the congregation. Where the communicants fell below a certain number, he did not see why the Presbytery should not be resorted to.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, it appeared to be impossible to legislate upon the same principles for the Highlands and the Lowlands. He hoped all further Amendments would be printed before they were proposed.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would not trouble the House to divide on his Amendment, but he would make this remark, that he was obliged to ask himself what was the object of this measure?
On Question? Resolved in the negative.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKrose to propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice, that the words "and heritors" should be inserted after "communicants." He said it would not have been necessary to move this Amendment
1258
if ratepaying parishioners had been accepted as the electing body, because heritors were ratepayers, though they might not be members of the congregation; but now he felt it necessary to propose the Amendment on its own merits. His first ground was that of precedent, the participation of heritors in the election of ministers having been incorporated in the Act of the Scotch Parliament of 1690, and one of the Articles of the Act of Union was that the constitution of the Church of Scotland should be hold sacred. The heritors of Scotland had exercised the right of patronage with zeal and with solicitude for the good of the Church. They had surrendered that right for the welfare of the Church, and it was but a reasonable act of justice to such a body of men that they should participate in the way he proposed. It was also due to them on account of their pecuniary interests. The heritors were, in a manner the trustees and guardians of the ecclesiastical revenues of Scotland, and they supported the fabric of the church by a tax on their property; and, under these circumstances, he thought they had a right to participate in the election of the minister. Moreover, the heritors would form useful members of the constituency. When the lower orders in Scotland had to select their ministers, they were apt to look too much to one particular accomplishment, the faculty of preaching; they had fewer opportunities of judging the wisdom, the discretion, and other Christian qualities of the ministers than the heritors, who were men of wider experience and better knowledge of the world. Then, there were parishes in the north-west of Scotland where there would be no constituencies whatever under the Bill; but if this proposal were adopted there would be at least some electors, because there were heritors where there were no congregations and no communicants. He begged to move in page 2, line 2, after "communicants," to insert "and heritors."
On Question? Resolved in the negative.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved to insert in page 2, line 2, after "communicants," to insert "and other members of the congregation."
Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYmoved in page 2, line 5, after ("election") to insert (" by ballot ").
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he he was obliged to resist this proposal.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, this was precisely one of those cases in which everyone ought to vote on his own responsibility, and to know how the others had voted.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved the omission of certain words which, in his opinion, would withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court of Session all questions connected with the temporalities of the Church.
Amendment moved line 11, leave out from ("Provided always") down to (" thereof") in line 20, inclusive.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the words would not bear the interpretation put upon them by the noble Earl.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 95.)

INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.—(No. 79.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.—(No. 79.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that as the subject he was about to bring before the House involved a somewhat important question of policy, and as it was inconvenient for him to make a statement on the subject at an earlier stage, he would venture now to detain their Lordships with a few observations. Many years ago the financial condition of India was very serious. Deficits multiplied every year—things grew worse and worse, and there seemed no hope of rescuing Indian finances from the persistent difficulties in which they had become involved. The plan was then adopted of appointing what might be called a special Cabinet Minister to look after the finances. Although no one could doubt that the Indian Civil Service
  1260
  furnished many able and most competent men, it was yet found desirable in times of some difficulty to introduce such new blood as the English Government might be able to command, and to be free from the restrictions formerly imposed. The financial achievements of Mr. Wilson, Mr. Laing, and Sir Charles Trevelyan, appointed under the altered rule, were familar to all who were acquainted with the recent history of India, and the result of the work that had been done was that the finances of that country were at present in a highly satisfactory condition. It was now proposed in the matter of Public Works to follow the precedent which had been set with regard to finances. Public works were a thing of comparatively recent development in India. Before the time of Lord Dalhousie there was no Department of Public Works at all. All such works were then done by the Military Department, and were in fact part of the military engineering. Since that time the Public Works Department had been created, and its duties had grown enormously. Twenty years ago there were only 21 miles of railway in India; now there were 6,000. Since the same time there had been spent on irrigation works between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 of money—about £7,000,000 in Northern and £1,500,000 in Southern India. And the work which had to be performed by the Public Works Department was growing upon them day by day and increasing enormously in importance. Even before the recent famine there were irrigation works to the amount of 18,000,000 of money projected by the Government of India, and which the Public Works Department would have had to carry out: and now that the present calamity had taught them to look to irrigation to prevent that which might, otherwise, be a constant periodical charge upon the Indian revenue for the relief of famine, a number of other irrigation schemes had been prepared which would add largely to the work of the Department. An officer of whose ability it was impossible to speak too highly had submitted to the Viceroy a scheme which it was expected would have the effect in the future of averting-famines in the North of India. He calculated that the cost of carrying it out would be about £14,000,000—and it was obvious that even that large amount

  1261
  would be well spent if by that means they could avoid the present necessity of spending £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 every ten years. These were the prospects with respect to irrigation which the Public Works Department had before it. In connection with railways, also, the amount of work was very heavy. The 6,000 miles of railway constructed within the last 20 years had, no doubt, been made under the superintendence of the Government of India, but the actual work had been done by Companies, who had invested their money under the guarantee of the Government. That system was now at an end. It had been found to be financially a wasteful system, and in future all the railways would be made by the Government of India itself. Lord Mayo, who was competent to form a just judgment in the matter, calculated that, in addition to the 6,000 miles of railways already constructed, it was necessary to make 9,000 more, in order to furnish India fully with railways, and of those 9,000 only 3,000 had as yet been laid out. It was hoped that by the use of the narrow gauge the expenditure would be about £4,000 a mile, and if that anticipation—which was a very sanguine one—should prove correct, it was calculated that £16,000,000 out of a total proposed expenditure of £36,000,000 would be spent within the next four or five years. That was in itself a heavy financial undertaking, and the aid of the guaranteed Companies, which had in past times been exceedingly useful, had passed away for ever. The works had been ascertained to be remunerative, but not to the extent supposed. Some 10 years ago there was a happy superstition prevailing that one might make a railway or an irrigation work any where in India, and it was certain to be remunerative. That notion had been entirely dispelled by the stern logic of facts; the railways—even the best of them—barely paid the interest of the money expended on them; and in regard to those that were to be constructed in the future, they must look for remuneration to the increased commerce and revivified industry which they would cause. He doubted if in any one case—certainly if in many cases—they would repay the interest of the money which had to be raised in order to make them. It, therefore, became of extreme importance
  1262
  that the utmost skill and vigilance should be exercised in the construction of them, in order that the burden on the revenues of India might be made as light as possible. The irrigation works were much in the same condition. They had been misled by calculating that future works would make the same return as those already in work, forgetting that in respect of them they had merely taken over work that had been commenced by their Mahomedan predecessors. He might illustrate his argument by a reference to the Jumna Canal—an old Mahomedan work in the North-Western Provinces—and the Punjaub Eastern Jumna Canal, in which cases it would be found that the returns were more than the interest of the money which had been raised to construct the work; whereas other similar works in the same provinces constructed exclusively under the British rule, did not yield sufficient to pay the interest upon them. He mentioned these details in order to show that irrigation works in India, like the railways, were not the easy and certain matters they were some 10 years ago thought to be, and that it required the utmost vigilance and the most careful organization to secure that those works should not be a permanent burden on the already heavily-weighted revenues of India. It might be asked, whether it was that the Public Works Department had not done its business well? He was willing to admit that that Department had shown great energy and public spirit. Finance was, however, not its strong point. He had laid upon the Table of the House certain Returns showing the relations between the original estimates of the Department and the actual expenditure for the last three years, and it would be seen that there were no fewer than 300 cases in which the expenditure had very largely exceeded the estimate; the sum total of the whole matter being that, whereas the original estimate was £4,100,000, the actual expenditure was £6,700,000. In stating that fact, he was not seeking to throw blame on individuals—the weakness must rather be taken to lie in the system; and it was to remedy the state of things of which he spoke that he proposed to make an alteration in the constitution of the Council of the Governor General of India by appointing to it a Member of Council

  1263
  for Public Works, who would be appointed by the Crown. This Member of Council would give his especial attention to these matters, and having the complete superintendence and control, would feel that the making or marring of his reputation would depend upon the manner in which he discharged his duties. The Viceroy himself, he was bound to say, was very much adverse to having the number of his Council increased, and although he did not agree with him on the point, he thought it well that power should be given which would enable the number to be kept down to its present level. Of course, the exact mode in which the proposed alteration should be carried into effect could not be decided until after further consideration, and the Bill was therefore in a permissive form; but he was satisfied it would have the effect of promoting that efficiency in a great public department which here the stimulus of an active public opinion tended to produce.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill."
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKwished to know whether the noble Marquess had consulted with respect to the Bill the Council over which he himself presided?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had had no formal consultation with the Members of his Council on the subject.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked whether the Viceroy had expressed an opinion adverse to the change?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas understood to say that he had not completed his communications with the noble Lord on the subject.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it would have been a great recommendation of the measure, if the noble Marquess had been able to state that the Bill came before their Lordships with the approval of the Indian Government.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1, (Number of ordinary Members of Governor General's Council may be increased.)
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKdesired to make a very few observations. He gave every credit to the noble Marquess for his great abilities and the assiduous attention with which he devoted them to the interests of India; but he certainly thought the present measure would have come before the House with a still higher recommendation than it did had his personal opinion been assisted by those associated with him in the government of India. He thought the measure one of very doubtful expediency. It contemplated the institution of two new functionaries in India; one was a special officer charged with the responsibility of Public Works in India, who, he thought, would have no special effect in diminishing expenditure or controlling the application of the revenues of India to public works. It was quite true that the expenditure on many of those works had exceeded the Estimates, but that was not unknown in this country in the case of public works; and taking the peculiar conditions under which such works had to be executed in India, and the difficulties which had to be encountered, he doubted whether, under the circumstances, the works could have been better or cheaper done. The other proposal was the transfer of a Member of the Council of the Governor General to one of the subordinate Provinces, who, he thought, would, as a sort of Inspector or spy on the proceedings of the subordinate authorities, inspire jealousy and prove absolutely pernicious. He submitted that the Bill ought for the present to be withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL. (No. 30–62.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL. (No. 30–62.)

  COMMITTEE ON RE-COMMITMENT.
  House again in Committee on Re-Commitment.
  EARL NELSON, referring to the insertion of the words "security for costs having been given," in Clause 8—a new clause agreed to on the Motion of the Earl of Shaftesbury—said, he intended that the security to be given should be not less than £100; his object being to secure that the appeal should be bonâ fide.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the clause could be amended on the bringing up of the Report.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved, after Clause 16, to insert—
  ("In proceedings under this Act, the bishop or the judge may, if he deem it light, order the plaintiff to give security for costs in such an amount as he may deem expedient; and until such security he given the proceedings shall be stayed.
  "In proceedings under this Act, the costs shall abide the final judgment, except otherwise directed by the court which pronounces judgment; and such costs shall be taxed and levied in the mode prescribed.
  "If it appear that any plaintiff has made any groundless or frivolous claim or complaint, or that any defendant has set up any groundless or frivolous defence, the court may order such plaintiff or defendant to pay, as between attorney and client, the whole or any part of the costs occasioned by making such groundless or frivolous claim or complaint, or setting up such groundless or frivolous defence (as the case may be); and such costs shall be taxed in the mode prescribed.")
  Motion (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 17 (Monition to be in force pending an appeal unless the bishop or court of appeal shall otherwise order).
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHproposed to insert the words—" of the Court of Appeal of the Province."
  After some discussion, of the course of legal proceeding in enforcing decrees by the Courts of Law, of a very technical character—
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 18 (Return by incumbent).
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, the clause required the incumbent to make a return to the Bishop, stating whether he had duly complied with the terms of the monition, and if so, in what manner. This could not but be highly mortifying to the incumbent; and he should propose that the return should be made to the Judge. This would be quite as effectual, and would spare the incumbents the degradation of writing.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it might not have occurred to the noble Marquess that the requirement of the return to be made to the Judge, instead of the Bishop might have sharper consequences to the incumbent.
  After short conversation, clause struck out.
  Clause 19 (Inhibition of incumbent) agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 20 (Cathedrals).
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYproposed to postpone the consideration of this clause—directing that when the church in reference to which a representation is made is a cathedral church the representation shall be made by the dean, precentor, chancellor, or treasurer of such church, or by one of the canons residentiary, prebendaries or honorary canon—until the Report, when he would bring it up in an amended form.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobjected to any such course being pursued. The Forms of the House afforded every opportunity for the minutest criticism of the clause in Committee, and he did not see what object was to be gained by deferring the consideration of the question until the Report. The Bishops were claiming a jurisdiction over the cathedrals which had not been practically exercised for the last 200 years.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it had been suggested that it had not been customary to require a faculty for the alteration of buildings in cathedrals, but that the original Bill would make those faculties absolutely requisite in regard to cathedrals. He had therefore promised to introduce a provision that would modify that objection. There was, however, a great deal more to be said now for retaining cathedrals in the Bill since it had been amended by the proposals of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and the objections which were made to the Bishops exercising their authority over cathedrals did not apply to the Judge. He wished the clause to be struck out now with a view to bringing it up in another shape on the Report—especially as he had given Notice of his intention to move an. Amendment with respect to faculties.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobjected to the proposed method of proceeding very much as a matter of principle. That Bill required very minute verbal sifting, a process which could not be satisfactorily applied to it by putting off that question till the Report.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobserved that the course proposed to be taken by the most rev. Primate was not at all unusual; and he thought it not quite convenient to deal with that clause on the present occasion. The Forms of the House required them to negative the

  1267
  clause and when, at the next stage, the contemplated new Clause was proposed no doubt it would receive that minute verbal sifting of which his noble Friend had spoken.
  EARL GRANVILLErecommended the postponement of the clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought it was the practice not to defer a clause till the Report except where the Committee had decided on the substance of the Amendment which it was intended at the next stage to make in it. ("No!") If the Bishop was not to have any more authority over the cathedral than he possessed at present, there might be no difficulty in assenting to omit the clause now and allow another one to be brought up on the Report.
  After some further conversation,
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 21 (Faculty not necessary in certain cases).
  The Clause provides that it shall not be necessary to obtain a faculty from the ordinary in order lawfully to obey any monition issued under this Act, and that if the Bishop shall direct in any monition that a faculty shall be applied for, such fees only shall be paid for it as may be directed by the rules and orders.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved to add a proviso—
  "That a faculty shall, on application, be granted gratuitously in respect of any ornaments or furniture, not being contrary to law, existing in any church at the time of the passing of this Act."
  Sometimes the taking out of these faculties cost as much as £5.
  LORD SELBORNEthought the proposal a reasonable one.
  Proviso agreed to.
  Clause agreed to, with the Amendment.
  Clause 22 (Service of Notices) agreed to.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKmoved, after Clause 22, to insert a new Clause:—
  (Substitute for Bishop in case of illness).
  "If any bishop shall be unable from illness to discharge any of the duties imposed upon him by this Act in regard to any representation, the archbishop of the province shall act in the place of such bishop in all matters thereafter arising in relation to such representation, and if any archbishop shall be unable from illness to discharge any of the duties imposed upon him by this Act in regard to any representation, Her Majesty may, by her sign manual, appoint an
  1268
  archbishop or bishop to act in the place of such archbishop in all matters thereafter arising in relation to such representation."
  After a few words from Earl NELSON and Lord SELBORNE,
  Clause agreed to and added to the Bill.
  Clause 23 (Limitation of proceedings against incumbent).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved that the Chairman report Progress, which was agreed to.
  House to be again in Committee (on Recommitment) on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. No. 96.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.