Sitting of 15 June 1874

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Baron Kensington, for Haverfordwest; Farrer Herschell, esquire, and Sir Arthur Edward Monck, baronet, for Durham City.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—POST OFFICE, PACKET, AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Slaughterhouses, &c.* [150].
First Reading—Wenlock Elementary Education* [151].
Second Reading—Sanitary Laws Amendment* [128].
Referred to Select Committee—County of Hertford and Liberty of Saint Alban* [77].
Select Committee—Colonial Clergy* [125], nominated.
Committee—Report—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation* [129]; Merchant Ships (Measurement of Tonnage)* [118–148]; Juries* [18–149].
Third Reading—Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland)* [108]; Alkali Act (1863) Amendment* [99]; Apothecaries Act Amendment* [71], and passed.
Withdrawn—Allotments Extension* [79].

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—BOROUGH OF DROGHEDA.
MR. Speaker informed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Barry, one of the Judges on the Rota for the Trial of Election Petitions in Ireland, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Borough of Drogheda, to the effect that having transmitted to the Court, in the usual manner, a special case setting forth the material facts and submitting for the opinion of the Court the question, whether, under the circumstances, the Election should be declared void; and the case having been argued before the full Court of Common Pleas, the learned Judge received from the Master of the Court a Curial or Official Minute stating "that the Court being equally divided in opinion pronounce no decision;" and that he having thus failed to obtain the determination of the Court, he decided the matter himself and determined that the Election was not void, and that William Hagerty O'Leary was duly elected and returned as Member to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Drogheda.

ARMY SERVICE IN INDIA—THE 81st REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House, how many years it is proposed that the 81st Regiment should serve in India, that regiment being ordered to go there in October next, and having already completed more than four years' service at Gibraltar, while its affiliated regiment, the 47th, has been for a longer period on home service?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the 81st Regiment would have to serve eight years more in order to complete the 12 years of foreign service. Its affiliated regiment, the 47th, had during the last 14 years been six years at home and eight years abroad; and no doubt the relative positions of the two regiments would by-and-by be changed.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY—THE PIETRO DELLA FRANCESCA.—QUESTION.
MR. HANKEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that a painting by Pietro della Francesca has been purchased for the Nation at the late sale of the Barker Collection for £2,415; and, if so, whether his attention has been called to a letter signed by Mr. J. C. Robinson, in "The Times," dated 8th June, in which that Gentleman states that the painting in question, having been a wreck and ruined beyond redemption by decay, has been entirely re-painted, so that he does not think any portion of the surface as it now is is from the hand of Pietro della Francesca; and if he has any reason to believe that Mr. Robinson's statement is correct; and, further, whether he has seen the same gentleman's letter in this day's "Times?"
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I read the letter to which the hon. Member's Question refers some days ago, and I have also read that which appears in The Times of this morning. When the legitimate occasion offers, and the proposal is made to the House of Commons to vote a sum of money for the purchase of pictures, I shall be ready to make some remarks upon those letters; but I believe it is quite against the rules of the House to enter into a controversy by mere Question and Answer across the Table. Therefore I will merely say that it is quite true that a painting by Pietro della Francesca has been purchased for the nation at the late sale of the Barker Collection for £2,415, and, as the subject has been referred to, I will say that I congratulate the country on having acquired, after a severe competition with some of the first galleries and collections at present in existence, a picture of the most rare and interesting character, and which I think, will add to the beauty and value of the National Collection.

ARMY—THE ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY.—QUESTION.
MR. HEYGATEasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been directed to the Report of the Board of Visitors of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, dated July 1873; and, whether he is prepared to act upon their recommendations—viz., that a separate

1585
room be provided for each Cadet, and that a suitable field for cricket and football be obtained for the recreation of the Cadets?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the subject referred to in the hon. Member's Question was not a new one, it having been brought before the late Secretary of State for War. No provision, however, had been made for the purpose in the Estimates for the present year. The sum required for making separate rooms for the Cadets would be £15,500, and for providing a playground, £2,400. Enquiries were now being made whether the estimate for the former could not be reduced; but there were other buildings which would have to be completed before the works referred to could be commenced.

INDIA—INDIAN (HINDUS AND MAHOMEDANS) APPOINTMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to a Return made in pursuance of an Address moved for in 1872 by him (Sir Patrick O'Brien) in reference to Indian Appointments, from which it appears that during the five years from 1867 to 1871 (both inclusive) there have been appointed to offices of not less than 150 rupees monthly 2,345 Hindus as against 597 Mahomedans; and, whether it is the intention of the Indian Government to take any action in order to remedy such an inequality in the distribution of Indian Appointments?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: My attention, Sir, has been called to the Return, by which it appears, as stated by the hon. Baronet, that 2,345 Hindus have been appointed to certain offices, as against 597 Mahomedans. The hon. Baronet calls that distribution unequal; but, if he will consult the last Census Return, he will find that the Hindu population stands to the Mahomedan in almost the same proportion as the figures mentioned in the Return alluded to.

CATTLE—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Order in Council recently issued relative to the foot and mouth disease is in accordance with the recommendations of
  1586
  the Select Committee on Cattle Diseases of last Session; and, if a Copy will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, after the Report of the Select Committee of last year, the previous Orders relating to foot-and-mouth disease were revoked; but, in consequence of a serious out-break of that disease in various parts of England and Scotland, the Lord President thought he could not do otherwise than revert to the former regulations, and authorize the local authorities in any district to take measures to prevent the spread of the disease. He hopes that that deviation from the recommendation of the Select Committee will not cause inconvenience. There is no objection to lay a copy of the recent Order on the Table, and I may add that the Lord President has been in communication with Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the view of carrying out more effectually the system of inspection of animals landed from Ireland.

SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT— SOUTH KENSINGTON.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can now inform the House what arrangements have been made in the Department of Science and Art consequent on the resignation of Mr. Cole?
VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, arrangements have been made for bringing the various departments at South Kensington into more direct relations with the Education Department, in which they will be virtually merged. The Secretary of the Education Department will also be the Secretary for the departments at South Kensington. Under Sir Francis Sandford will be an assistant Secretary, Mr. Macleod. The office of Director of the Museum has been offered to, and has been accepted by, Mr. Cunliffe Owen, and Major Donelly and Mr. Redgrave have been offered the directorships of the Science and Art divisions respectively. The subordinate arrangements are not yet complete, but will be proceeded with at once, now that the Government are able to have the assistance of responsible heads of departments.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS—TUNBRIDGE SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
MR. GOLDSMIDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, con-

1587
sidering that the Endowed Schools Commissioners' Scheme for Tunbridge School has been long deferred, and that the delay is injurious to the school, he can state when the scheme is likely to be published?
VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I have referred the Question of the hon. Member to the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and am informed that in December, 1872, an assistant Commissioner inquired into and reported upon the case of Tunbridge School. But the Commissioners have not prepared the draft of a scheme, nor is a scheme likely to be published during the present Session of Parliament. I am also informed that the case is one of great importance, and that the delay in its settlement is owing to the work caused by the sittings of the Select Committee appointed last year to consider the working of the Endowed Schools Act, and to the uncertainty which has prevailed respecting the future in consequence of the Act of last Session.

POST OFFICE—THE WEST INDIA MAILS.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERICK PERKINSasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Post Office Department has not found the landing of the West India Mails at Plymouth, instead of at Southampton, to be without material advantage to the public service, and involving an unnecessary expense to the country; and, whether the Royal Mail Company have expressed any unwillingness to cease calling at Plymouth; also, what are the objections to the India, China, and Australian Mails being conveyed through the Suez Canal; and, if the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company have not guaranteed to convey those Mails to their destination, viâ the Canal, in the same time as they are at present conveyed; and, under these circumstances, what advantage is derived by the Mails being landed at Alexandria, and transmitted to Suez by Railroad?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in answer to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, that the landing of the West India Mails at Plymouth had been found to be of material advantage to the commercial community, and, therefore, steps were being taken to remedy what he imagined to be an accidental omission in the new Postal Con-
1588
tract by which those Mails were no longer to be landed at Plymouth. The amended Contract, when ready, would in the usual course be laid upon the Table. The subject of the second part of the Question was still under the careful and anxious consideration of the Government, and when they arrived at a determination with reference to it, which he hoped would be in a few days, he should be happy to answer the Question of the hon. Member.

BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in the event of any changes in the constitution of the Board of National Education in Ireland by the appointment of any additional paid Commissioners or otherwise being contemplated by the Government, he will afford Parliament an opportunity of learning what such changes are to be, and of considering and discussing them before they are effectuated?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the hon. Member appears to me to suppose a case, and then to ask me what the Government will do in the event of his supposition being correct. As far as I am aware, Her Majesty's Government have not as yet had under their consideration the point alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member, and, therefore, I am unable to say what course they would take in the event of their deciding upon a matter which has not been considered by them.

PROTECTION TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN BILL.—QUESTION.
COLONEL MUREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he will be prepared to bring in his promised Bill on the subject of the Protection of Women and Children?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the question of providing remedial measures in mitigation of the evils arising from the employment of child-bearing women and children in factories was one into which he went on the second reading of his Bill relating to the subject a few nights ago. Since that time, several hon. Members had placed Amendments on the Paper with reference to that branch of the general question. Those Amendments should receive the attention

1589
of the Government before the House was asked to go into Committee on the Bill, and when the proper time came, he should be prepared to express an opinion on the Amendments.

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

EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART— MINISTER OF EDUCATION.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR, in rising to call attention to the deficient Ministerial responsibility under which the Votes for Education, Art, and Science are administered; and to move for a Select Committee to consider how such Ministerial responsibility may be better secured, said: The subject which I wish to introduce to the attention of the House is not brought before it for the first time, and it is therefore necessary, both in justification of my Motion, and for the sake of clearness, that I should give, in a few sentences, a narrative of the steps taken by the House in past times. The present system of superintending education by a Committee of Council arose in 1839, when a few Members of the Cabinet were associated for the purpose of dispensing small sums of money voted to promote education. Fron 1839 to 1846, only £305,000 of public money were thus expended for the whole seven years. In 1846 new Minutes of the Committee gave increased vigour to the system, and in 10 years, or in 1856, the annual expenditure had amounted to £500,000. That sum, though modest enough in comparison with our present expenditure, awakened the attention of this House, and it began to be uneasy as to the Ministerial responsibility under which these increasing Votes were administered. Accordingly, in that year, an Act was passed for a Vice President of the Committee of Council, who should sit in this House. Sir George Grey, who introduced the Bill, said—
  "This Bill authorized the appointment of a Vice President, who would be enabled to have a seat in the House of Commons, and would be the responsible Minister there in all matters connected with education, so far as the Government were concerned."—[3 Hansard, cxliii. 991.]
  1590
  Lord Granville, in introducing the Bill to the House of Lords, confirmed that view, for he said—
  "It would be desirable that some Minister should be appointed who should be responsible to the House of Commons for the proper distribution of the grants."—[3 Hansard, cxl. 815.]
  The Bill became law under the clear impression of this House that it had secured a responsible Minister, and under this conviction the educational grants were rapidly increased. The confidence of the House as to the responsibility of the Vice President was first rudely shaken in 1864. In that year there was a discussion as to an alleged mutilation of the Inspection Report, and a Vote, which my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) construed into a censure, led to his resignation of the office of Vice President. The House then appointed a Select Committee on the subject, and before that Committee, the late Vice President gave evidence, clearly establishing that the Lord President is the responsible Minister, and that the Vice President only acts as his delegate. Lord Granville, who was then President, entirely confirmed this view, for he told the Committee—"I am responsible for the whole action of the Department." The House looked upon that view of Ministerial responsibility in a serious light, and in the following year, they appointed another Select Committee to examine into the constitution of the Committee of Council. The Chairman of the Committee was Sir John Pakington. The Committee, among many other witnesses, examined three Presidents of Council—Lords Granville, Russell, and Salisbury. All of them stated that the Lord President alone was responsible for administration, and that the Vice President merely acted in his absence. The utmost that the Lord Presidents would concede, was that the Vice President might be looked upon in the House of Commons in the light of the political Under Secretary of a Department. The Committee then examined three Vice Presidents—Mr. Bruce, Sir Charles Adderley, and Mr. Lowe. They were in the main in accord with the Lord Presidents. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) said—
  "No doubt, in a strict sense I was not responsible; but, in a loose and popular sense, I was responsible."

  1591
  The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Charles Adderley) scarcely admitted even that loose responsibility; while Mr. Bruce was scarcely more clear, when he said—
  "I consider the President is wholly responsible; but for the reasons I have given, I cannot pretend to say that the Vice President is not also responsible."
  The Committee then examined Mr. Lingen, the Secretary to the Department, and ascertained from him that the irresponsible Vice President did nine-tenths of the work of the office. The Committee were obviously much struck by that statement, and closely examined the Presidents and. Vice Presidents who came before them as witnesses, how far that was the fact. The replies were in substance, that though they had no statistical data by which they could apportion one-tenth of the work to the responsible Lord President, and nine-tenths of the work to the irresponsible Vice President, yet as a general statement of the relations between the two, Mr. Lingen's evidence was substantially true. The Committee of 1865 reported the evidence, and was re-appointed in 1866. In July of that year the Chairman presented his draft Report, which was to the effect that the constitution of the Committee of Council was unsatisfactory, and that the Education of the country should be made into a distinct Department under a responsible Minister of State. But, just as the Committee were about to consider their Chairman's draft Report, a change of Ministry occurred, and the Committee came to an untimely end. The succeeding Government, however, under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Disraeli), were obviously satisfied that the Committee had made out a case, for the Duke of Marlborough introduced a Bill, in 1868, to create a sixth Secretary of State, for the purposes of public education. I have now brought the history of the subject very close to the year 1870, when Parliament resolved to convert a mere contributory into a national system of education. This has vastly increased the importance of the whole question. In 1865, when the House took alarm at the deficient responsibility, the Votes granted to the Committee of Council were £840,000. They have rapidly increased, year by year, and are now £1,852,000. That sum includes
  1592
  £278,000 for the Science and Art Department. That Department might be dove-tailed with great advantage into the Educational Department; but each is afraid of the other, and they are run on two contiguous and parallel lines of rails, with few crossings, lest they should come into a violent collision. Notwithstanding the large increase in the Votes for Education, yet we still remain in the same uncertain state of Ministerial responsibility as to their administration. If the Lord President be the responsible Minister, is it consistent with our jealous care for public money, that the responsibility for such a large central fund should almost invariably rest with a Member of another House? And even assuming that the Vice President has the sort of responsibility of an Under Secretary of State, is there another instance of such large Votes being moved and explained by a Member of that standing? Though, in theory, and in fact, the Vice President possesses no actual responsibility for administration; yet remember that this large spending Department has its great Parliamentary business in the House of Commons, though its responsible Chief is all but invariably in the House of Lords. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), when Vice President, had incessant educational duties in this House. We, as the Representatives of the people, naturally took the deepest interest in the Bill of 1870 which dealt with the education of the people. My right hon. Friend received the credit as well as the unpopularity of that great measure. Upon whose head did the League pour out the vials of its wrath? Was it upon the responsible President, or the irresponsible Vice President? We all know that not only this House, but the whole nation looked upon my right hon. Friend as the Education Minister de facto, if not de jure. And for that prominent work he was made a Cabinet Minister. Let us consider what an anomaly that was. A subordinate Minister, ranking no higher than Under Secretary of a Department, was sent into the Cabinet on terms of equality with his Chief. If the irresponsible subordinate differed from his responsible Chief in opinion, he was in the Cabinet with full power of defending his own views and upsetting those of his Chief. Such a state of things could not have lasted a week, had the Government not viewed the Vice Pre-

  1593
  sident in the House of Commons as the real Minister of Education. And yet, all this time, though the Vice President did nine-tenths of the office, as well as all the Parliamentary, work, it was the President who dispensed all the patronage. The Vice President, who ought to answer, and was made to answer, to us for efficient administration, could not appoint a single officer to make that efficient. I quote only a single instance to show how that works. Some years ago, the Accountant at South Kensington was found to have made an improper use of public money, and the circumstance was inquired into by the Committee of Public Accounts upstairs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) attended as a witness and was asked—"Do you think, in your position as Vice President, you were justified in retaining the Accountant at South Kensington?" To which he replied—
  "In the first place, I wish to take all proper blame to myself, but I have no power of dismissing or appointing: that entirely rests with the Lord President."
  I think that the House will agree with me that that unsatisfactory state of educational administration ought not to be continued in the new condition of national education in this country. In proposing a Select Committee, I have no intention that it should travel over the same ground as the Committee of 1865 and 1866. They had a limited reference, for they had simply to inquire into the constitution of the Committee of Council, and they did that work in an exhaustive way. A new Select Committee would require to consider the altered relations of education to the nation by the Act of 1870, and the means of bringing under one administrative Department the numerous collateral and outlying educational Votes. When the Conservative Ministry of 1868 brought in their Bill for a sixth Secretary of State for Education, they too, like the Select Committee, took too narrow a view of his functions, and were opposed on the ground that, in the then condition of primary education, there was not work enough to justify the office. Pew would be inclined to make that objection now. Lord Russell, even as far back as 1865, saw that the time was coming when a distinct education Department might become necessary, for he said—
  1594
  "If the system of education become extended, then a Minister for the sole purpose of Education would he desirable and almost necessary, because Parliament would look for the responsibility of a single Minister, and, under the present divided system of the Department, there was not full responsibility."
  A Select Committee, having to consider the question now, would find ample work for a Minister of Education, even if they took away from him the care of cattle, and limited his functions to the removal of ignorance and vice among the people, plagues far more formidable than those among cattle, which, with a strange anomaly, are made to distract attention from the education of the people. Strangely enough, this great increase of education, which Lord Russell foresaw would necessitate a responsible Minister, has lately been used as an argument in "another place" for having none. The argument, there, was that, though the Government of 1868, under the present Premier, was justified in proposing a sixth Secretary of State, the Government of 1874, under the same Prime Minister, would not be so justified, because in the meantime education had taken such a large development. In 1868 the State only subscribed to the efforts of others, now it is charged with education as a national duty, and is responsible that every child in the Kingdom is educated. How that great increase of responsibility, and new imposition of a national duty lessen the importance of a Ministerial office. I do not pretend to understand or to answer; for no contention can be necessary to prove that a major duty is greater than a minor duty. Even, as long ago as 1856, such a high authority as the late Earl of Derby thought that the time had arrived to take away the education from the Privy Council and place it under a single responsible Minister. It has lately been denied that Lord Derby entertained these views, so I will quote his own words from Hansard. He said—
  "The time had arrived when there should he a separate Department established, especially charged with the education of the country, presided over by a Minister immediately responsible to Parliament.…He had a strong feeling that the institution of a Minister of Instruction at the present moment was desirable; and that the subject should be altogether separated from the Privy Council."—[3 Hansard, cxl. 815–16.]
  But that suggestion, which Lord Derby made so long ago, is now said to be

  1595
  viewed unfavourably in the eyes of the present Government, which also made it in the Bill in 1868. The noble Duke who now is Lord President is known to have put forth the ad misericordiam argument—"If you take away education from the Lord President, you leave him nothing to do." Well, that argument has some force, but it may be met. Whenever my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) proposes to abolish the office of Lord Privy Seal, the Government reply that a Minister without a Department is a most useful and even necessary adjunct to the Government. That may, however, be true of one Cabinet Minister, and yet it may not be true of two Ministers. In that case, the Lord President of the Council, when he has nothing to do, may coalesce his office with that of the Lord Privy Seal, who has also nothing to do; and thus, without adding to the number of Cabinet offices, a place may be had for an Education Minister, for whom I am sure that a Select Committee could carve out work that would occupy all his time and energies. For such, a Select Committee would never dream of confining his attention to mere primary education, but would confide to him very important duties in promoting Science and Art. A new Select Committee would not only observe a large increase in Votes for primary education under the Committee of Council, but also for the same purpose among other Departments; and they would note the steady rise in expenditure for Science and Art, including galleries and museums. In regard to them they would find either that there is no Ministerial responsibility at all, or one of the loosest and most unsatisfactory kind. Take, as an instance, the Vote for the British Museum. Here we have a national museum receiving a Vote of £100,000 under irresponsible Trustees. That large Vote is actually moved by a private Member, my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), to whom no responsibility of any kind attaches. In 1862 this anomaly was brought under the attention of the House, in a powerful speech, by the present First Commissioner of Public Works (Lord Henry Lennox). On that occasion both the late and present First Lords of the Treasury admitted the necessity for Ministerial responsibility. My right hon. Friend
  1596
  the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) then said—
  "I admit that there is much to be said in favour of the general principle that the expenditure of money, with a view to the promotion of Education, Science, and Art, should be placed under the control of a single responsible Minister."—[3 Hansard, clxv. 1788.]
  My right hon. Friend went further, and stated this was and ought to be the aim of the Government. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Disraeli) on that occasion was equally emphatic in accepting that principle, for he said—
  "There is no reason why the control and management of these collections should not be vested in one responsible Adviser of the Crown."—[Ibid. 1800.]
  Precisely the same view has within the last few months been expressed by the Science Commission. But, tempting as an allusion to the scattered Votes in Class IV. is to me, I will not refer to them in any detail, because they are to form the subject of a distinct Motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). I glance only at the National Galleries for Art. The National Gallery in London is under Trustees, but has a sort of hybrid connection with the Treasury, though that is not constituted as an administrative Department. So is the National Portrait Gallery, the trustees of which are getting up an interesting collection, though they fail to interest the public in it. Again, in Edinburgh and Dublin we have National Galleries of Art managed under the loosest responsibility. With the exception of that in Edinburgh, all these galleries are so disjointed that the Government Schools of Art get no benefit from them. If South Kensington evoke their aid for its Art Schools, the Trustees of the National Galleries, paid for by the State, become indignant. See how that disjointed system works. The British Museum and. South Kensington Museum exhibit the same class of Art objects. The Metropolitan Museums jostle each other in the strangest way. Thus, the active Herbarium at Kew finds itself in the way of the passive Herbarium at the British Museum. The Geological Museum in Jermyn Street finds its collections repeated in Bloomsbury. And all of these institutions, save South Kensington, refuse to aid the provinces. They are suffering from a plethora of collections; their duplicates, their specimens, their redundant pictures, are

  1597
  packed away in boxes or are rotting in cellars; but if the provinces humbly sue even for a temporary loan from them, their deputations are sent away with the scantest courtesy. All these institutions might be readily co-ordinated, and might be made to co-operate for the advancement of Science and Art, but each at present prevents the development of the other. Our Art as well as our Science institutions are dissipated by disassociation. They ought to aid each other, but, instead of doing that, they fight with scarce concealed hostility, and anyone who will take the trouble to place into two parallel columns the museums and galleries managed under direct Ministerial responsibility, and those managed by irresponsible Trustees, will get a singular illustration of relative activity and passivity. Before leaving this part of the subject, I would simply refer to the fact that, besides these higher museums and galleries, considerable Votes are given to Universities—the Scotch Universities, the Queen's University in Ireland, and the University of London. The Home Secretary, who now is chiefly a Minister of Police and Justice, appoints the Regius Professors in the Scotch Universities, while the Lord Lieutenant appoints those in the Queen's College, but neither has to do with their administration. Whether the funds voted are applied productively or unproductively, the House has no knowledge. In addition to the Votes which I have thus glanced at, there are large educational resources scattered through the Kingdom, part of which have been brought into connection by a loose thread with the Committee of Council. I allude to the endowed schools. The House will recollect how startled it was by the Report of the Endowed Schools Commission, which exposed a system of waste, jobbery, and mismanagement of funds amounting to nearly £600,000 a-year. Unhappily the House possessed no Minister of Education to whom it could entrust the reform of those schools, though the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster) was a man capable of the task, if he had possessed the power, and so it delegated its legislative authority to a Special Commission, which still exists. But a delegated Legislature contains no opposition, and is apt to go forward on its own internal lights, without the external aid of public opinion
  1598
  to strengthen and modify its judgments. And although this delegated Legislature has done much good work, yet as a machine it has produced heavy friction, and its bearings on various occasions have become strongly heated. The Commission have frequently been out of accord with the other House, and sometimes with a large minority of this. But suppose all their work had been done in the easiest way, no provision has been made for keeping efficient the schools which they reform. In a few years these will slide back to all their abuses. You resolved that the endowments which had been usurped by the rich should be restored to the inheritance of the deserving poor. You determined to grade schools so as to suit different ages and classes, and you planted the bottom of the ladder of secondary education in our primary schools and rested the top on our Universities, so that all who were able to climb might use it. But you have as yet given to no Minister the power to see that your wise intentions are fulfilled. Schemes are made for the reform of schools; but there is no inspection of them to see whether the schemes are working well or ill. They may succeed, or they may utterly fail; but we are not a bit the wiser, for no reports are made to us, or to anyone, as to the results, nor does any person possess the power to inquire into their working. If you had a Minister of Education, it would be his duty to find out the defects of the secondary system, and to apply to you for new powers to carry out reforms in regard to them. An Education Department, such as we now possess, can do nothing but administer a Parliamentary instruction; but a Minister of Education, responsible for the progress of education as a whole, would require to keep his eye open all round, exercise the powers which he possessed, and ask for new powers when they became necessary. And Parliament would readily give these to a responsible Minister, working with a Government in the face of an Opposition, when it would never entrust them to the delegated authority of an irresponsible Executive Commission. These remarks are as applicable to Scotland and Ireland as they are to England. In Scotland the endowments are £170,000 per annum, and are as wastefully and unproductively employed

  1599
  as in England, if we except a few lately reformed. In Ireland the endowments are about £40,000 a-year, and are still more wastefully used. In all, the endowments connected with education have an income of £800,000 per annum, a sum ample to organize an efficient scheme of secondary education. Including in one sum the Votes under Class IV., the endowed schools and some outlying Votes for primary education to which I will presently allude, we have a grand total of £3,925,000, which we may easily call £4,000,000, as our increase for this single year has been more than£100,000. That annual sum is so large that a Select Committee might well be employed in bringing its scattered members under a responsible Administration. But it would be affectation to pretend ignorance that my Motion is opposed by the noble Duke who is now Lord President (the Duke of Richmond). The noble Duke is known to entertain the opinion that a Minister of Education already exists, and that he has the honour to be that Minister. Considering the knowledge and capacities of the noble Duke, I could have no difficulty in viewing him in that light, if I believed that the office of Lord President entitled the noble Duke to claim such a distinction. But all that I can admit is that the noble Duke happens to be the Ministerial manager of a large number of primary schools. If the noble Duke be content with the title of Minister of Primary Schools of a very low order, I do not think that he is justified in claiming even this humble distinction. The Lord President has nothing to do with primary schools in Ireland, for which we Vote £540,000. That large Vote is administered by irresponsible Commissioners, who have recently shown how little they care for Parliament by their conduct in the O'Keeffe case. Why should they be free from Parliamentary control? In Scotland there is also a National Board to protect Scottish peculiarities in education, but it is subordinate to the Lord President. Why, then, should we continue to Vote more than £500,000 to Ireland without Ministerial responsibility? Even in Great Britain, the Lord President does not take charge of all the primary schools, for there are outlying Votes for the purpose scattered among various Departments. The Home Secretary receives £240,000 for reformatory and industrial schools. The Pre-
  1600
  sident of the Local Government Board has £44,000 for pauper schools. The Secretary at War receives £64,000 for military primary schools. I cannot make out clearly how much the Admiralty take for this purpose; but as they maintain and train 7,000 boys, I put it at £200,000. All these outlying schools were at one time under the inspection of the Committee of Council, who threw them off as inconsistent with the mechanical working of the Revised Code. Certainly, I cannot admit that the Lord President of that Council is a Minister of Education—not even a Minister of Primary Schools. As to a Minister in the larger sense, I deny that he has a particle of claim to such a distinction. He has not even succeeded in dove-tailing into his own limited Department the Schools of Science and Art for which he is responsible. I have not considered it necessary to prove my case for inquiry by showing how the system of management even of the primary schools has failed to educate the country. I do not mean to attack the administration of the Committee of Council in the work entrusted to it, for it has nothing but petty duties to perform, and so far as it has power, it has done these petty duties sufficiently well. But what I contend is, that the system under which the Committee works does not enable it to educate the country even in primary-subjects. Year after year, the Education Department reports its own failure to this House. This year it tells us that of the children who ought to pass in Standards from IV. and upwards, only one-fifth did so, and four-fifths failed. That really means, all the rest were so under-educated as to lose the little education they had received in two or three years' wear and tear of life. This is a practical confession of failure in our educational system, or rather want of system. If a Minister entrusted with the true education of the people had under his charge the secondary endowed schools of the Kingdom, and also the higher institutions for which we annually pass large Votes, he would not be content for a day with the miserable results of our primary schools. He would use the other resources at his disposal as means for developing the lower education. He would no doubt bridge over the chasm between the primary and secondary schools, and he would soon be satisfied

  1601
  that Standard IV., the summit of his ambition at present, is a very rotten bridge for the purpose. There are many circumstances which would stimulate such a Minister to action. He would find that political power had been transferred to the people, many of whom are still uneducated. He would learn that an uneducated people represent a nation one or two generations back in its history. They cannot grasp the ideas of the age in which they live, and are powerless to shake themselves free from the prejudices which the progress of thought has proved to be dangerous error. Such a Minister would carefully watch the conditions affecting industrial progress, and would try to fit our artizans to hold their own in the increasing competition of nations. It would be his interest, as well as his duty, to draw out of the lower schools youths of intelligence and promise, who, by a larger education, might add to the intellectual fund of the country. And last, but not least, a Minister of Education would feel it to be his duty to use the resources at his disposal for the advancement of Science and Art, which, even in their abstract relations, are the mainsprings of progress. I am presenting no highly-coloured picture to the House, for I simply describe the combined educational system which forms the duty of a Minister of Education in foreign countries. In this country there is no Minister of Education. There is only a Lord President of the Council, who is content to remain the manager of a very low order of primary schools, and of a few disjointed schools of Science and Art. I have shown that there are ample materials already existing in this country to form an important Ministry of Education. No other nation in Europe spends anything like what we do for education out of Imperial funds, and yet how poor is our return for the outlay. Not on account of deficient educational materials, for they are abundant, but because they are not used for a common purpose. In reflecting on our poor returns for that large expenditure, I am often reminded of the story of the many people who resolved to build a great edifice. They set about their work very heartily, and collected all sorts of building materials—stone, brick, wood, and iron—till the very ground was cumbered. Then they began to quarrel among them-
  1602
  selves as to which material should be used for the building. Anyone would have done; two would have been better; but all brought into useful combination would have been best. They could not agree as to the plan, or even as to the position of the front door. Some wished it to open upon the via antiqua, others upon the via moderna; some wished the building to face the temple, others the City. And so they continued their strife, and the edifice remains to this day a mere castle in the air. Is there no analogy to that in the strife of our Churchmen and Dissenters, our Humanists and Utilitarians? Our materials for the progress of Education, Science, and Art, are abundant, but they are thrown together in the wildest confusion. It is time that we should get order out of disorder, for the problem in the future of nations is to organize the forces of war and the forces of peace in the most intelligent manner. The competition among nations for the future will be one of public intellect. It is in this belief that I invite the House to consider the defective organization of our disjointed educational systems. I have approached the question in no party spirit. I have quoted the opinions of four Prime Ministers, two being Conservative and two Liberal, in favour of my proposal. I have proved to the House that even when Ministerial responsibility exists in relation to the education of the people, it is not to be found in the House of their Representatives. There have been exceptions, but in practice the Lord President is always a Peer, and upon him the people, whose education is at stake, can exercise no immediate or direct influence. It remains for the House to decide whether, with the large and rapidly increasing Votes for Education, Science, and Art, they are content to let things remain as they are. Sir, I conclude by moving that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose I have named in my Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility under which the Votes for Education, Art, and Science are administered may be better secured,"—(Mr. Lyon Playfair,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that no one could have listened to the speech just delivered without feeling that the subject was one which was well worthy of consideration; but still, before a Select Committee was appointed, they should consider the gravity of the question which was brought under their notice. The appointment of a definite Minister of Education would be an addition to the existing Government of the country, and the House could hardly be expected to agree to such a proposal upon the Motion of a private Member, however distinguished. It could only be done upon the advice and responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was no Education Minister. Strictly speaking, he was correct; but they all knew that a Minister of Education did practically exist; that upon the Lord President of the Council devolved the responsibility of the education of the country, and that the Vice President of the Council was as responsible to the House of Commons as any of the Under Secretaries of State were. Instead of adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, he would rather take away from the Lord President and Vice President of the Council those duties connected with their office which seemed somewhat heterogeneous, and not germane to their functions, for, by doing so, they would remove one complaint of the right hon. Gentleman as to their having too much to do. His noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) was well adapted for the Education Department; but he was not aware that he had any special aptitude for dealing with matters relating to the cattle plague or agriculture, which belonged also to his office. It could scarcely be urged as a reason for the appointment of a distinct Minister of Education that the present duties of the Lord President and Vice President were too heavy, because they could not forget that in addition to his other labours, the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice President (Mr. Forster) had charge of the Ballot Bill during its progress through this House, although that measure was not immediately connected with his own Department. He must confess
  1604
  that he was somewhat alarmed at the suggestion that there should be a Minister of Education to superintend the whole system of education in the country, including the Universities, the public schools, and the endowed schools, because that brought him a vision of a great bureau conducting the whole education of the country. He had no liking for everything being placed under a Department of the State; and he especially objected to that being done in reference to education, as to which so much had been founded upon the old lines of self-reliance and independence, and the voluntary efforts of the people themselves. He also apprehended that if the proposition were carried out the whole education of the country might be conducted upon the principle of the Cowper-Temple Clause; and he did not think that what was proposed would recommend itself to the public opinion of the country.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the question which had been brought forward was a very important one, and fitting for the House to discuss. When a Member of the late Government, he had formed rather strong views with regard to it, though he wished it to be understood that the remarks he had to make to-day were delivered for himself alone. Speaking, then, for himself only, he was disposed to concur in the view which had been taken by the Cabinet of 1868, when the present Prime Minister was at the head of the Government, and by the Duke of Marlborough, as President of the Council, rather than in that which was attributed to the noble Duke who now filled that office. That noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) was reported to have said, in "another place," in answer to those who contended that there ought to be a Minister of Education, that there was such a Minister, and that he was that Minister, adding that there was another Minister, were he called an Under Secretary of State or Vice President of the Council, who was a second Minister of Education, and that nothing was more clear than that the Lord President was responsible for everything which went on in his Department. The first objection he (Mr. Forster) had to those words was, that they struck him as implying not that there should be some kind of Under Secretary or Vice President representing education in that

  1605
  House, but that it should be the rule that the First Minister of Education should be in the other House—a rule to which he should strongly object. He should probably be told that legally there was no such rule; but hon. Members knew that practically it was the rule that the Lord President should be a Member of the House of Lords. There was only one exception to it in recent times, and that was when Lord John Russell was for a short time President of the Council; and that was one of those exceptions which really confirmed the general rule. In his opinion, it was not fair to the House of Commons that such should be the rule, because the Department of Education was becoming a very large spending Department, and its expenditure was likely to increase year by year. The Education Votes amounted to £1,800,000, and if the collateral expenditure was taken into account, they would exceed £2,000,000, and these sums were likely to increase, since it was desired that they should, if the money was rightly expended. It was not a good rule that the Education Vote should be moved by one who was second in command, affecting as it did, every constituency in the country, and being, therefore, a subject in which every hon. Member of the House of Commons was interested. What would be said, he should like to know, if the Secretary of War were necessarily a Member of the other House, and the Army Estimates had to be virtually discussed and settled in the other House? It would, no doubt, be said that the sum dealt with under the Education Votes was a very small one in comparison. That was true; but the matter was one which specially concerned the House of Commons. Those Votes, as he had said, affected localities, and therefore were of a nature to enlist in a special degree the interest of the House of Commons. It was most undesirable, in his opinion, therefore, that the Minister specially charged with the duty of supervising education should, by a rule, be necessarily a Member of the other House. The next ground he took was that the present arrangement was not one that was calculated to promote the efficiency either of the Department or of the education given. It was an arrangement that was very unfair to the Vice President, and still more so to the President himself. The Lord Pre-
  1606
  sident was a high officer of State, but he was not chosen merely with a view to his fitness for administering educational affairs, whilst the Vice President was chosen on that account. Knowing how admirably both the Duke of Richmond and the noble Lord the Vice President were fitted to discharge the duties of their offices, he felt more free to express his opinion on the general disadvantage of the present system in this respect. The daily detail of educational administration was supervised by the Vice President; he must do the work, and must also defend it in the House of Commons; and it was to him that the House and the country looked as being the practical Minister of Education, while, nevertheless, he might be controlled by the Lord President. He did not say that such a system was not likely to work well; but if it was to be permanent, it was not likely to work best. It reminded him of the Japanese Government, where the visible Minister was controlled by the invisible Minister. He felt that he should be taking away much from the force of his argument when he stated that he had worked in perfect agreement with his old and intimate Friends (Lord Aberdare and Lord Ripon), and as Lord Ripon was President of the Council during most of the time he was in office, he could not help saying how he had been struck by the remarkable ability, clearness of conception, and rare combination of courage and unselfishness which he displayed in discharging his share of the difficult work which had been entrusted to the Education Department by the late Government. He was, indeed, always willing to accept responsibility himself, while leaving those who worked with him ample freedom of action. But notwithstanding his agreeable relations with those noble Lords, he thought the system a bad one. It was the undoubted fact that the whole patronage of the Department rested, both by precedent and custom, with the Lord President—a rule which had worked very pleasantly for him personally when in office, as it had saved him from considerable trouble and difficulty; but he never could persuade people in the country that the Vice President, who had so much to do with education, did not appoint the Inspectors and examiners, and up to the present moment he was credited or discredited with those

  1607
  appointments as they were regarded as being good or the reverse. He thought that that circumstance was a sufficient proof of the inconvenience of the present system. His strongest objection, however, to the present system was that he did not believe that it was calculated to promote the progress of education. The Duke of Richmond was a man who had a great knowledge of business, and if he had had the actual charge of the Education administration, he would not have described the working of the Department as he had done. The noble Duke appeared to think that any Minister with a very slight acquaintance with public business would be able to deal with the work, and that as long as the Department carried out the Act, it did its duty; but in his (Mr. Forster's) opinion, the duty of the Department went far beyond that. It would have not only to carry out the Act, but to see that the schools were efficient. The work of the Department was not a work which, once done, was done for ever, but it had to see that the system of education kept pace with the requirements of the time, whether administered by voluntary schools or by school board schools. Then there was the enormous difficulty of non-attendance to be overcome, either by direct or indirect compulsion, or by both. There would also be an increasing sum voted year by year for primary education, which would have to be administered by the Department, and the House of Commons and the country would from year to year expect as much education as possible to be obtained from the sums voted by Parliament for that purpose. Therefore it would be the business of Parliament and that of the Minister to devise how the utmost education could be obtained from the Grants, and given to the children for whom it was intended. There were many other matters which should be considered in connection with this question. The Science and Art Department, for instance, which was a growing Department, and must continue to be so, was one through which the Government had set to work to bring scientific and artistic education home to the general population. It was most important that they should not provide too high an education at the expense of the public; but it was equally important that these things should work together
  1608
  with the business of primary education. He was glad to find that the present Government had resolved, as the late Government had, to arrange that the Permanent Secretary should be Secretary of the Departments of Primary Education and of Science and Art. Then, again, there was the question of the Museums; and he agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh that, so far as the Government had to deal with those institutions, they ought to be dealt with by the Minister who had charge of the Education Department. The same observation applied to the Universities. They had had University Bills, and doubtless they would have such Bills again, and he was strongly of opinion that they should be brought in by the Minister of the Government who was responsible for educational matters. All that would furnish a great deal of work—of constant and increasing work—for such a Minister, if England hoped to overtake Germany in the matter of education. The people of this country had through their Government to fight against ignorance, which was a misery to many and a danger to all, and they were not so likely to win the battle if they had not a really responsible general. The principal field of that struggle was the House of Commons, and there the general should be. He did not say they might not have Ministers of talent in the House of Lords, or that the present Lord President could not fight the battle; but, generally speaking, the question most concerned this House, and would have to be fought here. One great question, which could only be considered in that House, was, how much should be spent in carrying on the great work of public education; and then, too, would arise the contest between those who wished to do the utmost that could be done, and those who desired to protect the pockets of their constituents. In this House, therefore, should be the Minister responsible for an economical and, at the same time, efficient expenditure on education. They had now a rating system which involved the question how far they were to levy rates and how far they were to save them, as well as the relations which should subsist between the rating system and the old system of voluntary schools. All those questions would continue to beset the

  1609
  educational duties of the Government, and they were of especial interest to the House of Commons. Then, again, the Vice President must, he thought, expect to be in the future, as he certainly had been in the past, pretty hard knocked as well as very hard worked, and this also made it desirable that he should be at the head of the Department. If he continued to be subordinate he would not be so ready to initiate policy, but might be tempted to shift the duty and responsibility of doing so upon his Chief. He did not understand that his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh's views went so far as the resolution arrived at by the Cabinet of 1868 did, as to the appointment of a sixth Secretary of State. That was a fair subject for discussion when the proper time arrived. Nor had much stress been laid upon the desirability of continuing the Committee of Council; for, after all, the Committee of Council being a Committee of the Cabinet, matters would remain in that respect practically as they now were. Then, as to the Veterinary Department; he was of opinion that if the Vice President became Minister of Education, it ought to go somewhere else, and that the Board of Trade was its proper place. The objections taken to his right hon. Friend's proposals were two-fold—first, that it was inadvisable to increase the number of Cabinet Ministers; and, next, that it was inadvisable so to deprive the Lord President of work, that he must either become, as had been said, a veterinary surgeon, or hold a position like that of the Lord Privy Seal, irresponsible, and with no work to do. But these objections really answered each other. If it were a condition of the change that the Minister of Education should not be in the Cabinet, then, however anomalous the present system was, it ought not in the interests of education to be altered. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, with the discretion which a Prime Minister ought to possess, had diminished the number of his Cabinet, and he believed it was the general feeling that the right hon. Gentleman had acted wisely in doing so; but he was not quite sure that those who were interested in commerce or local government, or the government of Ireland, would continue to be satisfied if those who were responsible for those
  1610
  Departments were not in the Cabinet. Looking upon the matter as a common-sense arrangement, the way to keep the Cabinet small in numbers would be not by keeping out of it the representatives of Departments which had a great deal of work to do, but by putting them in the place of Ministers who had no work to do, and who were, in fact, the representatives of no Department. If the Lord President ceased to be a Minister of Education, what would happen? There would be three Ministers in the Cabinet instead of two, who would have very little special departmental work to do—namely, the Lord President of the Council, the Privy Seal, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In reading the debates in the House of Lords on this subject, he found that two practical suggestions had been made. One of these suggestions was, that the Premier should be Lord President of the Council; and the other, that the offices of Lord President of the Council and Lord Privy Seal might be merged in the same person. As far as he was personally concerned, he could see no great harm as far as questions of precedence were concerned, which would be likely to result from adopting, at any rate, the second of these suggestions. It might be asked why the late Administration did not carry out the policy accepted by the Government in power in 1868, and now brought before the House in the Motion under discussion. In answer to that, he must candidly admit that he did not profess to speak the opinions of his late Colleagues. But, even if he did, it must be remembered that the late Government were so much pressed with work on the question of education, that it would have been very difficult to make a change. To use an illustration drawn from the experiences of his early life, he might say that when a man was full of orders he did not shift his machinery, however advantageous he might think a change might be. The present Lord President having stated that just now there was a lull in the work, he (Mr. Forster) asked the Government to reconsider the arguments which convinced them in 1868 that a change such as was now proposed would prove advantageous.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I very much object to the doctrine now in circulation, that particular appointments in the

  1611
  Government should be reserved for particular Houses of Parliament. There are certain general principles which must and always will influence any Minister in the formation of a Government. It is desirable, no doubt, that what are called the spending Departments should be represented in the House of Commons, and I do not think any one can charge me with indifference upon that point, for on the two occasions on which I have had the opportunity of attempting to recommend to Her Majesty a body of Gentlemen to administer the affairs of the country, those who have presided over the Navy and over the Army had seats in this House. But if there happened to be in the other House a Member most markedly indicated as being capable of managing the affairs of either the Army or the Navy, we ought not for a moment to be so far influenced by the consideration that the House of Lords is not exactly the spending Department of the State, as to preclude the Sovereign from having the advantage of the services of so distinguished a person. While upon this subject, I may say that up to within a very recent period, Government was precluded by Act of Parliament from including as Postmaster General a Member of this House—and it must be admitted that the Postmaster General presides over one of the most considerable spending Departments of the country. It is only very recently that that Act has been repealed, and the consequence of that, both in the present and late Administration is, that we have had the presence of the Postmaster General in this House. A charge, too, has been made that the Lord President of the Council—viewed with reference to this debate as the Minister of Education—is always a Member of the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford and other hon. Members who have spoken, seemed for the moment to have forgotten that there is a distinguished instance the other way. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: I referred to the fact.] The right hon. Gentleman certainly did seem to call the circumstance to his recollection; but he did it in such a way as to lead me to think it was not present with him in the original conception of his speech, but that as the debate went on he found it convenient to be more precise. Let me ask the House
  1612
  what is the length of our experience on this subject. If the matter were one of centuries or dynasties, there might be some excuse for the precipitate and somewhat inaccurate inferences drawn from the facts; but it is only 35 years since the Lord President was called upon to fulfil administrative duties in respect to the education of the country, and during that period the Leader of the House of Commons has once occupied the position of President of the Council. [Mr. W. E. Forster: Only for two years.] Well, that was, I will not say his own fault, because one has a great respect for Lord Russell, but still it was not the fault of anybody else. The noble Lord occupied the post and he retired from it. He did this somewhat abruptly, and, if I remember rightly, his retirement created some astonishment; but at any rate, the fact furnishes a distinguished precedent to show that since the Lord President of the Council assumed these important duties in connexion with education, it has been found quite consistent with the formation of a Government, that the most important person in this House—Lord Russell was then Leader of the House of Commons under the Administration of Lord Aberdeen—should be President of the Council. And I can say further, without going into any unnecessary detail, but giving my own experience on the matter, that upon two occasions subsequently it has been contemplated that the President of the Council should have a seat in this House. Nor do I for a moment say that this is not an arrangement which may not frequently arise in the life-time of many of the younger Members who are now present. So much for the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford that the President of the Council always has a seat in the other House. Practically, I have shown that it is not so, and it is a course which we may prepare ourselves occasionally to experience. Therefore, I do not think that, when we remember the very short period the Lord President has discharged the duties in question, and when we remember the great exception I have already quoted, we can for a moment contend upon that ground—namely, that the Lord President has always sat in the other House—that there is any foundation for the Motion.

  1613
  There are other grounds to which I will refer. It has been said further that nine-tenths of the business of the office is discharged by the Vice President and not by the Lord President. That is a quotation from some evidence given by a gentleman in the Civil Service before a Committee of Sir John Pakington or the Duke of Newcastle. I can only say that the observations are very loose, and at the same time express my opinion, that if we could cross-examine the official personage who made them, it is very possible the residuum of his testimony would assume a much smaller shape. The fact is, that the business of the office will always be divided according to the disposition of the men; as if we have a very first-rate Vice President—and I am glad to say we have had personal experience of such Vice Presidents of the Council in this House—there is no doubt that he will transact more of the business than his Colleague. But these are attributes of human nature and are not foundations for Select Committees. I would also, before referring to the principal question, make an observation on a statement urged in support of this Motion, to the effect that we ought to have a permanent President of the Council sitting in this House, because we ought always to have somebody responsible to this House. Sir, that is a new version of our Parliamentary constitution. I do not understand what is meant by having a Minister responsible to this or to the other House; but I understand what is meant by having a Minister responsible to Parliament, for that is what the country requires. It requires that in every branch of the Administration there shall be some one in either House of Parliament who can explain or vindicate its policy if called upon to do so; and, if he cannot do it, he, with his Colleagues, must take the consequence. The Government is as much represented, in any public statement of its policy, by an Under Secretary of State, as by a Secretary of State; and we, who know very well that it is utterly impossible for the satisfactory administration of the affairs of this country to have all the Chief Ministers of State in one House of Parliament, say that we should be clearly laying down principles which must weaken our own authority, and at the same time conveying to the country
  1614
  a very false impression, if we adopted, in effect, the theory of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and said that at the present moment neither the Foreign Office nor the India Office are responsible to the House of Commons.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I did not say that.
  MR. DISRAELI: Perhaps not; but what I have stated is my ingenuous inference from the observation of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I took care not to state, for I did not think it, that the Vice President would not be responsible to the House of Commons.
  MR. DISRAELI: Then, what are the complaints? We have, or I am much mistaken, had complaints for a considerable time from the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the fault of the present system lies in the fact that the Minister who primarily represents the Council is not responsible to the House of Commons and is not a Member of the Cabinet. I appeal to the House as to whether that is not a fair inference to be drawn from what has been said in support of the Motion before the House. An appeal has been made to me to support this Motion, because in 1868 a proposal was brought forward in the Cabinet, over which I presided, to appoint a Minister of Education, under the title of sixth Secretary of State to carry out the policy which the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh recommends to our adoption this evening. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh has misapprehended the circumstances under which that policy was recommended, and I will, therefore, place them before the House, for I think they will throw some light upon the question. In 1868 there was a great feeling in the country that the state of our national education, or rather the state of our public education, was unsatisfactory, and the Government of the day determined to deal with the question. They believed that the voluntary system, as then applied, was not adequate to the circumstances of the ease, and they had to consider whether they should appeal to local aid, which assumed the shape of the rating question, which had then begun to attract public attention, if not

  1615
  public popularity. Nevertheless it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that a great effort should be made to improve and advance public education in this country. Well, in the first place, their plan was largely to expand the action of the voluntary principle, and they brought forward a proposition to that effect. They did not conceal for a moment that they had ulterior objects. They looked forward to more considerable proposals; they did not in any way pledge themselves against appealing to the rating system ultimately to assist voluntary contributions. But they did not think that the country was at that time by any means ripe for a measure of that kind, and therefore, while they called immediately on Parliament for a large expansion of the voluntary principle, they asked also that an educational Census should be carried into effect, and on the results of that Census they did not for a moment conceal that their ultimate progress must depend. Well, that was a measure which may, no doubt, be dwarfed by the more considerable one which the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Bradford conducted through this House with so much advantage to the country and credit to himself; but in those days of 1868 it was a very great improvement, and we felt that it would have required a Minister to give his whole attention to it. And what, then, was the position of the Lord President of the Council? The Council was then full of various and miscellaneous business. Besides having the charge of public education, the Lord President was also what in familiar conversation is called the Minister of Health; and we thought the time had arrived at which it was absolutely necessary, if any movement was to be made of a considerable kind in the direction of national education, that a Minister should be appointed; and it was I confess, with great hesitation, that the suggestion was carried out and it was proposed that the Lord President should be transformed into a Minister of Education. Well, what has since occurred has not at all justified that suggestion. I have often thought it was premature, but it was not popular at the time; and I am not at all sure that it would be popular at the present time. Look at the position of the Council with regard to educa-
  1616
  tion. The Council has grappled with great ability and great efficiency with the subject of primary education, and I think the country feels, on the whole, that it has proved itself adequate to it. No one can come forward and make out a case for the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh on the ground of the inadequacy of the administration of the Privy Council. Well, besides the ability and the energy of the office, I may fairly assume that one of the reasons for this was, that during those years the office has been relieved of many of the other duties to which I have referred. All the administration relating to public health has been taken from it. Another Department, that of the Local Government Board, has been formed, and is at this moment in a state of imperfect development; and therefore that shows me that, profiting by the experience of the years which have elapsed since 1868, it is extremely unwise to be precipitate in disturbing the existence of offices. The Council has adapted itself admirably to the management of our primary education, while on the other hand, the necessities of the country, gradually and practically observed and acted upon, have already established a new Department, or at least a Department with a new name more accurately describing its public functions in its re-organized form. All that shows that we ought to proceed with the greatest caution in these matters, and if possible—as I think it is quite possible—fulfil public purposes as much as we can by the offices which are established without rushing rashly into the creation of new Departments, which, when they are established, somehow or other very often do not act, and which we are in a few years called upon to abolish. I need not remind the House of the instance of the Court of Bankruptcy, which was established under the commanding and winning eloquence of Lord Brougham. That Court was universally accepted by the country as the solution of many legal difficulties which it had long experienced and regretted; and yet we all know that that new Court, established on a great scale, with four Judges, matured in its rules of administration by the experience of some of the greatest lawyers this country ever produced, and pervaded and sustained in its first years by all the vigilant genius

  1617
  of Lord Brougham himself, turned out to be a complete failure, to be not adapted, after all, to the wants of the country; and it only involved us in circumstances which were both humiliating and expensive. "Well, as far as the Government are concerned, I believe there are no Gentlemen in this House more convinced than we are of the advisability—I do not like to use a hackneyed phrase—of administrative reform—of improvement in the administration of our offices. With the immense amount of business, every day increasing in this country, and with the, very often, ancient organizations which exist, it requires no doubt to adapt those organizations to the new business vigilance and skill. But in my mind, and in that also of my Colleagues, that can only be done gradually, and any rash attempt at reform, by a Resolution or by the disturbing process of Select Committees, which will obtain information that is in everybody's possession, can only irritate the public mind, and create obstacles which might not otherwise exist to the improvement which might be carefully brought about. I cannot say it is advisable that the Minister of Instruction should be one whose time is occupied too much with other matters, or who cannot give the whole of his energy and that of his Department to a subject of such paramount interest to the country as its national education; but I see nothing, I confess, in the establishment of the Council Board which induces me to believe that that high office might not be rendered completely competent not only to cope with that which it has now to deal with, but with the, no doubt, more difficult circumstances and increasing duties which it will have to encounter. Nor do I for a moment lay down the principle that the Presidency of the Council is an office peculiar to the House of Lords. These are views which I have always entertained, and shall always uphold. In my opinion, if it were necessary, there is no reason why the President of the Council might not be sitting in this House at present; and I would trust entirely to the steps which I may say are daily taken with the view of completing and perfecting our administration with respect to public education, without interfering with that course of improvement by any Resolution such as is now recommended by the right hon.
  1618
  Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh—a Gentleman, I am quite ready to admit, who is peculiarly entitled to offer his opinions on this subject to the House. I say, then, with regret as far as he is personally concerned, that I cannot sanction the course he has recommended the House to take. Her Majesty's Government are as much alive to all the points which the right hon. Gentleman has placed before the House as he can be himself. It is impossible for those who are charged with the responsibility of governing this country with the sanction of Parliament, not to be aware of the responsibility which attends them with regard to the education of the people. Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends. There is no period in the history of the world in which I believe it has been more important that the disposition and the mind of the people should be considered by the State than it is at present, and in saying that, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Kent (Mr. Talbot), who addressed us with so much ability. I should, like him, be sorry to see what is called a Minister of Education established in this country with an entire or with a considerable control over all our educational establishments from the primary schools to the august Universities. We can see in other countries what has been the consequence of such a system—a system which in a neighbouring country has been supported by philosophers of the highest eminence, and by men of the greatest genius and eloquence, yet the consequence has been, that one character has been impressed on an immense portion of the population, and the whole mind and bent of the people have been moulded under authority in some metropolitan University, which has given the tone to the education and the intellect of the country.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that recasting or remodelling a Department was a process which could not be effected without great inconvenience and dislocation of business, nor without very considerable expense. The presumption, therefore, was in favour of leaving things alone, unless a very clear case could be made out for an alteration. He did not think such a case could be made out against the Education Department.

  1619
  What, he would ask, was the history of the Department? Thirty-five years had elapsed since it had been established, and it began with the administration of a grant of £30,000 for the purposes of education, while it was generally acknowledged that it carried into effect with efficiency the work with which it had been intrusted. But that was scarcely a fair estimate of what it had accomplished. It had found the education of this country totally unformed; it had every species of prejudice to contend with, and yet the result was that which was now to be seen throughout the land. It had not merely administered a system, but fashioned and created it, and had done things such as few Departments had achieved. It had taken up education in a most elementary state, and had succeeded in bringing it to a very considerable point of perfection. The House should, therefore, in his opinion, pause before it interfered with a Department which had proved itself to be so worthy of confidence. If it were to be altered it ought, he thought, to be on better grounds than he had heard urged. The great difficulties with which it had had to contend were connected with matters of religion, and it was in his opinion, highly desirable that there should be a Minister of great authority in the House of Lords to fight the battles of education against the jealousies and prejudices of the Bishops in that Assembly. Nor could he see that the cause of education had suffered in the least, because its interests had been committed in the House of Commons to the hands of a Minister of secondary rank. Such a Minister had to win his spurs; and being generally a man of ability, who looked forward to promotion, bestowed considerable pains on his work. That was one of the reasons why, in his opinion, the business of the Department had been so well administered. Now, if there were in that House a Minister of the first importance representing the Department, the result would be that if he made a mistake it would be immediately laid hold of for the purpose of injuring the Government of the day, though the question of education was one which it was desirable to remove as far as possible from the arena of party politics. He believed besides, that there were not in the Education Department materials to occupy
  1620
  the whole of the time of a Minister of the first class, because its purpose being to administer public money on certain conditions, although the difficulty of laying down those conditions might be great, yet once laid down, the duty of seeing whether they were complied with belonged rather to the permanent officials than to the Minister; nor did he think it desirable that it should be otherwise, inasmuch as it was required the system should be worked steadily, so that those who had invested their money in setting up schools should know what they had to rely upon. It was clear, he might add, that the success which had attended the efforts of the Department was due mainly to its constitution rather than to fortuitous circumstances, and it would be therefore in his opinion extremely imprudent to effect such a revolution in it as was proposed. Having discharged an arduous duty most efficiently it required something more than mere theoretical objections to justify so great an alteration. As to the higher education of the country, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) that nothing could be more undesirable than that we should have a Minister of Education in the sense which had been applied to it. He did not wish to see our Universities, middle-class, and public schools placed under the management of any Minister of the Government. He desired to see the Governing Bodies of those institutions possessing the independence which they now possessed, cheeked, if necessary, not by the discretion of a Minister, but by Rules laid down by Parliament. In his opinion they could not take a more retrograde step than to give to any person a general roving commission to interfere with every school, College, and University. Let them be content with what had been done, and not attempt to substitute for the true and genuine growth of public opinion and individual action, the maxims of a Government probably not half so well informed as the person who at present conducted the affairs of schools and Colleges. He hoped his right hon. Friend, under the circumstances, would be content with the ventilation which the subject had received, and not think it necessary to press the matter to a division.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the question now before House seemed to be one which could be most effectively discussed by those who had had official experience, and he did not therefore propose to occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes. He hoped, however, he might be allowed to say a few words, because as a Member of the Science Commission so ably presided over by the Duke of Devonshire, the subject under discussion had been much pressed on his attention. The Commission had not indeed reported on this question; nevertheless, the views to which his Colleagues had been led by the evidence were clearly indicated in more than one of the Reports already issued. It had been said elsewhere by a high authority (the Duke of Richmond), that the present pressure of work on the Education Department would be but temporary; that in a short time the various questions about school boards, rates of payment, payment of fees, &c, would be settled; and that the Education Department would then have comparatively little to do. Surely, however, it was a great mistake to suppose that the business of an Education Minister should be confined to questions relating to elementary schools. They must, he thought, take a broader view of the question. Moreover, that was not a question of time only, or of name, but also one of power. If, indeed, they had no educational endowments, it might be wise to leave the higher education of the country to the operation of natural laws, in the confidence that in the long run, the best schools would succeed in the struggle for existence. But even if such a course would be wisest under other circumstances, it was not applicable to the present state of the case. They had large educational endowments, but a system which was not even now in harmony with the present state of things, and which consequently did not produce the results which might reasonably be expected. He should indeed be very far from wishing to make Universities and great public schools mere Government institutions; such a course would be most unfortunate. But questions were continually arising which urgently demanded the attention of Government. If there had been a Minister of Education the endowed schools would not have
  1622
  been allowed to fall into the condition in which too many of them were when the Endowed Schools Act was passed. Again let them take the endowments of Oxford and Cambridge. A very large and influential body of Fellows had recently presented a memorial to Mr. Gladstone, in which they said that the present regulations connected with the tenure of Fellowships were highly unsatisfactory; that they were—
  "detrimental to the efficiency of teaching in the University, and calculated to deprive her of the educational services of many of her ablest members."
  He might add that the Science Commission had reported unanimously in the same sense. Let them take the number of Fellowships. At Oxford there were about 370, at Cambridge about 350, and there was a very general opinion that that number was much too large. Lord Salisbury, the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, said that—
  "Considering the amount of controversy that prevails on University questions, it is astonishing how great an agreement there is upon that point. I have heard from all schools, theological and political, in the University a coincidence of opinion that the present application of the revenues of Fellowships is exceedingly unsatisfactory."
  Again, let them take the distribution of the Fellowships. Out of the whole number, he believed that not above a dozen had been given for proficiency in natural science, while even as regarded the scholarships, those offered for natural science were only a small fraction of the whole. But then, the Colleges said, and said with some force, that they could not do more for natural science, because the subjects were not sufficiently taught in the schools; while, on the other hand, the schools did not teach it, because so few inducements were held out at the Universities. Both admitted that a change was needed, but each was waiting for the other. Here, again, the influence of some co-ordinating authority was much needed. Then, there was the management of their Museums. It was generally felt that the erection of the new Natural History Museum at South Kensington should be taken advantage of to effect a change in the Governing Authority of the British Museum; that, as recommended by the Science Commission, the national collection should be under the charge of Directors, responsible to a special

  1623
  Minister of State. At present the different national collections were in competition, not in harmony. Then again, courses of lectures on science, accessible to all classes on payment of a small fee, should be organized in the great centres of population, and especially in the Metropolis, somewhat on the model of those given in Paris in connection with the Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers. Those lectures were attended last year by no less than 250,000 persons. It was true that in London, something of the same kind had been also done, as courses of lectures on experimental and natural science were now given in connection with the School of Mines. These courses had been most successful, but the accommodation was nothing like sufficient to contain all those who wished to attend, even under existing circumstances. If, however, the system were extended, more accommodation provided, and greater publicity given to them, it could hardly be doubted that the effect would be most beneficial. There were many other matters to which he might refer. The encouragement of original research, for instance, was not less important than any of these questions to which he had called attention, and perhaps hardly less difficult. The duties, then, of an Education Minister would be both numerous and important. So far from regarding them as to any extent temporary and provisional, he believed that, large as they were, they were still increasing, would increase, and ought to increase. As our country progressed in civilization, the education of the people would become more and more important, and though he should be sorry to speak with any undue confidence, still under these circumstances he hoped that the House would consent to the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that after the statement of the Prime Minister that he was alive to the desirability of reform in the Education Department as well as other Departments of Government, but that he thought it would be inconvenient at the present moment to precipitate a change, he would best consult the feelings of the House if he asked permission to withdraw his Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE EDUCATION CODE.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD FRANCIS HERVEY, who had given Notice of an Amendment—
"That the so-called Education Vote is ill-conceived, ill-worded, and ill-arranged, and requires thorough revision"—
which he was prevented by the Rules of the House from moving—said, that the present system was complicated and cumbrous in the highest degree. For instance, in regard to teachers, he found no less than 11 different kinds mentioned in the provisions of the Code. Moreover, by Article 42 it was laid down that none but lay persons were to be teachers in elementary schools, and the Education Department, in a gloss on that Article, explained that it applied not merely to men in Holy Orders, but to persons who might in any way be authorized to take part in the spiritual ministrations of the Church. The effect of that reading was to exclude members of the Association of Lay Helpers in the Diocese of London from work in the elementary schools. Again, while Article 43 declared that teachers in order to obtain certificates must undergo an examination, Article 59 intimated that for a certificate of the Third Class no examination was necessary The Code had also provisions with regard to probationary teachers; but on inquiry, it appeared that there was no substantial difference between them and the certificated teachers, and that the distinction was a farce. With regard to the Third Class certificates which might be granted without an examination, it was a condition that the applicant should be not less than 35 years of age, if a man; and not less than 30 if a woman; and that for at least 10 years, he or she should have been a teacher in an elementary school. The result was, that a man over 35 and with 10 years' experience was put on a level with a hobble-de-hoy fresh from a training school. There was what was called a provisional certificate, but Article 62 said, it did not involve the issue of a certificate at all. Articles 63 to 66 were quite superfluous, as they were no longer applicable or in force. As to pupil teachers, the Education Department specified what the terms of agreement with them should be, instead of leaving the matter to the managers themselves;

1625
but the agreement laid down was one which in practice was found not to hold water. He strongly objected to the present system of teaching children by children. The idea of brats of 14 or 15 years of age acting as pupil teachers and teaching other children scarcely younger than themselves was preposterous, and yet there were nearly 13,000 such teachers employed in the schools. He also objected to the training given to the trained teachers, which was calculated to make education run in one groove, whereby it would fail in being made interesting to the children or useful to them in after life. The regulations as to the Parliamentary grant discouraged endowments, although there was no good reason why because a school received a small income from endowments, it should be deprived of the Parliamentary Grant which it had justly earned. The arrangement of the Code was unsatisfactory, for it was not fair to place in small print at the end of it, conditions vitally affecting the terms on which the grant would be made, and beyond that it was very loose and un-grammatical in its construction. It was time that the Department should adopt business principles; that some precision should be introduced into the requirements imposed on managers, and that certain restrictions should be removed. If the noble Lord redressed these grievances and remedied the glaring defects of the Code, he would gain the thanks of every teacher and manager in the Kingdom.
MR. SAMUELSON, who had a Motion upon the Paper to the effect—
"That it be one of the conditions of the payment of a Parliamentary Grant to public elementary schools, whether voluntary or supported by rates, that they should, if required to do so by a competent authority, receive, free of charge, a fair proportion of children whose parents, not being paupers, are too poor to pay the school fees."
said, he would avoid, as far as possible, a renewal of the discussion on the 25th clause in respect of the education of the children of indigent parents. He drew attention to the strong terms of the Report of the Committee, just issued, in reference to the necessity for using every means in their power to bring the children of school age into the schools. The number of children of indigent parents who were sent to school by the operation of the 25th clause was infi-
1626
nitely small, as proved by the small-ness of the sums disbursed under that clause, and, in country districts where no school boards existed, the clause was, of course, entirely inoperative. He had it upon the authority of several clergymen, that they should wish to have school boards in their respective localities, but that they dreaded the differences and difficulties which the payment of fees by the school board would give rise to. The remedy that he proposed by his Motion originated with Sir Charles Peed, the Chairman of the London School Board. It had the approval of the Bishop of Manchester and of the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and would, he thought, meet the difficulties of the case. The course which he suggested would inflict no financial injustice upon the schools in question, inasmuch as the Parliamentary grant per head had increased from 9s. 5d. in 1866 to 12 s. 5d., which was the estimated payment for the present year, the whole of which they would receive if the necessary requirements were observed, while as to any objection that might be urged on the ground of insufficient accommodation, it was shown by the Returns that the accommodation was far in excess of the attendance. He had purposely abstained from stating who should be the authority to remit the fees for those children, but in those districts where school boards were established, it would occur at once that they were the natural authority, and he saw no reason why in those places where no school boards existed the magistrates or guardians should not have the power of compelling the attendance of indigent children in the public elementary schools. That was a point, however, which he left to the decision of the Education Department. It had been suggested that the school-pence should be paid for those children out of the Consolidated Fund; but he feared that the result would be to produce a tendency on the part of local authorities to excuse payment for as many children as possible. It might be said that his plan would be only shifting the burden from the Consolidated Fund to the managers of the elementary schools, if they were compelled to take charge of those children of the very poor who were not actually paupers; but he thought there would always be such an amount of negotiation between the managers and

1627
the local authorities as would prevent any improvident use of the power conferred on the latter. He hoped, that the noble Lord would consider his proposal in the light of an attempt to solve a difficult question, and give it his careful consideration.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, who had given Notice of the following Resolution—
"That, in the opinion of this House, no Parliamentary Grant should be made in respect of any voluntary school unless the Education Department is satisfied that one-sixth part of the whole expenses of the school in each year has been defrayed by voluntary contributions,"
said, he was aware that he could not formally propose it, but he trusted it would receive the consideration of the House and the Government. The real author of the proposal was Mr. Hibbert, a Member of the late Government, who propounded it in the course of the debate on the second reading of the Education Act, and it received the approval of the then Prime Minister. The proposal he made would, to a certain extent, solve the difficulty raised by the 25th clause of the Education Act. In all cases where the voluntary contributions now amounted only to a nominal sum, and no proportion was required between these contributions on the one hand, and the school pence and the Government Grant on the other, it was impossible to contend that the last-named moneys were not, to a certain extent, expended in providing the religious instruction of particular denominations. Mr. Hibbert's proposal, as he had said, was most favourably received by Mr. Gladstone, and for some days an Amendment to the same effect was placed on the Paper, which it was the intention of the late Government to move, but for some reason it was withdrawn. If the suggested proportion of voluntary contributions were required, it would meet the religious difficulty, as those contributions might be fairly held to cover the expenses of religious instruction, and the public grants and school pence to cover those of secular education. But there was a stronger ground for dealing with the matter. It was contrary to the traditions on which public grants were made to private individuals, that such enormous sums should be made over to private individuals in return for so small a sacrifice. A Return obtained by the
1628
senior Member for Manchester showed a number of cases where there was a ridiculous disproportion between the total amount of the grants and the voluntary contributions; other cases were given by Mr. John Morley in his recently published work on National Education. In one instance the total income of the school was £610, and the amount of voluntary contributions £16; in another the income was £717, and the voluntary contributions £66; in a third the income was £356, and the voluntary contributions £5, and in another the income was £458, and the voluntary contributions reached only the sum of £1. He had heard the objection raised, supposing his proposal became law, that in certain cases there might be a schoolmaster of special qualifications earning a large salary, and that he would not obtain such a large salary from the school board as he obtained from the school managers. But the sums paid by the school boards were not generally less than were paid by school managers. Canon Gregory, and others, generally made an opposite complaint. Again, it was said that, in most of the schools where the voluntary contributions were very small, the fees were very high, and that if the present proposal became law, there would be an increase of voluntary subscriptions and a diminution of fees in many cases. He did not consider that a very serious objection in itself, while if it had the effect of parents paying a subscription, and demanding, as they probably would, a share in the management in return, instead of paying a high fee to an exclusive body of denominational managers, that would be a positive advantage. The subject he saw had attracted the attention of Mr. Waddington, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, who stated that in the last year the voluntary contributions in his district had fallen off by no less an amount than 3½ per cent, as compared with that which preceded it. That diminution was, in his opinion, worthy the serious attention of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council. It was no visionary or theoretical statement of his, but came from one intimately acquainted with the subject. He disclaimed having brought forward the subject in any sectarian or party spirit, and hoped it would be

1629
fairly considered by the Vice President of the Department. If, however, he found no action was taken in the matter, he should again bring it forward next Session, either as a Motion or a Bill.
MR. M'LAREN: I approve very much of the speeches of the two hon. Members who have last addressed the House, and I approve altogether of the Resolutions which they would have submitted to the House had its Forms permitted of their doing so. But it was in order to support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) that I intended to say the little that occurs to me to say on the subject. It appears to me that a mistake has been made by the Education Department, to some extent, in pushing forward too much the building of schools, and in not being sufficiently energetic in getting children to attend the schools—in short, that the compulsory power has not been vigilantly exercised where it exists; and that where it does not exist, it ought to exist, or else you never can expect to get the children to attend. The increase of accommodation provided for children is very much in excess of the number of children, taking any given number of years that may be chosen. For example, in 1868 the number of children at school was 1,033,675, and in 1873, according to the Report which we received the other day, the attendance was 1,528,453, so that there was an increase of nearly 500,000 in the number of children attending school between 1868 and 1873. When I speak of the attendance at school, of course I do not take the mere numbers on the roll, but I take the heading of the Report, which states "average daily attendance," and I include the attendance at night schools as well as day schools, so that I give every possible advantage in making the comparison. The number of children who attended school during these five years has increased, as I said, by nearly 500,000; but the accommodation provided in the schools during the same period has increased by 817,000. We had in 1869 accommodation for 1,750,000 children, in round numbers; and in 1873 we had accommodation for 2,500,000; so that if you measure the attendance by the school accommodation, you have over 1,000,000 of empty places waiting for occupants. Now, under these circumstances, if any person were
1630
managing the ordinary affairs of the world, he would say that when there was that great space empty, to a large extent, we must direct every possible effort to getting it filled; and we must not think of erecting new schools until we have got those already in existence well occupied. But, Sir, the very opposite of that is the case. By far more than one-half of the population of England have not the advantage of school boards, and therefore cannot have the advantage of a compulsory education. But in those places where compulsory education exists, it appears not to be vigorously enforced. The Report to which I have referred has this confession—a confession of a very damaging nature. Referring to the great difference between the accommodation and the attendance, the Report says—
"So that each school department, while providing accommodation for 162 scholars, had an average attendance of only 93."
Now, suppose all the schools were of such capacity as to be fitted to accommodate exactly 100 children, the result is that every such school has only 57 children in average attendance, with 43 vacant places on an average in each; but if you take 57 as the number in actual attendance, you would require to add 75 per cent to the present number in order to fill all the existing schools. While every effort should be used to remedy this state of things, we see, on the contrary, vigorous efforts made to increase the already enormous amount of accommodation, and we see a large expenditure for that purpose without any assignable reason. For example, it is stated in the Report that in the four years ending in December, 1873, grants were made amounting to £252,935, affording accommodation for 225,814 children. Those are included in the figures I have already given, but what I am now about to state is not. Since 1870, other 1,915 applications for grants have been approved of by the Privy Council, and they say these were to provide for 300,000 children, notwithstanding the surplus school accommodation for 1,000,000 already in existence. Here was a statement that we might soon expect accommodation for other 300,000 children. Not a word said about where children are to be got to fill the schools; but this is not all the additional school accommodation that is in prospect, be-

1631
cause the Report goes on to say the Privy Council has recommended loans of £3,000,000 for additional schools. These will provide for 266,784 children, so that we shall immediately have accommodation for more than 500,000 of other children, while we have empty school accommodation already for more than 1,000,000. Now, Sir, just to give a bird's-eye view of the result of these figures, I find that we have accommodation now for 2,582,549, which is equal to 1 in 9 of the whole population of England and Wales, and in a well-educated country about 1 in 6½ ought to be at school at one time. But if you take the names on the register, the numbers are 2,218,598, or 1 in 11 of the entire population of England and Wales. If you take the average daily attendance, including night schools, the number is 1,528,453, or 1 in 15, being less than one-half the number which in a well-educated country ought to be at school. Of these, the number who made the requisite attendance to bring grants to their schools was 1,279,222, or only 1 in 19. and of that number only 888,000 had been instrumental in obtaining grants for schools on passing a satisfactory examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic, the others having been passed merely on account of their attendance. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, very effectually I think, urged that all the poor children—whose parents not being paupers were too poor to pay the school fees—might be provided for without difficulty out of the surplus amount of accommodation in the existing schools. Then, Sir, referring to the last point upon which I shall trouble the House—namely the income of the schools—I find that in 1873, the Government grants were 12·9; paid out of the rates, 32·1; school fees, 9·7; loans for which the rates are liable, 45 per cent.; and the other sources only 3. My hon. Friend lamented this falling off of their resources, and the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) in his admirable speech on the subject, urging that one-sixth at least of the expenditure of voluntary schools should be provided by subscription, called attention to the fact that the subscriptions from voluntary sources had greatly fallen off. Now, in the preceding year—namely, 1872, the voluntary subscriptions from England and Wales came to
1632
£2 6s. out of every £100. That was received by the schools from voluntary sources, and during last year the whole sum received was only 6s. out of every £100, thus showing that as Government steps in with its largesse, the benevolent people recede and discontinue their subscriptions. The real remedy for that state of things is to establish school boards and compulsory education in every parish in England. You will then fill the million of empty places that now exist. The system that is now pursued seems to me to be very much like as if the Secretary of State for War, with barrack accommodation for 100,000 soldiers, and not having soldiers to fill them, solely occupied himself in devising schemes for additional barrack accommodation; or if the Admiralty, without being able to get sailors to man the existing Fleet, were yet lavishly expending large sums of money in the construction of other ships. That is precisely the course we are now pursuing in regard to schools, and it behoves this House seriously to consider whether that is the right course. In Scotland there is not a parish that has not a school board, and if it were so in England, there would be good opportunities for getting the children educated. I am sorry for having taken up so much of the time of the House, but I thought it right to call attention to these facts.
MR. DIXONsaid, with reference to the Motion of his noble Friend the Member for Calne, he should not be able to follow him fully in his remarks, but, with the main portion of his Resolution he fully agreed. It seemed to him that it was not a wise and proper thing, scarcely, he might say, in accordance with constitutional rules, that they should permit a large number of public elementary schools to be managed by committees who did not subscribe anything, or who subscribed a small sum, towards the maintenance of those schools. That view was supported by the highest authorities. They had no means of ascertaining what the exact state of the schools might be, and it was impossible at present for the public to gain any accurate information. He had himself asked his right hon. Friend the late Vice President, if some means could not be devised whereby the information sought might be obtained, and he was informed he could not see how it was to

1633
be done. Information was in the possession of the Department, but it was considered private. He did not agree with that view. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER dissented.] He saw his right hon. Friend shake his head, but he imagined he had stated the facts correctly. The accounts which the public desired to obtain were in the hands of the Department, and he thought the taxpayers, who had to provide, very frequently indeed, the one-half of the total sum spent in these schools, had a right to know how the money was spent in elementary schools under the management of private committees. The knowledge would, he held, not only benefit the particular school, but the district at large in which it was placed. School boards had very little power in the matter. A full representation of how the money was spent ought to be made to the taxpayer. He was aware that the answer to that was, that payments were made only by results, and that the Department had Inspectors' Reports on the schools. He thought the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) showed that the results so obtained were of the most unsatisfactory character; and with reference to the inspection, that was really most inefficient. The number of Inspectors was entirely insufficient, and quite unequal to the duty that had to be performed; and, in fact, it scarcely came within the duty of the Inspectors to report on these schools in the manner that they now required. He submitted to the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) whether the time had not now arrived when the question might be taken into consideration, and whether he might not throw open to the public in each locality some means by which the accounts from the denominational schools might be obtained.
MR. EVANShoped the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon) would take advantage of the great opportunity now afforded to him of acting in accordance with the spirit of the Motions made by the hon. Members for Banbury and Calne, and further that he would consent to an alteration of the 25th clause of the Education Act, so as to save the country from the turmoil which it created in every town in England.
MR. BIRLEY, although anxious that the Education Department should keep
1634
a stringent control over the denominational schools, as well as over the board schools, was not prepared to believe that that object could be accomplished by giving the boards power over the denominational schools. As far as official tests went, the school board schools were at present inferior to the denominational schools, and as an instance of that assertion, the Manchester school board had passed a resolution to the effect that it was desirable to raise the efficiency of the board schools to those of the denominational schools. Although he trusted that in time that inferiority would disappear, still he should be sorry if the former were to entirely supersede the latter. It was the duty of the Government to enforce efficiency in the denominational schools as well as in the school board schools, but not to fetter them in any way by harassing restrictions.
VISCOUNT SANDONobserved that a wide surface had been covered by the subject which had been brought before the House. With respect to the assertion to which his noble Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lord Francis Hervey), sought to commit them, he could scarcely be expected to say that "the so-called Education Code is ill-conceived, ill-worded, ill-arranged, and requires thorough Revision." He was not responsible for, and was not, therefore, bound to defend, the Code, but he could not lose sight of the fact that it was the growth of the experience of able and thoughtful men who preceded him in the office he then held. He must therefore, decline to condemn the Code in so very hasty a manner as his noble Friend suggested. With respect to the proposals of the hon. Member for Banbury and the noble Lord the Member for Calne, the Government could not approach the subject from the same point of view as hon. Gentlemen opposite. He, therefore, thought there ought to be no mistake about what were the sentiments of the Government, and he at once said that the Government could not agree that the principle of the 25th clause was wrong. Their position as a Government ought to be clearly understood on this matter. The Government could not consent to the condemnation of that principle, because by so doing they would be committing themselves to a disapproval of grants to

1635
denominational and other schools. Of course, the Government were not so bigoted as not to receive with great satisfaction the contributions of all sensible men who had spoken on a subject which had agitated the public largely, but they also had to consider whether the proposals now brought forward would do away with difficulties which existed in the minds of many good, excellent, and distinguished persons throughout the country, amongst whom there was a great divergence of opinion, and who had brought forward several schemes upon the subject. He must, therefore, express his entire dissent from the views expressed the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, to the effect that the 25th clause was a barrier to the cause of education. With respect to the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Calne, he thought he need only point to the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had expressed a doubt whether it would to any great extent meet the difficulties of the case; and the hon. Gentleman gave no opinion as to the proposal of the hon. Member for Banbury, which was in itself quite distinct from that of the noble Lord. But it was plain that the proposal in question would be a breach of the contract with the voluntary schools which was contained in the 97th clause of the Elementary Education Act. It would place the voluntary schools at a great disadvantage as compared with the board schools, as the latter could fall back upon the rates, while the former could not. Again, in the event of a school being fully attended, were they to turn out the paying children in order to make room for the non-paying? And who was to determine the proportion of non-paying pupils a school should receive? Those children belonged to the very poorest class, and were sometimes unacceptable for physical reasons. He gave his hon. Friend every credit for his effort to solve the difficulty, but he could not admit that his proposal was a solution of it, for those were questions which should and must be answered before the House could think of accepting the proposal. Then, with respect to the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Calne, he would remind him, taking the gross income of the State-aided schools at
1636
£2,100,000, the voluntary contributions were £540,000, or more than 25 per cent. The Government Grant was 37 per cent; so that very much more than one-sixth was contributed by voluntary schools in the gross. The noble Lord forgot that after all, these voluntary schools had a good right to charge the State with the interest upon the large building expenditure they were put to. In the past few years, they had spent nearly £4,500,000 in answer to £1,600,000 contributed by the State. Had his noble Friend, moreover, quite got over the difficulty as to the mode in which his proposal would affect the highest class of artizan schools? Would he be prepared to pauperize those schools for the sake of the experiment he proposed to make? The schools most affected by the proposal would not be those of the Church, nor those of the Roman Catholics, but of the British and great Nonconformist Bodies. The suggestions made, conflicted the one with the other and had met with little support. As a Government, they took their stand upon the two principles which they regarded as fundamental—namely, the right of the parent to choose the school to which his child should go, and the necessity of paying the school fees for the children who were not themselves able to pay. He denied that any real grievance resulted from the operation of the 25th clause, or any grievance which would induce the Government to accept the proposals which had been placed before the House. He thanked hon. Members who had spoken, for their contributions, which he thought were of great use, but he regretted that he could not see his way to adopt them.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  (1.) £1,130,852, to complete the sum for Public Education, England and Wales.
  VISCOUNT SANDON, in rising to explain the details of the Education Vote, said, that before he troubled the

  1637
  Committee with a statement on the subject, he wished to remind hon. Members that two Governments might be said to be responsible for the Estimates he had to lay before the Committee. The chief responsibility lay with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but the present Education Department were quite prepared to take a full share of the burden. The total Vote he had to propose for the coming year was slightly in excess of that of the year before, and perhaps the Committee would be surprised when he said it was £57,249 in excess of the previous Vote; but the increase was, in reality, larger, because in last years' Estimates £75,310 were charged for building grants and organizing districts which would disappear from the Estimate for this year. There was, therefore, a total increase of grants for day scholars amounting to £118,246 over the grants for the preceding year, it being understood that they had calculated for an increase of 164,000 in the number of children in the schools as compared with the previous year. Another cause for the increase in the Vote was found in the addition of five Inspectors, and he warned the House that a largo increase under that head might be expected in the future. His own impression on the subject of inspection was, that if they were to have Inspectors at all, the Inspectors should be able not merely to go through the dry work of examining the children, but should have sufficient time to form opinions as to the complete working of the schools, and at the same time to advise the teachers and encourage the children. It was important further, that there should be no lowering of the intellectual character of the gentlemen to be employed as examiners. He felt sure that the Committee would not grudge the necessary expenditure, for it was impossible not to see that there must be a rapid increase in the number of schools receiving Parliamentary Grants, many of such schools being voluntary schools which had not up to the present time employed certificated teachers. He rejoiced to see that as an evidence of greater intellectual activity in the country, and of a general awakening to the advantage offered by superior schools in every part of the country. Having said thus much as to the mere money Vote, he next wished to make a few remarks as to the educa-
  1638
  tional condition of the country. In the first place, the supply of school accommodation had been very satisfactory. In 1869 the number of inspected schools claiming Government Grants gave accommodation for 1,760,000 scholars; in 1873 the number had increased to 2,580,000, of which 125,000 were supplied by school boards. The prospect of the completion of the whole school supply of the country was also satisfactory. First, notices of existing school deficiencies had been issued with but few exceptions, and about half of the deficiencies pointed out had been voluntarily supplied. Final notices stating that failure to supply deficiencies would be followed by the compulsory formation of school boards had been sent to about three-fourths of the country, and the remaining fourth would be forwarded by the end of the year, so that the prospect was, that before six months of 1875 had expired, schools for the whole country would have been erected, or their erection would be in progress. That, he ventured to think, was a very great result to have been attained within four years of the passing of the Education Act. For attaining that result, great credit was due to the officials of the Education Department, without whose hearty and cordial co-operation it would have been impossible for him to recite this immense tale of deeds done. When the schools to which he had referred had been completed, there would in public elementary schools receiving grants be accommodation for 2,500,000 children; in schools not receiving' grants, but passed as efficient, there would be accommodation for 1,000,000 children; and in board schools there would be accommodation for other 500,000 children, making in all accommodation for 4,000,000 children. Of the schools affording accommodation for 1,000,000 children which had been passed as efficient, they might hope that a good number would speedily come under Government control, because some of them which were passed as efficient two or three years ago, would have ceased to continue efficient, and others which were passed into the efficient class at the early stage, might not in strictness have deserved to be so classed. Therefore, this accommodation for 1,000,000 children would be, as it were, scrambled for by the voluntary schools, the Government,

  1639
  and the school boards. The next point of interest was as to the school boards. London as was known, was already under a school board. With regard to the remainder of the country, 104 boroughs, representing a population of about 5,500,000, out of 224 boroughs, with a population of 6,531,892, were under school boards. There were also under school boards 717 civil parishes with a population of 2,000,000, out of 14,072, with a population of 12,913,387. The net result of this was that, including London, 10,494,507 of the population were under school boards against 12,217,759 who were not in the same position; but it seemed probable that by the middle of next year or later—according to the compulsory action of the Education Department—about half of the population would be under boards. The next point was as to the teachers, and that he regarded as being equal in importance to any part of the work. The calculation was, that 25,000 head teachers would be required for the instruction of 4,000,000 children, and in that direction, satisfactory progress had been made so far. In 1869 there were 12,800 pupil-teachers, and in last year 25,000; in 1869 there were 1,200 assistant teachers against 1,500 last year; and of certificated teachers, there were 12,000 in 1869 against 16,700 last year. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER asked if these figures referred only to England and Wales?] They did. He believed the Colleges could supply other 1,500 per annum. The question, then, was how to supply the difference between 16,700 and the 25,000 who would be required as soon as the 4,000,000 children had been got into the schools. Last Christmas, 2,500 additional certificated teachers were added; certificates were being granted to older teachers on the Inspectors' Re-ports; and for the small schools, there were pupil-teachers who had completed their apprenticeship, but could not be received into the Colleges. Looking, then, at the great differences between the accommodation for the 4,000,000 children and the number actually in the schools, there was, he thought, no reason to be disheartened as to a due supply of good managing teachers. That subject, however, he would assure the House would receive the careful attention of the Lord President and himself, and he would add that nothing could be
  1640
  more important than that there should be not only an adequate, but a first-rate supply of teachers. There now remained the question how many children were actually in the schools. The Education Department only knew with accuracy the number in the inspected schools, in which there were 2,218,598 on the books and 1,847,216 present at the inspection. Now, as to the attendance. Of the 800,000 infants, 400,000 had not attended half-a-year—namely, the 250 times necessary to get the grant. Of the 1,400,000 children between 7 and 13, 500,000 had not attended half-a-year, or the 250 attendances necessary for the grant. Thus, out of 2,200,000 on the books, 900,000 had not attended even for half-a-year. If the attendance was so bad in the inspected schools, what was it likely to be in the non-inspected schools? He feared there must be still greater irregularity in the great mass of the children who made up the 4,000,000. This irregular attendance of the children was the most important fact in the educational survey of the country, and it explained the poor results that were obtained from our immense expenditure on the children. What was wanted was both early and regular attendance. He attached great value especially to early attendance, and it was exceedingly important that the children should begin to attend school at an earlier period—at three years old, if possible. If children could be started early in life with a stock of intelligence, more would be done for education than by keeping them at school until a very late period. He therefore appealed to the friends of education to do all they could to abate the terrible evil of non-attendance in schools. He could not hesitate to express his opinion that compulsion had worked well hitherto in the places where it had been tried. In London it had brought 36,000 more children to the schools; in Hull, 3,500; in Sunderland, 3,800; in Leeds, 8,400. These were great and startling results. Whatever their prepossessions might have been, the children were now in the schools, and there was reason to believe that they would not have been there but for compulsion. That was not the only direction in which compulsion had been enacted by the Legislature. If they looked to mines, factories, workshops, and the Agricultural Children's Act, it

  1641
  would be found that we were drifting into a law that no children should go to work under 10 years of age. He would express no opinion as to whether that was right or wrong, but it was what the country was coming to, and it was matter for grave consideration whether, by special legislation, Parliament could not simplify our educational position so as to adopt one uniform age below which no child should be employed. With regard to night schools, it was impossible to notice without concern the falling-off in the attendance. It was 64,000 in 1869, while in 1873 it had dropped to 46,000; and no doubt, the provision that they must be conducted by certificated or trained teachers was a great obstacle to their increase. He had a strong opinion in favour of night schools as an agency well suited to the present educational emergency, and when they were first opened a large number of lads between 14 and 18 swarmed to them. The matter was not very easy to handle. His Predecessor had stipulated for a larger number of attendances, and that the schools should keep open an increased number of nights. It had come before him as an open question, whether the Education Department should not pay by results, and without asking questions as to the teachers who imparted instructions. "Without giving any opinion on this point, he would say that he regarded night schools as a most valuable agency not only for neglected children, but as enabling those who had left school to keep up the little learning they might have been able to acquire in their early school days. It was most disappointing to find that children of 13, 14, and 15 years of age who had left school for three years had frequently forgotten almost all they had learnt. It was the more important that they should have an opportunity by means of night schools, of picking it up afterwards; otherwise the money previously expended seemed to be utterly wasted. This matter, likewise, was receiving the most earnest consideration of the Lord President and himself. There were two Acts of Parliament which they would also watch with great interest. One which was daily coming more and more into force—the Agricultural Children's Act might require amendment; but those who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House might feel a just
  1642
  pride in recollecting that two hon. Members on that side were the first to give legislative effect to the proposal to render education compulsory in the agricultural districts. Those provisions might, perhaps, create some difficulty and disturbance in the labour market, but he believed they would ultimately be productive of essential good. The other Act to which he referred was that affecting the out-door pauper children; and with regard to that, he must ask the leave of the House to say a few words having reference to a recent debate, in which a variety of opinions were expressed upon the Order in Council that had been issued by the Department with regard to the standard for these children. Since that discussion, two or three points had arisen. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) had challenged him upon the subject, and had said that the Department had by that Order in Council put itself into opposition with all the school boards of the country, because the order applied alike to the children who were and those who were not under school boards. But the Order in Council only referred to that part of the population who were not under the bye-laws, and in considering the matter, it must be remembered that about 9,500,000 of the population were under school boards and compulsory penal laws, while the rest were not. The right hon. Gentleman told him that if he had consulted the Law Officers of the Crown they would have told him he was wrong. He had done so, and they had assured him that both he and the right hon. Gentleman himself were right in the Order in Council issued by the right hon. Gentleman, the wording of which he had followed. The Committee must not suppose that it was a great Government policy that had been reversed by the present Education Department. It had only been framed a month before the Dissolution. The late Government were doubtless engaged with more serious matters, and he understood that the late Lord President had not seen the Order in Council which the right hon. Gentleman had adopted. His Minute fixing Standard V. for outdoor pauper children would have kept them at school until they were 13. If last Session it had been put to the House whether it was prepared to for-

  1643
  bid pauper children of this age to work, but, on the other hand, to keep them at school until they were 13, he did not believe either the House or the country would have sanctioned such a proposal for one moment. It went against the whole course of previous legislation, which had been to work up gradually in this matter, and it was also against the very letter of the Act, which implied that the highest standard would not be fixed at once. Upon the point, he begged leave to say it was from no pressure he had been induced to take the step he did. He believed it was essential that they should work upon pauper children from below, not from above. To take children who were earning wages altogether away from their work would create grievances all over the country which would endanger the operation of the Act. When it was remembered that the Act affected principally the agricultural districts and small towns, and for the first time, it would be admitted that to brandish before the people at the outset cases of great hardship all over the country would be most injudicious. He would give an example. He found a parent with three children. For one child she received relief; the two others earned 7s. 6d. a week. What was the course pursued in that case? The Guardians gave 5s. a-week instead of 7s. 6d.; and what did the 2s. 6d. represent? It represented the rent of the house and of the allotment. Cases of that kind occuring in a district would go far to disgust the people with the operation of compulsion under the Act, and tend to push back the whole tide of education. He wished it to be clearly understood that in his view, that action was dictated by an earnest and sincere desire to prevent the breaking down of a new system, and not by any temporary alarm caused by the representations made to him. His own opinion, and he believed that of the Government, was, as to the different treatment of education by school boards or by voluntary parties, that nothing could be more healthy than a generous competition between the two different modes of action. They accepted the new system fully and frankly. They accepted it in the spirit of his right hon. Friend. They were determined that the new system should supplement the former system—that new schools
  1644
  should be built; but they were also determined that existing schools should not be supplanted by any unfair agency. They watched the system not with jealousy, but with pride. They had a right to take pride in the system, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had admitted that it was very doubtful if the great measure of 1870 could have been passed without the assistance of those who now sat on the Ministerial side of the House. There were some things in that measure which they disliked exceedingly, and he would not say that in their opinion it required no alterations. Time alone would show. They wanted experience. They must watch it with the greatest care; but so long as it existed it would be his duty, acting with the Lord President of the Council, to administer it with perfect fairness—to ask no questions ecclesiastical or political, as to school boards, but to accept them as the legitimate representatives of the people who had elected them. What they wanted was an instructed, an educated nation, and with that view, they wished to give the children of the labouring classes in those schools, the very best education which the most enlightened members of the artizan and operative class would desire for their children. He hoped that they would divest themselves in this matter of religious professions both on one side and the other, for he could not help sometimes fancying that the great mass of the working population watched them with eager gaze while they were quarrelling and struggling about the education of their children, and he could not but express his earnest conviction that that Church and that religious body which showed most entirely an impartial spirit—not that which showed the most grasping desire to draw people by means of the national funds into its fold, but the Church which thought least of itself and most of the children to be educated—would be that which would ultimately win the suffrages of a God-fearing population. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a sum to complete the vote of £1,356,852 for elementary education for Great Britain.
  MR. BIRLEYthought it was impossible for anyone to have heard the speech of his noble Friend without feeling that the cause of education was safe in his

  1645
  hands. He wished to know whether the time had not arrived when the system of compulsory education might be gradually and discreetly introduced into many towns and parishes not yet having school boards? The late Vice President of the Council admitted that the absence of that power was a blot in the Bill of 1870, because a district having provided the means of education was not to have the same power of compelling attendance as a district which had not provided sufficient means of education; and the only power given under the Bill was to apply to the Council for a school board. He thought the best system of compulsion would be a full, but gradual adoption of the principle of the educational clauses of the Factory Act and other kindred Acts, requiring that children should pass certain Standards before they were admitted to work of any description, unless they had arrived at the age of 13 years; but there would always be some children for whom no Standard could be fixed. He also thought means should be given for children in elementary schools proceeding to a higher standard of education than the elementary system itself afforded. He believed that could be done with great effect without adding to the expense incurred by the nation, and children of exceptional ability might thus, by means of exhibitions and scholarships, raise themselves to high office either in Church or State. There was an illusion in the public mind that school board schools were superior to denominational schools. That was certainly not so at present, and not likely ever to be the fact, and all experience showed that we had no right to rely on such persons as those of whom the school boards were composed for the display of any exceptional ability in the management of education. As to the cost of the school board schools, it appeared that already the Loan Commissioners had been authorized to lend something like £3,000,000 to the boards for the purposes of the instruction of 260,000 children, while during a similar period—the last four years—the Education Department had advanced only £250,000 to voluntary schools for the accommodation of 225,000 children, the result being that for every pound advanced in the one case £10 were required in the other. He would, therefore, ask the Government to grant no favour to one class of
  1646
  schools as compared with the other, while they took care that both were kept in the highest state of efficiency.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, besides the question of training schools, which he thought were worthy of the notice of the Department, as not having received all the aid he (Mr. Wheelhouse) thought they required to ensure their efficiency, there were two classes of children for whom no provision was made by the Education Act—blind children and deaf-mute children—who, as their parents contributed like other ratepayers to the school board rates, ought not to be excluded from the advantages of education merely because it had pleased the Almighty to afflict them with those infirmities. He could not understand the fairness or the reason for that deprivation, and he should never cease to advocate their claims until they were, as in every other European country, recognized by the State as being entitled to competent assistance for their instruction.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he was glad to find from the Report of the Department, and also from the speech of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, that the voluntary schools of the country were to continue to have that perfect fair play to which in justice, he maintained, they were entitled. The fact had been often stated, but it was one which could not be too often repeated, that if there was anything more certain than another in connection with the Act of 1870, it was that the school board system was established to supplement and not to supersede the existing schools. It was a constant subject of complaint that rates should be raised only upon one description of property, and he thought that circumstance afforded an additional reason for discouraging the establishment of schools created and supported by rates. There were several points he wished to impress upon the noble Lord. He regretted to see the sanction of the Education Department too often given to a scale of fees in the case of school board schools so low as to handicap seriously other schools side by side with them. Again, the sanction of loans was, he thought, given by the Department sometimes without due consideration, and he felt it his duty last year to call attention to a celebrated case of this kind. "While loans to the amount of £3,000,000, raised on the secu-

  1647
  rity of the rates, had been required to gather into the schools 260,000 new scholars, a sum of £252,000 contributed by the State to the voluntary schools, and aided by £1,000,000 voluntary subscriptions, had brought in 225,000 new children. There was another small grievance—small only, because it was not of frequent occurrence, though it pressed hardly enough in cases where it did occur. He referred to cases of repeated application for the establishment of a school board in the same district where it had been refused over and over again. In a parish in his own county where it had been deliberately decided that no school board should be established, that decision had been appealed against over and over again. At present the law permitted a poll to be taken every 12 months. That was an injustice to the ratepayers, and to the managers of the existing voluntary schools. No school could work well whose very existence was annually threatened, and he submitted that once the question had been decided by a poll, persons should not be permitted to raise it again for three years. Then again he suggested whether his noble Friend could not provide some remedy for the grievance of persons being called upon to pay twice over for the maintenance of schools—by subscription to support one school and by rate to support another. A parish in which a school board existed had to pay twice over,—first for the voluntary school, and then for the board school; but he held that those who supported the voluntary schools deserved to have their consciences respected quite as much as other people. An option should be given, in districts where both systems existed, to a man to select the school to which he should pay. These were a few of the objections which he and those who agreed with him took to the working of the present Act. All they asked was that a fair chance of life should be given to voluntary schools—a chance to which they had entitled themselves by the exertions they had made in the cause of education in years past. He trusted that his noble Friend would look into these things a little more closely, and that by next year some of the injustices complained of would be remedied.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the noble Lord would be careful not to be led by the remarks of his hon. Friend
  1648
  the Member for Leicestershire to interfere overmuch with the power of school boards. The case referred to by his hon. Friend was a very difficult one, and much might perhaps have been said on both sides; but he was quite prepared to justify the action of the Department with reference to it. That case, however, ought to afford some satisfaction to the noble Lord, because it was the only one in which complaint was persistently urged against the conduct of a school board while he (Mr. Forster) was in office. His hon. Friend was anxious to restrict the supply of school accommodation, and said the Department had committed a mistake in that respect; but for his own part he (Mr. Forster) had never admitted that there had been any mistake in the matter, and thought that the course which the Department took with regard to the supply of accommodation was the right one. He quite admitted that it was one of the duties of the Department to watch the proceedings of the school boards; and as to the fixing of school fees, he thought that it was desirable that the Department should satisfy itself that a school board was right in the fees which it proposed, and also as to the accommodation that they had provided; but he must repeat what he had often stated, that it was necessary to watch strictly any proposal to dispute the actions of school boards. It should be so for this reason, that if they were to elect representatives upon school boards, then, such representatives should be allowed certain power and judgment, or the whole thing would be a mockery. He would now turn to the eloquent speech of his noble Friend—a speech which he had heard with great pleasure. He was glad to hear that his noble Friend proposed to be liberal with regard to the number of Inspectors, and, indeed, it was the conclusion to which he himself came when he was in office. He was also delighted to see that his noble Friend was determined to set to work to see that the school demand should be fully met, and he had full confidence that he would succeed in his obnoxious task of establishing boards in districts where there was an undoubted deficiency. But the greater part of the noble Lord's remarks had reference to the most important part of the subject—to the fact that although we had got the schools we had not succeeded so well in getting the

  1649
  children into them. He was anxious to re-assure the noble Lord upon the point. There had been a considerable increase, and the prophecy which he ventured to make when in the noble Lord's place last year had been fulfilled. The average attendance had got up to 1,500,000, and he anticipated that the next year it would be even greater. The noble Lord, however, was evidently convinced that the great evil to be contended with was the want of attendance on the part of the children, and in that view, he (Mr. Forster) was glad to hear that the compulsory powers had been beneficially exercised. In Leeds, for instance, they had succeeded in bringing nearly all the children within the range of the school board. They could hardly have shown their effect before August last year, and he thought it would be found that the effect would be more apparent every day. It was becoming more and more evident that the great evil we had to contend with was the want of attendance, and that that evil was being remedied, as compulsion was vigorously but at the same time carefully and prudently applied. The evil on the one side and the success on the other showed that the great task now in hand was to consider how we could extend the means of getting children to school over the whole country. He was aware of the difficulty of that task, and care must be taken not to overdo it, so as to create a feeling against the means in the minds of the population. He was much delighted with one fact which had been evident year after year since the Act was passed, and that was that the public mind throughout the country was more prepared for compulsion than had at first been anticipated. It must be acknowledged that its success had been shown, and that the example might be held out to those parts of the country where compulsion had not yet been applied. One word with regard to the matter in which he differed from his noble Friend, and that was the Order in Council with respect to pauper children. While he was glad to find that the fear he had that the Order in Council with regard to the pauper children would interfere with the regulations of the school boards turned out to be without foundation, he could not retract any statement that he had made about the policy of the Order. He thought it was a mistake, and he much regretted
  1650
  it. He was aware that it was necessary to work the Act with care, but still the object of the Act was to secure education for pauper children. Sending pauper children away from school back to home, without any hope of further progress, when they had merely reached the Third Standard, was really no education. The poor children, therefore, who came under the operation of the Order this year would be in some measure sacrificed to his noble Friend's fear of raising public opinion against the working of the Act. He hoped that his noble Friend would see the necessity of making a great effort to convince the school boards and other authorities connected with education throughout the country that the Third Standard was not high enough, and that he would take the earliest opportunity of raising it.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTthought that any attempts to go into the higher systems of education with these poor children would be a lamentable failure. He had heard of a gentleman who was examining a school with reference to the oxidizing of metals, and he asked one of the biggest boys what would happen to a plough if it was left in the rain. The boy said it would be "oxhided," and yet not one of the children knew what rust was. In his opinion, if they wanted to do anything with higher education, they ought to begin at the beginning, or they would not get on. He wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the wording of the Education Amendment Act, and the Agricultural Children's Act, which did not work harmoniously. By the first, children were required to be at school from the age of 5 to 13, whereas by the second, they went at 8 and left at 11 years of age. Now, it must be remembered that to deprive parents absolutely and at once of the earnings of their children would create great dissatisfaction throughout the country and make them discontented with the Education Act, and that was an evil to be carefully guarded against. It would increase the pauperism of the idle pauper, and his child would not see why he was not always to be maintained at the expense of the ratepayers. His noble, Friend, however, said, and he (Colonel Barttelot) thought he was right, that no boy ought to work until he was 10 years old. But then it was a question whether all ought not to be allowed to work at that age,

  1651
  provided they could pass in a Standard which ought not to be fixed too high, and Sunday and night schools ought to do the rest of their education. He (Colonel Barttelot) wished to know whether his noble Friend intended that children 3 years old should be bound to walk three miles to school? Two miles was the limit for agricultural children. He thought that two miles, or rather one should be the limit for the young children of whom he spoke. The girls in school were not employed half as much as they ought to be in that most important branch of education for them—namely, needlework, and for which a premium ought to be given. Under the Order of Council, in 1873, there was no provision bow certificates of exemption were to be obtained, and he hoped the noble Lord would give the House some information on that point.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the extra subjects to which the last speaker referred were only History and Geography—subjects of which every child ought to know something. Was it not important that the children educated in schools supported by the State should be taught the History of England and the geography of their native land? He suggested that in the case of the younger children the examination on extra subjects should be conducted vivâ voce and not in writing, because the latter method distracted the children. He called attention to the fact that the annual Report was only in the hands of hon. Members on Saturday, and it was consequently most inconvenient to discuss the subject that evening.
  MR. PELLsaid, from personal knowledge, he knew the Education Acts had brought children to school who could not have been brought by any other agency. He wished to direct the noble Lord's attention to a matter that required to be remedied. The child of a pauper was allowed to go to work if he passed an examination in the Third Standard; but the child of an independent parent was not allowed to go to work unless he passed an examination in Standard IV. Provision was made that after examination, the pauper child might obtain a certificate and be set to work, but no such provision was made with respect to an independent labourer's child; and it appeared to him that that was a good opportunity for calling the
  1652
  attention of the country to the state of the question, with a view to preparations being made for the examination next year, in order to enable children to make such an advance as would qualify them to be sent out to work.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, having on a previous occasion foreseen the difficulty in which he apprehended they would be landed, he could not help observing now that it was not from the Act of last year, but from the inconvenience of the Minute that had been passed by the new Government, on their accession to office, lowering the Standard at which the children of out-door paupers must leave school, that the existing difficulty arose. In agricultural districts, children could not be set to work until they had attained a certain age, or passed the Fourth Standard, whilst, under the new Minute, Boards of Guardians had no power to send pauper children to school after they had passed the Third Standard; he hoped that the House would not accept the solution which the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex had suggested.
  VISCOUNT SANDONfelt much indebted to the House for the very friendly and cordial way in which his statement had been received. With regard to the challenge that had been thrown out to him by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) he agreed there was this theoretical difficulty—that a pauper child must be let out after it should have passed the Third Standard; but it could not go to work until it had either passed the Fourth Standard, or made a certain number of attendances at school. Let them see what out-door pauper children would be affected. Only 120 pauper children out of 730,000 who were examined passed in the two higher Standards, and 117 passed Standard IV. What he said was, that the only children affected by this question of the Standard were the children above 10 years of age, and the strong presumption was that no outdoor pauper child could psss even the Third Standard without having attended school for 15 weeks or 150 times in the previous year. With regard to the apprehension of hon. Gentlemen that difficulties might arise, the Government had the power of at any moment passing a Minute under the Agricultural Children's Act which would exempt the out-door

  1653
  pauper children from the peculiar difficulties under which they laboured. Various other matters of interest had been raised during the discussion. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheel-house) had urged that something still further should he done for the training schools. He might state, in reply, that full attention should he given to the subject. The question of the scale of fees was one which the Department had a right to watch, and the necessity for which was shown by the fact that a certain school board proposed to adopt a fee all round of a farthing—a proposal which hardly came within the true intention of the Act. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) suggested that the Department should give "exhibitions" to enable poor children to pass from the lower to the higher schools. He approved of the course being taken, and he might state that he had already given £400 a-year for exhibitions to encourage children in that direction. Personally, he should be glad, as far as the means at the disposal of the Department allowed, to give every encouragement by exhibitions to poor children of great merit passing from lower to higher schools, particularly when the system was started by the voluntary efforts of the locality. In accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex the Government would do their best to make the Agricultural Children's Act work quietly and satisfactorily; but he could not hold out any hope of lowering the Standard. He admitted the importance of the special training of girls, to which their attention had been directed, and might mention that Baroness Burdett Courts, who took a deep interest in it, had drawn up an elaborate code, but he could not say whether the Department would be able to adopt it. With regard to the complaint of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) he had hoped to have been complimented on the early production of the Report, as, until last year, it had not been issued until after the debate; but arrangements were being made by which it would he produced still earlier in future years. He also hoped the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) would excuse him giving any definite answer at present in reference to the education of the deaf and dumb and blind, and he begged
  1654
  to acknowledge the handsome way in which he had been met by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster).
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £232,170, to complete the sum for the Science and Art Department.
  MR. DILLWYNurged the postponement of the Vote on the ground that it was £15,667 more than last year. The Museum at South Kensington was a pretty exhibition; but he thought the country would be surprised at its total cost, as revealed by Returns just issued, which they ought to be allowed more time to consider. As he could not move to postpone the Vote until the promised Returns had been considered, he should move to withdraw it altogether, unless a satisfactory explanation was given.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he was not surprised at the hon. Member for Swansea exhibiting some jealousy on the subject of this Vote, but the truth was, it merely exhibited the interest which the public took in the institution. The figures had been before the country for three months.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that the increase was clue, not to the expenditure at South Kensington, but to the increasing number of scholars who received instruction in Science and Art all over the country.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £178,057, to complete the sum for Public Education, Scotland.
  (4.) £4,845, to complete the sum for Boards of Education, Scotland.
  (5.) £3,476, to complete the sum for Queen's Colleges, Ireland.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS— POST OFFICE, PACKET, AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES.
(6.) £2,402,423, to complete the sum for Post Office Services.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he wished to call attention to the low rate of remuneration accorded to the lower class of Post Office employés. During the last 20 years a great increase had taken place in the cost of all the prime necessaries of life, and the letter-carriers were a useful body of public servants, who had fair claims to consideration. He thought it not unreasonable that 20 per cent should be added to their salaries, and he should be glad to have some

1655
satisfactory assurance from the Government on the subject.
MR. GORDONsaid, he also wished to call attention to the case of the officers of the minor departments of the Post Office, who had received no increase of wages for 10 years. Their duties were laborious, and had to be performed at all hours of the day and night, and necessitated their exposure to the weather at all seasons of the year; and since the rate of wages was fixed 10 or 15 years ago, a vast amount of additional work had been thrown upon them. The London letter-carriers commenced at 21 s. per week, and the maximum was 30 s., after 15 years' service. The suburban letter-carriers received from 18 s. to 20 s., rising to a maximum of 25 s. after five years' service; and the rural letter-carriers received only about 15 s., which was increased to a maximum of 25 s. after 11 years' service. The porters began at 18 s. and rose to 25 s. after seven years, and the sorters commenced at 26 s., rising to 45 s. after 15 years. Having regard to the high prices of labour, and the increased cost of provisions and house-rent, he did not think that these rates were fair and reasonable for such a body of servants as the Post Office required, and it should be remembered that after the maximum had been attained, from 10 to 20 years' longer service was required to entitle the employé to a pension. He urged the Government to take the case of these men into their consideration, and also to consider the question of the Sunday employment of country letter-carriers. It would, he believed, be eventually economical to increase their pay, improve the scale of promotion, and in other ways add to their comfort.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that last year a strong memorial was presented to the Government on this subject by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and he trusted that the Postmaster General would be able to inform the House that the Government had made some arrangement which would set this matter at rest. The case of the rural postmen, indeed, bad as it apparently was, had not been overstated, for in reality they only got from 10 s. to 13 s. per week, and there was not a more wretchedly paid class in the community. By the rules of the service, those men could not take the same means of improving their
1656
position as other workmen did; so that it depended upon the good sense and practical generosity of the Government whether they should have proper remuneration or not. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office would make some statement on the subject.
MR. RITCHIEalso trusted that the Postmaster General would give the House an assurance that something would be done for the minor officers of the Post Office. It was most important the public should be assured that the question was being considered in a favourable light. Nothing could be more proper than the manner in which these men had presented their Petition, or than the moderation of their language.
MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he wished to correct a misapprehension that might arise from one or two statements made in the course of the debate. It was said that letter-carriers had not received any augmentation to their wages for the last 10 years. That was an entire mistake. On a Memorial being presented by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), the late Government took into consideration the condition of the letter-carriers of the metropolis, and their wages were then considerably raised. Another Memorial came addressed to himself when he held the office of Postmaster General, and it became his duty to see whether or not the wages agreed with the prices of labour in the market. The letter-carriers were first engaged when they were boys, and it was difficult afterwards when they were adults to find out whether they were being paid proper wages. In order to bring this to a point, 40 letter-carriers' places were put up for public competition, and 1,100 persons, well qualified, came forward and offered themselves for those places. Therefore, at all events, the market value of the wages was quite sufficient for them to get well qualified letter-carriers. The case of the rural post offices, or rather the rural letter-carriers, was different. In many cases they were miserably paid. In a great many cases—he did not know how many, but hon. Members would be astonished at the number—where the men came forward for an advance to their wages, they were raised, where they had been considerably below the proper market value. Last year, when he acted as Post-

1657
master General, the wages of the whole of the letter-carriers in Liverpool, Glasgow, and Manchester were treated in this way—that whilst the price of their labour was under that which labourers were receiving in a similar capacity in the same places, the wages of the letter-carriers were in all places raised. Therefore it was not right to say the Post Office resisted all claims. It was right that these claims should be brought under consideration; but it was wrong to state that he and the late Government were niggardly in their payment of these men. The claims were considered, and in most cases adjusted.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he was unable to give any opinion concerning the wages and expenses of living in London, because he knew nothing about them, but out of London the case was different. He had special knowledge of the City of Edinburgh. That City, which he had the honour to represent, had as much claim to be considered as either Liverpool, Manchester, or Glasgow, and he did not see why those places should be specially favoured, by an advance of wages, whilst Edinburgh was excluded. The wages of letter carriers and sorters had been advanced in other towns recently, but those in Edinburgh had not been advanced in the same ratio. He thought it was very unjust that such should be the case, because the wants and expenses of letter-carriers and letter-sorters there were as great as those in the other towns. He trusted, therefore, that the matter would receive the careful consideration of the Government and the noble Lord, with a view to doing equal justice to the Post Office officials of Edinburgh, with those in Liverpool, Glasgow, and other places; and he hoped further that attention would be given to the just claims of the rural postmen.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he also could not understand why an exception had been made in favour of the large towns mentioned by the late Postmaster General. The market value of labour was quite as high in Leeds, and he objected to the large borough he represented being thus "left out in the cold." He believed he was right in saying that not only, for instance, were the "walks"—that was, the districts—larger, but the work itself was much heavier, so far as carriage was concerned, in Leeds than
1658
in town. The wages of the rural and metropolitan postmen ought to be equalized.
MR. HANKEYasked how low in the scale of Post Office employés was the system of Civil Service examination to be carried? He had heard that the auditor in some instances refused to pass the salaries of postmen because they had not passed a Civil Service examination.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid, he had heard of a case in which a useful public servant was not allowed to leave letters at the doors of his native village, because he could not give the latitude and longitude of Timbuctoo.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, that the salaries of the rural postmen were really supplemented by the charity of those at whose houses they delivered letters, which he considered unbecoming the public service.
MR. LOPESsaid, that no private gentleman would think of treating a servant so shabbily in the matter of clothes as the postmen were treated by the Government in regard to their uniforms.
MR. C. C. CLIFFORDsaid, he had once taken some trouble in recommending a postal letter-carrier, who passed a splendid examination, but was rejected because he was an inch below the proper height. They all remembered, the Dowager Countess who advertised for "two footmen, six feet high; character no object;" but it was new to him to find that it was necessary to have the proportions of a Life Guardsman in order to deliver letters, and he had never since taken any trouble to provide the Post Office with letter-carriers.
SIR JOSEPH BAILEYcontended that it was the duty of the Postmaster General to get the public service performed as cheaply as possible, consistently with efficiency. He, therefore, hoped that the noble Lord would not be led away by what had been said, to pay wages above the ordinary market price.
MR. DILLWYNadmitted that the postmen were miserably paid, and should be glad to see their salaries raised. He, therefore, hoped that as the Estimate under consideration was considerably increased, the letter-carriers would have the benefit of the proposed additional Vote as well as the heads of Departments. At the same time he agreed with

1659
the hon. Baronet that the matter must be left in the hands of the Government, and that the proper business of the House of Commons was to endeavour to reduce the expenditure, and not to urge the Government to increase it.
MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, no doubt, they were there to get the worth of their money for the whole community; but he took the liberty of saying to the right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General, that the House of Commons' would not be doing its duty, unless it endeavoured to see that public servants were properly paid for the work they performed, and that there could be no worse economy than that of following the market price. That was not the test applied to political officers or to professional duty, nor was it one that a wise and great Government should apply to any service in public life. The Post Office was the most prosperous of their public establishments. It netted large profits, and could afford to be just and generous, but there was neither justice, generosity, nor wisdom in taking as a test the standard of market labour. He protested against the imputation, that in advocating the rights of humble men they were actuated by sordid motives.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that since he had been appointed to the office of Postmaster General his attention had been directed to this subject, and he had submitted to the Treasury a revised scheme for London, which was now under consideration, and he hoped it would receive favourable attention. With respect to several of the larger towns, his Predecessor had informed the Committee that during his tenure of office, the establishment had been increased. If Leeds had not been included, it certainly would be, but it was impossible for all the larger towns to be considered simultaneously. A revised scheme for Edinburgh was under the consideration of the Treasury at the present moment. The Dublin establishment was being revised—not by the Commission on the Civil Service, but at its almost unanimous wish, by the Department in conjnuction with the Treasury. With regard to the country, they could not lay down one general scheme; each case must be taken by itself. Of course, the Committee would, not expect one in his position to take what some would call
1660
a generous and extravagant view. They must be guided by mixed considerations. They were not to screw down the wages of these valuable and trustworthy servants to the lowest possible point. Nor, on the other hand, should they allow themselves to be led away by a cheap philanthropy to offer wages out of character with the work which the letter-carriers had to perform. They would be guided by combined motives and endeavour to meet the views of those, on the one hand, who thought the time was come when, in consideration of the increased price of provisions and rents, the wages of this meritorious class of public servants ought to be revised, and of those, on the other, who thought it was neither the duty of the House of Commons nor of the Government to sanction largely increased wages with a view of obtaining for themselves a cheap popularity. With regard to the Civil Service competitive examinations—as to which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) had asked a question—he was now in communication upon that subject with the Treasury. He thought that system had, like some other hobbies, been rather hard-ridden. He should be very glad if the authorities of the Treasury confirmed that view, and if they could, in respect to the humbler offices, at any rate, adopt some less pretentious, but, perhaps, sounder and better system in future. The increase of the Vote was explained by the fact that there was an increase in it for salaries of postmasters, sub-postmasters, receivers, clerks, and letter-carriers, of £44,000 for England; for Ireland, £4,000, and for Scotland £11,959. He had not had the clothing of the rural carriers under consideration, but had authorized an improved kind of cloth for the London letter-carriers.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £832,662, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Post Office Packet Service; no part of which sum is to be applicable or applied in or towards making any payment in respect of any period subsequent to the 20th day of June 1863, to Mr. Joseph George Churchward, or to any person claiming through or under him by virtue of a certain Contract, hearing date the 26th day of April

1661
1859, made between the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Admiralty (for and on behalf of Her Majesty) of the first part, and the said Joseph George Churchward of the second part, or in or towards the satisfaction of any claim whatsoever of the said Joseph George Churchward, by virtue of that Contract, so far as relates to any period subsequent to the 20th day of June 1863."
MR. DIXONsaid, he would move that a reduction of £122 10 s. should be made in the Vote of £490 for the conveyance of mails to St. Kitts, Nevis, and Montserrat. He took that course, because the company who carried the Royal Mails had not properly fulfilled the contract.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £490, for conveyance of the Mails to St. Kitts, Nevis, and Montserrat, be reduced by the sum of £122 10 s."—(Mr. Dixon.)
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, no representation on the subject had been made to the Post Office. If the hon. Member would put his complaint into writing, the matter should be inquired into.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £778,339, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
MR. DILLWYNsaid, they were asked to Vote £938,339 for the Post Office Telegraph Service, which was a very considerable increase in the Vote. From a foot-note, it appeared that the Estimate, like that of 1873–4, had not been submitted to examination, and yet the Treasury asked the Committee to agree to it. He hoped the House would not grant the Vote in the absence of a thorough examination of the matter, and would move that it be reduced by a sum of £80,339.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £698,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the delay as well as the increase in the Vote were explained by the compensation clauses of railway companies, which were still the subject of arbitration. He had no doubt the Treasury had examined these matters; and he had no doubt that the sum asked for was a very moderate one. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote, for the reasons he had stated.
SIR EDWARD WATKINthought the explanation irrelevant to the Vote, which was for the salaries and expenses of the Department. He should suggest to his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment to a division; but to move that the Chairman report Progress, which would gain time and opportunity for them to examine the Estimate.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend that that would be the bettor course, and he begged therefore to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No!"]
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Treasury had considered the Vote, and he therefore came now to the House of Commons to ask that it be agreed to. The present Government inherited a legacy from their Predecessors, and had not had sufficient time to make a comprehensive examination into the system.
MAJOR PAGETthought they should have some explanation on the subject from the Government.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERdrew attention to a foot-note in the Estimates, to the effect that the Estimate had not been received in time to be examined.
MR. DENISONobserved that this Vote was for working expenses only, and had nothing to do with telegraphic extenstions.
MR. W. H. SMITHexplained that the Estimate was sent in to the Treasury on the 10th of March, and as it was necessary that it should be laid before the House before the close of the financial year, the foot-note to which reference had been made was appended. The Estimate had, however, since that time been subjected to severe scrutiny, and was found to be, on the whole, satisfactory to the Treasury. The increase of cost was owing to increase of establishments, and the increase of establishments was due to increase of business.
MR. WHITWELLhoped that the noble Lord would take steps to ensure to the public receipts for the telegrams

1663
they sent; and would suggest that manifold copies stamped should be taken.
MR. MACGREGORsaid, no hon. Member of the House sent off more telegrams than he did, and he had not had a single instance, since the telegraphs came into the hands of the Post Office, of any mistake, nor had he been put to the slightest inconvenience. He should be sorry to revert to the old system, under which people were kept waiting for a receipt, and were liable to be knocked up at 2 o'clock in the morning because a telegraph messenger wanted a receipt.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

JURIES BILL— [BILL 18.]
(Mr. Lopes, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Goldney.)
JURIES BILL— [BILL 18.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd June.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 94 (Juries de ventre inspiciendo abolished). The clause abolishes the ancient form of "empannelling a jury of matrons" in pleas of pregnancy:—Agreed to.
  Clause 95 ("Good" juries abolished) agreed to.
  Clause 96 (Act not to affect grand juries or coroners' juries) agreed to.
  Clause 97 (Saving of challenge to the array) agreed to.
  Clause 98 (Penalty for bribery of Sheriff, &c). The clause declares it to be a misdemeanour, punishable by fine at the discretion of the Court, for a Sheriff, Under Sheriff, &c, directly or indirectly, to take or receive any money or reward, or any promise of or contract for money or reward, for excusing, or under pretence of excusing, any man from being summoned to serve, or from serving on any jury:—Agreed to.
  Clause 99 (Penalty on Sheriffs for neglect of duty). The clause inflicts a penalty of £50 on any Sheriff for summoning, or neglecting to summon any juror out of his proper turn, or who shall neglect any of the duties prescribed by this Act:—Agreed to.
  Clause 100 (Punishment of embracers and corrupt jurors). The clause provides that every person who is guilty of the offence of embracery, and every juror who wilfully or corruptly consents thereto, may be proceeded against and punished by fine and imprisonment, as before the County Juries' Act, 1825:—Agreed to.
  Clause 101 (Interpretation Clause) agreed to.
  Clause 102 (Repeal of Acts in Schedule) agreed to.
  Clause 103 (Judges to make General Orders) agreed to.
  Clause 104 (Short title of Act)—namely, "The Juries' Act, 1874," agreed to.
  Clause 105 (Act when to come into operation). The clause proposed to provide that the Act shall come into operation on the day of November, 1874.
  MR. LOPESmoved an Amendment, that the Act come into operation on the first day of January, 1875.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. GOLDNEY, the following new clause was agreed to, and added to the Bill, after Clause 26:—
  (Justices clerks' fees.)
  "The fees to be paid to and taken by the clerks to the justices in petty sessions for the several matters in relation to this Act, shall he settled, appointed, and regulated by the justices of the peace at their quarter sessions for the several counties, ridings, and divisions in England and Wales, and be certified as proper by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State, in accordance with the provisions for regulating the payment of clerks' fees contained in the Act of eleven and twelve of Victoria, chapter forty-three, and the amount of such fees shall be paid by the overseers of the several parishes, and be included by them in their account of expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of this Act: Provided always, That until such fees shall be settled and certified, the clerk or clerks shall be entitled to receive of and be paid by the respective overseers such fees for and in respect of the matters aforesaid as the justices in petty sessions shall certify and allow."
  New Clause (Payment of clerks of the peace not paid by salary)—(Mr. Lopes),—postponed.
  On the Motion of Mr. GOLDNEY, the following new clause was agreed to, and added to the Bill, after Clause 45:—
  (Payment of Secondary.)
  "The Secondary shall be paid such a sum by way of remuneration for his labour in the pre-

  1665
  paration of the Jury List by him as the Court of Common Council shall consider to be proper, such amount to be apportioned amongst the different parishes in the city as under the fifty fifth section of the Act of the sixth and seventh years of Victoria, chapter eighteen, and paid accordingly."
  On the Motion of Mr. HOPWOOD, the following new clause was agreed to, and added to the Bill, after Clause 75:—
  (Adjournment to enable jurors to view places.)
  "On the trial of any indictment or information the court or judge may order that the jurors sworn to try the case shall have a view of anyplace or property within the jurisdiction of the court, in order the better to understand the evidence, and may for that purpose adjourn the trial, and may allow the cost occasioned thereby as costs of the prosecution in all trials for felony or misdemeanour where the court or a judge has power by law to allow the costs of the prosecution."
  MR. LOPES MR. LOPES moved, after Clause 94, to insert the following clause:—
  (Power for court to direct inquiry by medical men.)
  "In cases where after the passing of this Act a female upon a capital conviction alleges, or the court has otherwise reason to suppose that she is pregnant, the court shall direct that one or more medical men be sworn to inquire whether she be with child of a quick child, and if after due inquiry he or they shall report that she is with child of a quick child, the court shall stay execution of the sentence until such female be delivered of a child, or until it is no longer possible in the course of nature that she shall be so delivered."
  New Clause (Power for court to direct inquiry by medical men,)—(Mr. Lopes,) brought up, and read the first and second time.
  Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 26: Majority 45.
  First Schedule (Forms).
  On the Motion of Mr. J. G. TALBOT, Amendment made in line 12, by leaving out "also a true," to "form," inclusive, and inserting, "such list shall also contain."
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule (Acts repealed) agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, before the House resumed, he wished to call the attention of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. Lopes) to the fact that there was a strong feeling that the limit of £500 a-year as
  1666
  the qualification of special jurymen was too high.
  MR. LOPESsaid, before the third reading he would reconsider the point.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 149]; re-committed for Monday next.

  COLONIAL CLERGY BILL.
  Select Committee nominated:—Mr. JAMES LOWTHER, Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Mr. MONK, Mr. ARTHUR MILLS, Mr. BRISTOWE, Mr. MOWBRAY, Mr. WHITWELL, Sir JOHN KENNAWAY, Mr. DUNDAS, and Mr. J. G. TALBOT:—Five to be the quorum.

  SLAUGHTERHOUSES, &C. BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate and otherwise deal with Slaughterhouses and certain other businesses in the Metropolis.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 150.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (No. 111).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Militia Law Amendment* (110).
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision (77).
Committee—Public Worship Regulation* (96); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (37).
Committee—Report—Magistrates (Ireland) and Commissioners of Dublin Police Salaries* (86).
Report—Church Patronage (Scotland) (95–113).
Third Reading—India Councils* (79); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (52), and passed.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

  (NO. 77.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would take the present opportunity of asking their Lordships' attention for a few moments to the progress that had been made in

  1567
  the revision of the Statute Law of this Kingdom, and, as incidentally connected with it, to the question of the codification of the unwritten law. In 1868, when he had the honour of holding the office which he now filled, a Commission was appointed to publish a revised edition of the Statutes of the Kingdom down to that year. The public were under an obligation to the gentlemen who had undertaken that somewhat laborious task for the way in which they had been discharging it since the day of their appointment. Down to the present time five volumes of that revised edition of the Statutes had been published. They included the Statutes down to the year 1824. The revision proceeded on the principle that only the Statutes now in force should be published in the revised edition; but, in order that there might be no mistake as to what Statutes remained in force after the publication of this edition, there was published pari passu with it a series of Acts repealing the Statutes which had been spent, or had become obsolete. Their Lordships would see that they had not merely the word of the Revisers as a security that the Statutes included in the volumes were the only ones on the Statute Book up to the date of those volumes; but the spent and obsolete Acts were actually repealed, and lists of the repealed Acts were published at the same time as the revised Statutes. In illustration of the extent to which the revision had already been accomplished, he would state that the five volumes of Statutes already printed had superseded 43 volumes of the 8vo., or 26½ volumes of the 4 to. editions of the Statutes. With the Statutes would be published a chronological table and a complete Index of the Statute Law. The first edition was down to 1870, and the second to 1872. He now asked their Lordships for a second reading of the Statute Law Revision Bill of this year, by which it was proposed to repeal all Acts that had become spent or obsolete down to 1837 and had not yet been repealed. The sixth volume of the Revised Statutes would bring down that work from 1824 to 1837, and the expurgation would be continued from 1837 to 1868. As the Revisers got into more modern times they did not get rid of so many Statutes, and to bring the work down to 1868 nine or ten volumes more would be required. It
  1568
  was proposed that the Index should be kept up as an Annual Index, so that anyone who purchased it could have an Index of the whole of the Statute Law down to the end of the last Session of Parliament. It had become of importance now, when we were dealing with the subject as a whole, that there should be a consolidation of the Statutes of the present Reign, and it was proposed that next Session a Bill should be brought in for that purpose. With such a consolidation and the revision now being effected, the country would possess a perfect edition of the Statute Law down to 1868, in about 15 volumes. There would remain, however, a work of difficulty and importance—the codification of the unwritten laws. On this subject various proposals had been made. He thought that a great deal of the difficulty had arisen from endeavours to embrace in the codification the Statute Law as well as the unwritten Law. In his opinion a codification of the Statute Law would be almost impossible. What we wanted was an expression of the unwritten or Common Law. He hoped, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, at the beginning of next Session, to make a proposal for such a codification. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(Nos. 96–13.)
(The Lord President.)
CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(Nos. 96–13.)

  REPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that in pursuance of the understanding he had come to on a previous occasion with his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) as to the constitution of the elective body, he now proposed, in Clause 3, page 2, fine 7, after ("communicants") to insert ("and others aforesaid") and in Clause 7, after the word ("communicants") to insert ("and other members of the congregation qualified in terms of

  1569
  this Act,") and at the end of the clause to add this Proviso—
  "Provided always that if any communicants or other members of the congregation of a vacant church and parish, qualified in terms of this Act, shall apply to the presbytery of the bounds, and shall state that the number of communicants and other members of the congregation of such church and parish, qualified as aforesaid, is less than 25, it shall be lawful for the said presbytery, if they see fit, to make an appointment tanquam jure devoluto on the expiration of three months after the vacancy has occurred."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 113.)

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL. (No. 62.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
Committee (on Re-commitment).
House again in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, who had given Notice of new Clause to follow Clause 22:—
"And whereas with regard to the following acts relating to public worship in the Church of England, namely,

1. The side of the table at which the minister ought to stand during the prayer of consecration in the Communion Service;

2. The use of the words of administration of the Holy Communion otherwise than separately to each communicant;

3. The use of hymns during divine service;

4. The celebration of Holy Communion during the time of evening service;

5. The preaching of sermons otherwise than as a part of the Communion Service;

6. The daily use of the Morning and Evening Service;

7. The use of the Commination Service,

doubts have been entertained as to the construction of the rubrics applicable to some of such matters, and it is not desirable that the clergy and laity of the said church should be disquieted by litigation as to any of such matters, be it enacted, that no proceedings shall be taken under the provisions of this Act on account of such matters, or any of them; provided that as regards hymns the hymns used shall not have been prohibited by the ordinary, and shall not be used at a time prohibited by the ordinary; and that as regards daily Morning and Evening Service this enactment shall not apply in any case in which the ordinary shall have directed daily service to be used in any particular church,"
said, he wished, before stating to their Lordships the course he intended to take with regard to the Amendment standing in his name, to say a few words as to the precise scope of that Amend-
1570
ment, and what were the real objects he had in view when he gave Notice of it:—because it appeared to him a considerable amount of misapprehension as to that scope and as to his object prevailed not only out-of-doors, but, as he ventured to think, in that House. He did not think that arose from any want of clearness in the terms of the Amendment, because they were very precise, nor from anything in the masterly and statesmanlike speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on going into Committee, in which he had stated the exact aim and precise limits of his proposition. The scope of the Amendment was this—that, as regarded certain transgressions of the rubrics, no proceedings should be taken "under the provisions of this Act" against any clergyman who should have been guilty of those transgressions. His Amendment was strictly limited to "proceedings under this Act." His object was this. It appeared to him that under the provisions of this Bill as originally proposed, there might be a considerable amount of unnecessary and merely vexatious litigation; and in order to prevent clergymen from being disquieted for practices which they had observed in laxer times, he was anxious that the sharper powers of this Act should not be put in force against such clergymen by spiteful persons. He did not propose that no penalties whatever should attach to those who transgressed the rubrics. He did not propose that, because it appeared to him that if a statute of the Imperial Parliament provided that no penalty should attach to the transgression of a certain rubric that statute would completely repeal the Act of Uniformity, so far as regarded that rubric, and if a statute might do away with the coercive jurisdiction of the Church as regarded one rubric, it might do away with it in the case of all the rubrics; and thus Parliament by an Act repealing all penalties for breaches of the Prayer-book might set aside the use of the Prayer-book altogether. What he proposed was this—that when the Bishops of the Church, who were responsible for the observances of the rubrics, said they had not power to enforce the law, and applied for a more summary process, infraction of certain rules, rubrics, and canons was not to be dealt with under this pro-

1571
cess. He did not propose to legalize any breach of rule, rubric, or canon. The effect of his Amendment would be, as regarded the matters specified in his Amendment, to leave every clergyman guilty of an infraction in exactly the same position as that which he would have occupied if this Bill had not passed. He had been accused of the wicked sin of legalizing what the Church did not legalize, and he had been warned that a consequence of his sin might be the secession of members from the Church. The fact was his Amendment would not legalize anything; but it would prevent persons from carrying on a war of reprisals for transgressions of rubrics which had occurred in the interregnum of a laxer administration of the law. The difference between proceedings under the ordinary Ecclesiastical Law and proceedings under the Bill as it was when introduced would have been similar to that between ordinary process and summary jurisdiction in civil law. He had now to consider whether he would proceed with this Amendment or not. The first consideration was that the Bill was now by no means the same Bill as when he gave Notice of his Amendment. Their Lordships had declined to create a number of small Diocesan Courts, in which there would have been a cheap and speedy, if not perhaps a perfect, administration of justice. Instead of such tribunals, there was to be one great Court, and one Judge. Then, the Bishops were to have a discretionary power; and there was to be a wholesome sedative to vindictive proceedings in the shape of security for costs. All these things lessened to a great degree the necessity for his Amendment—in fact, the same necessity for the Amendment no longer existed. Again, he had been favoured with a great many communications from all parts of the country on the subject of his Amendment, which had given rise to an excitement he had little expected. He found from these communications that there was a very general concurrence of opinion in favour of Excipienda; but when he came to the question of what should be the Excipienda he found no such concurrence. Each clergyman wished that there should be Excipienda in favour of the practices in which he himself indulged, but that there should be none for those of his neighbour.
1572
Everyone was equally anxious to be himself excepted from prosecution, and equally jealous of the power of prosecuting his neighbour. While all were for peace and a neutral ground, none were agreed as to what should be the terms of peace and what should be the neutral ground. This being so, and considering the alterations made in the Bill, the Amendment did not appear to be now necessary. If a clergyman said—"I will be prosecuted, and no one shall interfere to prevent a prosecution against me," he was unwilling to step in to save him. Another reason had operated to induce him to withdraw the Amendment. It was that he found his list of Excipienda much extended by Notices given by noble Lords, and he began to fear that it might be made much longer in the other House. One noble Earl had given Notice of an Amendment to include the use of the Athanasian Creed—a proposition which would have had his strenuous opposition. Another noble Lord desired to have the Service for the Visitation of the Sick included, though that Service formed no part of the Public Worship of the Church. This Bill applied only to acts done in churches and churchyards, and he had never heard of the Service for the Visitation of the Sick being recited in either. He shrank from making the subjects of some of these Amendments topics of discussion in that House; but he trembled at thinking that they might become the topics of discussion in a House in which expressions might be much less guarded, and many of the Members of which were less well-affected towards the Church than were most of their Lordships. Then the question of time had its influence with him. At first he was in favour of postponing legislation on the whole matter; but the passion and panic existing at this moment had entirely changed his opinion on that point. From what he saw of the tempers which had been already elicited by this Bill, he confessed he did not think it would be safe or wise to wait for a year longer and run the risk of violent meetings and counter-meetings and demonstrations and counter-demonstrations in the meantime. Whoever would take such a responsibility upon him, he for one dared not do it. Even in the interest of that revision of the rubrics, which he hoped would soon come about, he was anxious to see the Bill passed this Session.

1573
Having now stated his reasons, he hoped that noble Lords who had been very severe on the indiscretion of Bishops would be of opinion that he was not making an unwise use of episcopal discretion when he declined to move the Amendment.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that he did not question the discretion of the right rev. Prelate in withdrawing his Amendment, but he thought he should have given earlier Notice of his intention. Such Notice might have been conveniently given on Friday last, instead of which many noble Lords had come to the House this evening under the belief that the Motion, as it stood on the Paper, would come on for discussion. As the right rev. Prelate had given up his Amendment, the one of which he (Earl Stanhope) had given Notice would fall to the ground. His Amendment, it would be remembered, referred to the Athanasian Creed, which he (Earl Stanhope) desired to include in the list of cases, respecting the disuse of which no further controversy was to be raised. He retained his opinion that the compulsory use of that Creed in the public services was injurious to the best interests of the Church, and kept aloof from its pale many who might otherwise be anxious to enter it. Such being his view, he desired now to state that he should certainly bring on his Amendment in case the right rev. Prelate, or any other of their Lordships, should renew the Motion which had been announced for this evening.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthought the right rev. Prelate had adopted a judicious course. His Amendment would have placed the Bill in the greatest possible danger. He now hoped that the Bill would go down to the other House and become law this Session.
EARL GREYmoved, after Clause 22, to insert the following clause—
"The following rules shall he in force with respect to the introduction of changes in the mode of performing Divine Service in churches:

"(a.) The incumbent shall make no change in the mode of performing Divine Service actually in use in any church till after he shall have given one month's public notice of his intention of doing so.

"(b.) If within one month after such notice shall have been given any of the parishioners shall present a memorial to the bishop of the diocese against the proposed change, it shall not be carried into effect until the bishop shall have had an opportunity of considering the subject.

1574

"(c.) If the bishop shall be satisfied that the objections urged against the proposed change are reasonable, he shall have power at any time within two months of the memorial being presented to him to issue a monition to the incumbent prohibiting him from carrying such change into effect.

"(d.) If any incumbent shall, without giving the required notice, change the mode of conducting Divine Service in use in his church, the bishop shall have power, on complaint being made to him by any of the parishioners, to issue a monition to such incumbent, warning him to revert to the mode of conducting the service in use before the alterations complained of.

"(e.) The bishop shall have power to enforce monitions under this clause by the same means as are provided by this Act for the enforcement of other monitions."

On Question? Resolved in the negative.
Clause 23 (Limitation of proceedings against incumbents) amended and agreed to.
Clause 24 (Archbishops shall frame rules, orders, &c.) struck out.
Clause 25 (Places exempt from the operation of Act.) The clause proposed to except from the operation of the Act, the chapels of the colleges and halls in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham; the University church of any of the said Universities when used by such University; and the chapels of the Colleges of Westminster, Winchester, and Eton.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHmoved an. Amendment, in line 41, to insert after "Eton"—
("Any private chapel, free chapel, or proprietary chapel.
"Any chapel coming under the provisions of section 31 of "The Public Schools Act, 1868," and section 53 of "The Endowed Schools Act, 1869."
"Any chapel coming under the provisions of "The Private Chapels Act, 1871."")
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDpointed out that there was a great difference between private chapels and proprietary chapels. The latter were under the Bishop, but his noble Friend might put up any ornaments he pleased in his private chapel; no one would have any authority in the matter. The noble Marquess' exception was therefore entirely unnecessary.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKbelieved the noble Duke had correctly stated the law, and that the service in a private chapel being for the use of the household, the Bishop had no authority over it. It was otherwise, however, with regard to proprietary chapels. The Act of 1871

1575
had been purposely so drawn as to enable private chapels to be used as public places of worship under certain restrictions, and he objected to their being excepted.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that they had in framing this Bill followed the Act of Uniformity as closely as possible. The act of consecration did not of itself make a place public for the public worship of the people. Proprietary chapels came under that Act because they were places of public worship.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his recollection was that the chapel of the College of Westminster was mentioned in the Act of Uniformity, and he therefore doubted whether the provisions of this Bill would not apply to it. If the most rev. Prelate would say that the Bill should apply only to places of worship connected with the cure of souls, a distinct principle would be laid down which all could understand. The grievance which the Bill was intended to remedy would arise only in presence of a congregation who had no other place of worship to go to, and whose feelings would therefore be injured by the acts objected to. If this was not so—if Westminster Abbey was excluded from the Bill—he should like to know why Westminster should have an exemption which was not to be extended to St. Paul's? Was the Dean to be left to do anything he pleased—to read the Athanasian Creed, or not to read it at his pleasure?
LORD SELBORNEwished to know whether it was really intended that Westminster Abbey should be excepted from the Bill?
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, there was no intention whatever to except Westminster Abbey from the operation of the Bill, although it might be the chapel of Westminster School. The school might at any time be separated from the Cathedral and the chapel might then be distinct from the Abbey.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether Westminster School had no other chapel than Westminster Abbey.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that having had the honour to belong to Westminster School some 40 years ago, he could answer his noble Friend that Westminster School had no other chapel. The Abbey might therefore be called the chapel of the School of Westminster.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEunderstood it was intended to keep Cathedrals out of the Bill altogether—he should vote for that exclusion with his whole heart and soul.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that on referring to the Act of Uniformity, he found that the chapel of the College of Westminster was mentioned in it.
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNwould move that the chapel of the College of Westminster be excluded.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKproposed that the clause be postponed till the Report.
On Question, Whether the clause stand part of the Bill? Resolved in the Negative.
Clause 6 (Interpretation of terms.)
Amendments moved; some agreed to; others disagreed to.
Page 3, lines 3–5, moved to leave out—
("Or, if not resident as aforesaid, is owner or tenant of lands or tenements in the said parish.")—(The Earl Nelson.)
On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 23. Majority, 44.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
New clause added (Rules for settling fees under this Act.)
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 96.)

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

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that as he was not present on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, he wished to express his grave doubt as to whether the remedial measure proposed by the Government would effect its purpose. It was true that the original estimates of public works had occasionally been exceeded, but the revised estimates were the proper ones to consult. He complained that the Return obtained by the Government of the increase of ex-

  1577
  penditure over estimates for public works did not show the whole of the case. He was of opinion that the appointment of a public officer as Chief Engineer would not be advisable.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYconsidered that the measure was one which would tend to economize the money granted for public works in India, for not only had many barracks in India been built on insalubrious sites, but also, after a very large expenditure had been incurred, the construction had proved to be so faulty and defective that in several cases it had been necessary to repeat this expenditure. Such occurrences would be prevented by the proposed appointment of a responsible head of the Public Works.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYunderstood his noble Friend to say that, in his judgment, there was no great evil to be dealt with, and that if there was, this was not the proper remedy. He was prepared to dispute both those propositions. His noble Friend had gone into the history of the appointment of the Finance and Legislative Members of Council, and proved, he hoped to the satisfaction of their Lordships, that before their appointment a very unsatisfactory state of things existed, and that after their appointment that state of things ceased. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) was prepared to show that there was now an unsatisfactory state of expenditure on Public Works, and it seemed a fair presumption that a similar effect would follow from similar causes. His noble Friend seemed very much to doubt whether the Returns laid on the Table were a fair exposition of the short-comings of the Department of Public Works. He did not dwell upon this topic when he last addressed their Lordships—it was not a pleasant subject to speak on. Those Public Works officers were men of very high ability; they did their work to the best of their power; and when they went wrong, his belief was that it was the system that was to blame, and not they. The criticism the noble Lord had passed on the formidable list of excesses would hardly bear examination. He said that what we ought to look at was the revised estimate, and if it was not exceeded no harm was done. But, what was a revised estimate? A work was begun on an original estimate, which might be very moderate; it went on for years exceeding the cost of the
  1578
  innocent original estimate; and at last when the Secretary of State called for a revised estimate, it was found to exceed the original estimate five or six times. A certain work bearing an honoured name furnished an illustration of this——it was the Ootacamund Lawrence Asylum; and Lord Mayo's Government had given a graphic account of what had happened in the case of that work. The original estimate was £18,000; the revised estimate was £112,000; and the work was not finished then. The actual cost to the end of 1872–71 was £88,455—an excess of £70,440 over the original estimate. The revised estimate on which his noble Friend relied was not produced until a great deal more than the original estimate had been expended. In fact, a revised estimate was a confession that the original estimate had been exceeded. The Duke of Argyll, writing on the 18th of December, 1872, in reference to the expenditure on a tank near Madras, of which the engineer was Mr. Fraser, said:—
  "It is apparently not so much himself as the system that was to be blamed. But if so, no condemnation can he too severe for a system, according to the ordinary routine of which it is possible for a project to be submitted with all the parade of detailed elaboration and of no less than 23 sheets of plans, for an expenditure thereon of 3½ lacs to be authorised on the assumption that the annnul return would be at least 9, and might be 20 per cent. and for the project to he, after an interval of three or four years, abandoned on account of its containing inherent defects that would inevitably cause the result of its continued prosecution to be, instead of high profit, heavy loss; yet not abandoned without more than £11,000 being-expended subsequently to the detection of the glaring and fatal defects. For that this is no exceptional case is clear from the fact of my having, within the last few months, found myself called upon to animadvert on similar heedlessness in the preparation of irrigation projects, in three several instances—those of the Moota Valley, the Madras Water Supply, and the Orissa Works, with regard to each of "which confident promises of signal financial success were at first held out, and of which one has already proved, and the other two threaten to prove, and long to continue, signal financial failures. There must plainly be something radically wrong in a system under which such results are of such frequent concurrence, and I must desire your Excellency's Government to give to the subject your immediate and most serious attention, with a view to the application of a proportionately radical remedy."
  The Duke of Argyll saw there was something radically wrong which required the application of a proportionately radical remedy. The late Lord Mayo, who had paid more atten-

  1579
  tion to Public Works in India than perhaps any other statesman had done, wrote to the Duke of Argyll on the 24th of August, 1869, and said:—
  "That you should then, early next Session, pass a short Act enabling the Secretary of State to appoint by Sign Manual 3, instead of 2, ordinary members of Council, with a view of nominating a person who would fill the office of Minister of Public Works. This step is, in my opinion, indispensable. I am now discharging with great labour the duties of the Member in Council in charge of the Public Works Department. I am very strong and can work 12 hours a day; but I have seen enough to know that the Member in charge of what is now becoming almost the most important department in the Government, ought to be able to devote his whole time and thoughts thereto—ought to have much special knowledge—and, moreover, should from time to time visit, with the Secretary to Government, the various great works in progress.'
  Independently of these high authorities it seemed reasonable that matters so technical as Public Works should be supervised by a person of special qualifications—quite as necessary as that military matters should be superintended by a man of military experience. As to the fear that the presence of an Engineer in the Governor General's Council would lead to an increase of expenditure on Public Works, the real danger of undue expenditure was not in the Council. The Financial Member would there state how much money he had to spend, the Public Works Member would be required to submit his estimate; and the Viceroy would have the absolute power to say, "You shall go thus far and no farther." The danger of extravagance was not inside but outside the Council; and the root of the danger was that there was no one person vested with responsibility and power and whose reputation was pledged to the furnishing of proper estimates and seeing that they were not exceeded. This Bill had in view a remedy for this defect—a remedy which was supported by the high authorities he had cited, and by the large excesses of expenditure which the Returns displayed. As to the supposed intrusion of the Public Works Member upon the provincial Councils, he did not fear that it would provoke jealousy. The truth was their relations with the Governor General's Council were, in diplomatic language, "somewhat strained"—especially in reference to Public Works; and his belief was that the visits of the proposed new Member would produce a better understanding in two days than
  1580
  two years' writing of elaborate despatches—especially with reference to irrigation works. The idea of interchange between the Councils of these Presidencies was a new one, which required reflection, and he therefore proposed to omit that clause from the Bill, leaving himself free to renew the proposal at a future period. With that alteration he believed the Bill would introduce order where there was now something slovenly and disorderly, and would have the effect of restraining excessive expenditure in Public Works. His noble Friend objected to diminishing the number of the Council in order to make room for the Public Works Member; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) made that proposal in deference to the suggestion of the Viceroy. As to whether the number should be afterwards increased, he should be very much guided by the wishes of the Viceroy. His noble Friend had taken some objection to his conduct in not having taken the advice of his Council in this matter. But a high authority had stated to him to-day that it would have been illegal to do so. The Council was appointed for a special duty. It was no part of that duty to supervise the action of the Secretary of State in Parliament, and he did not think it would be a constitutional improvement to give them that position. The Members of the Council were not only a check on the Secretary of State, but in the administration of the Office were a great assistance to him. When any one of his Colleagues in the Cabinet was about to introduce a Bill, he would naturally consult his Under Secretary, but would not tell what the opinions of his Under Secretary were. It was the business of the Minister to introduce a Bill on his own responsibility, having taken in his own Office such advice as he might have thought fit; but it was not his business to tell their Lordships whom or how many he had consulted. He should have violated a salutary rule if he were to throw on others a responsibility which he should have taken on himself.
  LORD LAWRENCEwas understood to say that as he had been a member of the Council in India, and had been for 40 years well acquainted with the working of the Public Works Department in India, during 25 years of which he had had peculiar facilities for observation, he could not allow the Bill to pass without making a few remarks upon

  1581
  it. It struck him that as regarded the Return which had been laid on the Table of the House, there was something more to be said in favour of the Public Works officers than had been stated to the House. He did not think that many of the officers who had made the estimates referred to, were so much to blame as the noble Marquess seemed to think. He did not deny that the works had occasionally turned out to cost very much more than the original estimates. The Returns for 10 years from 1862–3 to 1872–3 were not a fair criterion of the cost of the works within those years. The estimates for the works mentioned in the Return between 1862–3 and 1872–3 could not be considered as a fair result for those works unless all the other works which had been constructed during those years were brought into consideration. It should be remembered that public works were often commenced in India under the greatest emergency, and that therefore the estimates were not sufficiently elaborated. Then he thought it would be found on examination that the great excess was in respect of the early irrigation works, when the engineers were not so well acquainted with the principles of hydraulics when applied to that description of works in India. It was impossible, in framing estimates, to take into account the dangers from accidents which often subsequently occurred through the overflow of rivers and the rush of waters from the mountains, which washed away bridges, embankments, and other works in a few hours. He mentioned these things to show that it was at times impossible to make original estimates which would prove reliable. These accidents did not occur through any fault of the present system. There was also also a great and peculiar work to be done during a period of years succeeding the Mutiny, and a number of the officers employed had had no special training for the work with which they were entrusted; and therefore it was no wonder that some of those works cost considerably more than the original estimates. Notwithstanding that, however, many of the works were well executed; and in other cases the officers learnt by experience. From the Returns for 1871–72 it appeared that, taking all the public works together, their cost had exceeded 3 per cent the original estimates. He thought that this was a very
  1582
  fair result. He admitted that there had been some grave mistakes made which required consideration; but he contended that the best way to remedy such errors would be to exact greater responsibility from the officers who committed them. If that were done, he believed very few errors would be committed. He desired to point out that the civil Members of the Council of the Governor General had been reduced by two. It was now proposed to have seven Members of that Council, and he feared that an increase of an additional Member would make the Council difficult to work and to control. Still, he preferred an addition to the Council rather than a reduction of one of the civil Members. He, however, believed that in the long run the engineer Member of the Council would make his influence unduly felt, and that there would be a greater expenditure on public works. It would be vain, he feared, to resist the Bill, but he hoped that its passing would be suspended until the India Office had received from the Governor General and his Council their opinion upon the subject.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNventured to confirm all that his noble Friend, the noble Marquess, had said in favour, not only of the advantage, but the necessity of efficient supervision of the Public Works Department in India. He spoke under the influence of five years' experience as Commander-in-Chief in India and as a Member of the Council of India. On the other hand, he quite agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) that it would be wise to add another Member, rather than to displace one. The labours of the Council were so great that it could not afford to lose one of its present Members.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, 'till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.