Sitting of 25 May 1875

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Fuller Maitland, esquire, for County of Brecknock.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Industrial Savings Banks * [185]; Compensation for Accidents to Workmen [186]; Drugging of Animals * [184].
Committee—Public Health (re-comm.) [157]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Post Office * [180]; Glebe Loan (Ireland) * [176]; Intestates Widows and Children Act Extension * [132].
Considered as amended—Military Manœuvres * [166]; Parliamentary Elections Returning Officers [32].
Third Reading—Public Stores * [159]; Railway Companies * [152]; Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) * [79], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—MILITARY PRISONERS—CASE OF GUNNER CHARLTON.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for War, If any re-port has been made to him of the case of Gunner Henry George Charlton, of the Royal Horse Artillery, stationed at Topsham Barracks, Exeter; and if that report justifies the belief that Gunner
866
Charlton having been sent to Millbank Prison after sentence of a court martial for insubordination, was placed in a dark cell at that prison, was frost bitten, and is now a cripple and permanently incapacited for future military service; and, whether on his return to barracks a statement from Gunner Charlton was not taken down in the belief that he was in a dying state, and if a copy of that statement has been placed in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman; and, if so, at what date and by whom, and in whose presence was it taken down; and, also, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Charlton has been in the service eleven years, and that up to November last he has been entitled to wear four good-conduct stripes?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply said, that until this morning he was not cognizant of any of the facts connected with this very painful case. He wished for further information on the subject, and he would obliged if the hon. Member would repeat his Question on Monday next.

INDIA—BARODA.—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. SULLIVAN,
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the great bulk of the Papers on Baroda would be laid on the Table in about a fortnight; but he could not give a positive answer as to the evidence taken before the Commission.

NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN IRELAND—IRISH CHURCH ACT, SECTION 25.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRYANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he could explain to the House why the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland have omitted from the list of national monuments, under the twenty-fifth section of the Irish Church Act, the ruins of Glendalough in county Wicklow?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that this misunderstanding had arisen from the circumstance of the ruins having been mentioned in the Schedule as the Seven Churches, and not described as the ruins of Glendalough.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE DERBY DAT.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYmoved, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday next."
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House, as well as myself, must be very much disappointed by the non-appearance in his place of the Prime Minister. I hope he is not kept away by indisposition; because if he had been here I should have hoped to have heard from him some reason why he calls on the House on this occasion to take a holiday. But, as he is unfortunately not present, I must endeavour to give my reasons for thinking that the House had better not take a holiday on the present occasion. I remember, Sir, some time ago, that when we on this side of the House were in office—in those happy days—there were three Gentlemen in this House—namely, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Lowther), the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and another Gentleman, the late Mr. Thomas Collins. [Laughter.] Well, Sir, I think I am perfectly in order in styling him in that manner, for in a Parliamentary sense, at all events, he is defunct. These three Gentlemen formed a combination in this House, and they were always—or, at least, they were very frequently—moving the Adjournment of the House; but one of the three—I will not invidiously name him—told me that, in his opinion, the longer the House sat the more harm it did, and therefore he always moved the Adjournment of the House on principle. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend who has just now made this Motion, or the Prime Minister himself, would have adopted that argument to-day; because it is only a fortnight ago that we were informed that the Government had a great number of important Bills on the Table of the House, and that they intended to carry every one of them, if they kept the House sitting till Christmas. I took the trouble to look and see how many Bills there were brought in by the Government, and I found that there were no fewer than 70. If that be the case, this is not the time to take a holiday, with such a gloomy prospect before us. I am disposed, however, to think that the real reason why the Prime
868
Minister is in favour of this Motion is because, when Lord Palmerston first took upon himself as Leader of the House to make a similar Motion, he said he looked upon it as "part of the unwritten law of Parliament; "and we know by late occurrences that the Prime Minister has almost a fanatical reverence for the "unwritten law of Parliament." But I wish to disabuse the House of an idea entertained by some Members, who are not so well informed on sporting matters as they ought to be. I believe there are a good many in this House who imagine that the Derby and the Motion for Adjournment for the Derby form part of the British Constitution—just as much as Magna Charta, the Lord Mayor's Show, or the exclusion of Strangers from the Gallery of the House of Commons. But I will prove by-and-by that that is not so. Before doing so, however, let me clear myself from the suspicion of any wish to interfere with the innocent pleasures and amusements of Members of this House. I do not object to Members of this House going to Epsom, Ascot, and Newmarket, if they be so minded, in their individual capacity. We know that a great many honoured and respected Members of this House regularly take their holiday while the House is sitting, and go to Newmarket or Ascot; and the House is very much pleased that they should have their amusement, and they are glad to hear that the House gets on very well without them, and that Public Business suffers no impediment in their absence. But I wish to show that this is really not an old-established institution—the Adjournment for the Derby. Will the House believe it, that the Adjournment for the Derby was never moved in this House until the year 1847, about 30 years ago? It was at first continually opposed, and was carried by only small majorities. That was the case over and over again; and let me tell the House it was never moved by the recognized Leader of the Government in this House until 1860, when Lord Palmerston took upon himself to do so, on the occasion when he used the expression about the "unwritten law of Parliament." Ever since that day it has become a popular thing for Prime Ministers to move the Adjournment of the House over the Derby Day. The late Prime Minister moved it in 1872, and the reason he

869
gave for making that Motion was—and I wish the House to mark that he did not express his own opinion—that—
"The House believes horse racing to he in itself a noble, manly, distinguished, and, I may say, historically national sport."—[3 Hansard, ccxi. 794]—
and the present Prime Minister, speaking a few nights ago on a question connected with sporting, said that horse-racing was "a noble and inspiriting sport." I am not going to set myself up against sporting authorities like the late and present Prime Ministers; but I call attention to this subject as much with the object of eliciting useful information as for any other purpose; and I want somebody who is very much in favour of the Motion for Adjournment over the Derby Day, to get up and explain to me in what respect horse-racing is "a noble employment?" What is is there "noble in going down to Ep-and seeing 20 jockeys spurring 20 horses for the sake of putting money into their own pockets and those of the owners of those horses?—for the whole thing is money, and nothing but money, from beginning to end. I do not suppose that the jockeys, though they may be very good people in their way, are exactly entitled to be called the highest types of Christian heroes. I do not know even if they have the requisite British virtue and excellency which the hon. and gal-land Member for Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) would desire to see, and are quite so broad in the chest as they ought to be. But I want to know what there is that is noble in this sport more than in any other sport in which the people of this country indulge? Mr. Speaker, do not imagine that I object to holidays on proper occasions. There are plenty of opportunities for them. When, the other day, we launched one of our large ironclads, many Members went down to see that operation. Some of us might not like to go and see preparations made for the destruction of our fellow-creatures; but we are a small minority, and no doubt, that was a national object. It was paid for by national money, and was under national control; and we had a religious service conducted by the head of the national Church, who prayed that the ship might be successful in destroying his fellow-Christians in all parts of the world. But that occasion does not suffice. There is the Oxford and
870
Cambridge Boat Race. That is quite as much a national sport as a sweepstakes at the Derby, and there is something about the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race which you cannot say about Epsom and other races in this country. There is no suspicion of a "sell" in that matter. But if that does not suit you, go to the Eton and Harrow Match. We like to go down to see our boys bowling one another out there, who will spend their lives hereafter in bowling one another out in this House. I have made these remarks because I want my right hon. Friend who moved this Resolution to get up and explain what is meant by the nobility of horse-racing. As I have so little information from those who put forward this Motion, I want to go to those who do know something about horse-racing. We have all read the Greville Memoirs. The author has been much abused, poor man, now that he is dead—not because he has said a few things that are not true, but because he has said so many things that are true. Mr. Greville was one who moved in the highest circles of the racing world; racing was a passion with him, a delight, and an employment; and this is what he says about these races which we are called upon to patronize. Having come back from a racing campaign, he speaks of "the degrading nature of the occupation," and of the degradation of" mixing with the lowest of mankind." Mr. Speaker, would you wish us to mix with such characters? Mr. Greville spoke of degrading oneself in that way—
"For the sole purpose of getting money,—The conviction of the deteriorating effect on both the feelings and the understanding—all these things trouble me, and ought to turn my pleasure into pain."
Referring afterwards to Doncaster, he said he met with "all that is basest and lowest on earth." Now, I want to know whether racing has so much improved since then? Is Epsom so much better than Doncaster or Newmarket? Has the Turf improved since those days? I do not know; but I read in the papers continually about the deterioration of the Turf, and of its having become nothing but the means of gambling and dissipation. That being so, I wish my right hon. Friend opposite, whose Party came in with the laudable intention of sustaining the religion of this country,

871
to tell me how they can find it in their hearts to adjourn the House only for two hours on Ascension Day, and for 24 hours on the Derby Day? There are several Bills on the Paper for to-morrow—one dealing with imprisonment for debt, another for the amendment of the medical laws, and a number of other Bills belonging to private Members, who do not often get a chance of bringing forward their questions. Would it not be better to get rid of some of these than to go and disport ourselves at Epsom? We are not the only branch of the Legislature. In the other, there sit—and, probably, will sit for a long time—a great number of ecclesiastics. Now, can anybody fancy the Archbishop of Canterbury moving in that House, and the Archbishop of York seconding, a Motion for adjournment over the Epsom Paces? But, I must say, there are differences of opinion about this matter, and the House will excuse me if I make a short quotation from a paper which I believe most highly-minded people read (The Spectator) which said last year concerning the Derby business—
"It must be urged that it is a sight which the House of Commons does well to revive its faith in humanity by solemnly adjourning to witness once a year."
Then it adds—
"In truth, only one great element of English life is conspicuously wanting—the sacerdotal."
It is a very pleasant thing to meet the clergy in the hunting field or in the cover. No one shoots truer or rides straighter than an agreeable clergyman. Is there any other place where the clergy are ashamed to be seen? We had statements about racing during the Recess—about a clergyman we had race-horses running at the Derby; but the Bishop of his diocese came down upon him in a very severe manner—so much so that he obliged the poor man to give up his living, though he could not give up his race-horses. I should like to hear what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has to say about this. He, in this House, legislates for race-horses, and out of it for horse racing, and he should be able to give us the opinion of the Bishop of Lincoln in this matter, for I find it stated in a letter in The Times, signed "Holy Friar," that Mr. Henry Chaplin is one of the Bishop of Lincoln's "lay consultees," chosen by his Lordship in conformity with the de-
872
cision of a Diocesan Conference. I should have liked, therefore, to have heard his opinion on this matter, because he would have spoken with Episcopal authority. I mean to go to a division in opposing the Motion now before the House; but I think I should be disposed to withdraw my opposition on one condition, and that is that my right hon. Friend will be consistent. Of course, he proposes this Motion because he thinks it is a national affair. That is right. He thinks it a national holiday, or he would not submit this Motion to the House. Now, my mind reverts to the national holiday we had on that happy occasion on which the whole nation rejoiced, when we were called upon to congratulate ourselves and give thanks for the recovery of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales from his dangerous illness. Nobody disputed that that was a national holiday. What happened on that occasion? You, Sir, went through the streets of London in the Speaker's coach, drawn, Sir, by brewers' horses—never before put to so noble and laudable a service. That was all right. That was a national occasion to carry out a national object in a national spirit, and with all national ands and appliances; and what I have to say, Sir, is that if my right hon. Friend will add to his Motion a rider that you go down to Epsom in your state coach to-morrow, I will make no opposition, but, on the contrary, I will promise that a very large number of the Members of this House will accompany you, to protect you from the people you will be amongst. But I ask the House, really and truly. whether they think that we are called upon to take this holiday, and whether they think that that will add to the respect with which this House is regarded in the country? The newspapers were filled last winter with letters from people living in the neighbourhood of London describing the miseries, and injuries, and nuisances which were caused to them by the suburban races. Pamphlets were written about them, associations were formed for the purpose of putting them down, and I happen to know that an hon. Friend on the other side was contemplating bringing a question before the House on the subject with a view of trying to abate the nuisance. So bad were these races that The Saturday Review, which is not a squeamish paper, described them as "scenes of filthy ruf-

873
fianism." Now, let somebody who understands these sporting matters get up and say if Epsom Races are anything more than these 41 suburban races rolled into one. In speaking yesterday to an hon. Friend of mine, a county Member, I said—" Are you going to support me in opposing the Adjournment over the Derby Day?" He replied—" Oh, no; I shall vote for the Adjournment. I came up from my county with a train full of roughs, and I must oblige them." I say, then, that this Motion is not a thing worthy of this House. It is said that we ought to be" Gentlemen first and patriots afterwards;" but I say—"Let us be Gentlemen first and betting men afterwards." In this House there are many men of many opinions. We differ widely on all questions, social, moral, and political; but I think I am justified in saying that in one sentiment we are practically unanimous—and that is that the honour, the dignity, and the reputation of this House is dear to everyone of us, Sir, from yourself in the Chair to the humblest private Member. I ask hon. Members to follow me into the Lobby to-day, and declare that no longer shall this House—the first Assembly of Gentlemen in Europe—be degraded by allowing itself to be paraded before the world as the patron of Cockney carnivals and suburban Saturnalia.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The hon. Member for Carlisle has, as usual, added great zest to the opposition offered to this Motion by indulging in a great amount of humour and of what may be called "chaffing" at those who are in favour of adjourning the House over to-morrow. He has put forward several reasons why he thinks we ought not to adjourn. First, he has told us that the Government has so much Business on hand that we ought to have devoted to-morrow to pushing some of it forward; but, if we had attempted to do that, I do not know that anyone would have been more severe on us than the hon. Member for Carlisle himself for interfering with the rights of private Members. The Government have no interest in the day in comparison with that of the private Members who have been able to put their Motions down for to-morrow. Then, the hon. Member told us there were many other occasions when we might have adjourned with greater advantage, and he mentioned the Oxford and Cambridge Boat
874
Race. Of course, I am not inclined to disparage that event, and I dare say it would be a very proper day for adjournment; but, as a matter of fact, it always takes place on Saturdays. [SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Not always.] For many years it has taken place on Saturdays, and on that day, as a matter of course, the House is not sitting. The hon. Member then says that unless it is a national matter we ought not to adjourn. I view it in a totally different light. It has become a House of Commons matter. Since 1847, at all events, it has been one of the regular holidays of the House. We have not had a long Whitsuntide; and, for myself, I confess that it is of considerable national importance that the House of Commons should not be unnecessarily overworked, and that, as far as possible, we should sit upon days when it is convenient to every Member to attend. Though I have not taken any deep interest in this race, I cannot help thinking that a great many of those who will vote for sustaining "the honour and dignity of the House" will mix with the motley crowd on Epsom Downs tomorrow; and after this adjournment has been going on for so many years, without impairing the honour and dignity of the House, which as the hon. Baronet admits, still exists—for he says we are the first Assembly of Gentlemen in the world, notwithstanding the fact that we have been adjourning over the Derby day every year since 1847—I think we may well adjourn on that day in 1875 without any risk of losing either our honour or our dignity.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 81: Majority 125.

PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Clare Read.)
PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 157.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he desired to make a few observations on going into Committee as the second reading had been taken at a time when no one expected the Bill to come on, and he did not hear the speech of his right hon. Friend, for although the measure was simply a consolidating one, it was very important. It was of such importance, indeed, that

  875
  he thought more time ought to have been allowed for the consideration of its principle before they were asked to consider its details in Committee. Ample justice had not been done to its provisions on the second reading, and that stage had been passed in too great a hurry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) proposed that the whole country should be placed under the supervision of medical authorities in London. To that system of centralization he (Colonel Barttelot) was entirely opposed. He had no objection to there being a small body of medical men in London, to whom the local authorities could apply for advice or assistance; but he thought it would be a monstrous and a mischievous thing for a central body of medical authorities to over-ride local medical officers who were well qualified for their duties. On that point he concurred in what he understood to have been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) whether the Act passed two years ago had been working satisfactorily; whether he had any opportunity of seeing how the appointments of medical officers under that Act had been working; and if he proposed to make any alterations with regard to the election of those officers? The leading journal had discussed in a friendly spirit the proposition to which he had referred. He made no complaint of that, because he believed the leading journal was animated by a spirit of fairness to everybody, and always advocated the policy which seemed to it best calculated to serve the interests of the public. But he felt bound to dissent from its views in the present instance. He believed there would be no difficulty in finding eminent medical men in the provinces who could do everything that a Board in London could do; and those gentlemen might each, if necessary, have a district of considerable extent placed under his supervision, where he could devote his whole time to the carrying out of the Act. This Bill was of so important a character that it ought to be looked into with the utmost care. In several important points of detail he thought it was open to some amendment. For instance, when the sanitary condition of a
  876
  small town or village was improved, it would surely be more equitable to make the town or village defray the cost of the improvements itself than to lay it on the ratepayers of the whole parish. With respect to the water supply, again, he thought the Bill would not be sufficiently operative. There were many districts in the country which had an abundant supply of good fresh water, and other districts lying adjacent to them which had none. Well, the districts which had the supply would be willing to supply those which had none, provided they were enabled to do so under proper regulations, but he feared such provisions were not contained in the Bill. He trusted this point would be considered. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by saying that, notwithstanding the remarks he had made, he had no wish to prevent the Bill going into Committee.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKregarded the Bill as one of the most important measures of the Session. His complaint against it was, that whilst it gave immense powers over private property for local government purposes, it did not give the public any powers over the sanitary Boards that were to be armed with such high authority. Another objection he had to the Bill was, that it did not make adequate provision for the establishment of fever hospitals, and the consequent reduction of contagious diseases. He further regretted that the Bill, like so many of its predecessors, was so largely permissive in its character. He would have liked it to have armed the public with greater powers to compel the rural authorities to do their duty.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR, said, he had not, as was supposed by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Barttelot), proposed that the local medical authorities should be under the control of a central Board in London. "What he proposed was simply that the very qualified medical officers now attached to the Central Board should be more extensively used for disease prevention in the country. At present, when an epidemic raged in a district, they went down to inquire into the cause, locking the doors when the steed was stolen. But they possessed the knowledge and ability to prevent disease if the Local Government Board would

  877
  only use them efficiently for that purpose. They would thus co-operate with, but would not control, either the local Boards or the local medical officer of health. On the general question, he protested against the manner in which the Bill had been urged forward. It was only as hon. Members entered the House that they received copies of the amended Bill, together with copies of the explanatory paper.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexplained that the paper referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was simply a reprint of a paper which had been before the House for the last two months.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRbegged pardon. He understood the paper to be an explanation of the new Amendments proposed to be made in the measure. While he admitted that, as a consolidating scheme, the Bill deserved praise and acceptance, he could not admit that it went far enough to be regarded as an efficient or a sufficient amending Bill.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid, he hoped great care would be taken to render the Bill thoroughly efficient in so far as it dealt with the question of water supply.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it seemed to be supposed that a deficiency in the water supply was confined to agricultural districts. As a matter of fact, the mining districts were in quite as bad case as the agricultural districts in this respect. Where large towns were built, like Birmingham, upon elevated ground, there was the greatest difficulty in securing an adequate supply of water during the summer months, and the pollution of our rivers, which were spreading disease instead of health down their courses, was attributable to the inadequacy of the supply of water for the purpose of sewerage in the high-level towns. The use of water for purpose of sewerage had become essential to the health of these large towns, and the great difficulty in our legislation was that there was no comprehensive system by which any local authority might be empowered to apply to the Government of the day or some central authority for powers to collect water in sufficient quantity for the supply and purification of these towns. This question of diffusing water amongst the population during the summer months
  878
  lay at the root of all real sanitary reform.
  MR. HENLEYregretted that the Government had thought fit to go on with this Bill so soon after it had been reprinted, because when it was read a second time the country was informed that the Government would make certain alterations in it. When that announcement was made every one suspended his hand, and since that time it had been quite impossible to have any communication with constituents upon the provisions of the Bill. An Amendment of which Notice had been given, he believed, by an hon. Gentleman opposite illustrated the hasty way in which the Bill had been drawn. The 16th clause gave power to take lands within the district of a local authority, and as far as he (Mr. Henley) saw, there was no compensation secured for a person over whose land power was given to make sewers. He might be very wrong in that; but he thought, looking at both limbs of the 307th clause, which was a long way from the 16th, it was very doubtful whether what was called the Compensation Clause—namely, the 307th—was certain to provide compensation in such a case. He did not suppose the House was inclined to give power to make sewers over people's land, open or close, without giving them proper compensation. He agreed in the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friend as to the danger of allowing local authorities to shunt off their responsibility to a central authority. Local doctors would have no desire to take responsibility upon themselves if they could say when a question arose that a doctor would come down from London to settle it. Local authorities must be induced to take an interest in these matters if the Act was to be successful; for, if its provisions were to be carried out simply by edicts from a central office, the whole subject would soon stink in the nostrils of the localities. Great care ought to be taken to leave responsibility with the localities, because that would induce good men in the localities to apply their minds to the subject, and by that way, in his judgment, this measure would be fairly worked out. There was another point on which he wished to make a remark. He did not think that power should be given to drive a man and his children—whether they were six or 100

  879
  —out of their home on the ground that it was overcrowded and compel them to sleep under hedges. He (Mr. Henley) had been blessed with a large family, and he should be sorry to inflict on an humble man and his family that sort of treatment. He thought that subject would require consideration. This measure would form a nice exercise for the Select Committee inquiring into the drafting of Bills. They could not have a better illustration of the common practice of composing Bills by pitchforking other Bills into them without reference to the relatives, antecedents, and all those other matters by which alone sense could be made of them.
  DR. LUSHcomplained of the chaotic state of the law with regard to the appointment of medical officers a state of things which arose from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) when President of the Local Government Board having chosen to make the Board of Guardians the rural Sanitary Authority. For the purpose of insuring that the medical officers appointed by local authorities were duly qualified, he thought their appointment should require approval on the part of the central authority.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he was of opinion that villages would not be adequately supplied with water until the area of supply was made coterminous with the area of taxation. In some villages where there had been a good deal of energy and local effort the inhabitants had formed themselves into small limited liability companies for the purpose of supplying themselves with water. He was strongly in favour of the granting to local authorities of compulsory powers to provide for the storage of water by the construction of reservoirs, so as to prevent the great waste which now occurred.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) had inquired whether there was any intention on the part of Government to extend into the country any system of medical inspection from London beyond that already prevailing. There was an admirable staff of medical officers attached to the Central Department, but they were not numerically strong enough to undertake the work referred to, and there was no intention of increasing
  880
  their number. The localities must be encouraged to bestir themselves in the matter, and to appoint skilled and competent Inspectors, who would be subject to the control and direction of the local authority. He had also been asked how the Public Health Act had worked, and speaking generally—for he could not then go into detail—he might say that he was very well satisfied with the progress made, considering the short time the compulsory system had been in operation and the nature of the business for the first time enforced upon the localities. He was more than satisfied, not only with the progress made, but with the readiness the local authorities had displayed in availing themselves of the encouragement which the Act gave, and even of the obligation which it imposed upon them. He was glad to say that a great deal of education on the subject was, so to say, growing up, even in remote parts of the country—much more than could have been reasonably expected three years ago. His hon. and gallant Friend had also asked whether he advocated the appointment of medical officers of health on a large scale; and he replied that he did, and in so doing followed the policy of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). He was not, however, prepared to render such appointments compulsory, or to commit himself to the opinion that, under certain circumstances, the appointment of the Poor Law medical officers would not be a sufficient appointment. This Bill would give the Local Government Board a useful power of compulsion in regard to the formation of districts; and upon this point he must remind the House of the impossibility of accompanying a Consolation Bill with root and branch Amendments of the kind which had been mentioned. The Amendments now in the hands of hon. Members were the same as those of which Notice was given two months ago, the only difference being in the lettering of the clauses in the course of reprinting. They were, with a few exceptions, corrections of technical and clerical errors, and matters of that character as to which no conflict of opinion could occur; and there was consequently no force in the objection to proceeding with the Bill at this time. A fear had been expressed that a portion of a district might be benefited by expenditure

  881
  under the sanitary Acts at the expense of another portion which would receive no benefit whatever; but there was under the existing law ample power to divide a rate and to charge upon the district benefited the special expenses of special improvements. There were cases, how-ever, in which the sanitary authority might reasonably spend a moderate amount of money in providing public fountains or other means of access to water for the poorer inhabitants. He was aware that the powers of getting water were deficient, especially in the mineral and the highland rural districts. The subject had been brought most painfully under his notice during the water famine of last Summer. He was fully alive to its importance, and should have been very glad if he had been able to deal with it effectually in the present Bill. But there were three great difficulties to be met in dealing with the question of compulsory water supply. The first was the rights of existing water companies; next, the rights of private owners, which were most jealously guarded; and next, the difficulty of forcing owners of private property to lay out money, or submit to be charged with expenses over which they had no control. He did not, however, say that those difficulties could not be overcome; but he did not think they could be in a Consolidation Bill. The attention of himself and the Government had been drawn to the subject by an important and influential deputation which had recently waited upon him. They urged the necessity of inquiry by Royal Commission, and he had been furnished with subjects of the proposed inquiry by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair). As soon as the attention of the Government could be directed to this and other subjects not immediately pressing for solution during the present Session this subject would be most seriously considered by them, and they would not hesitate to appoint such a Commission if they thought the question could in that way be more rapidly brought to a satisfactory conclusion. If they thought that they would be unable so to limit an inquiry by Commission as to receive an early and immediate Report upon which they could proceed by legislation or otherwise, they would undertake to deal with the matter upon their own responsibility. The hon.
  882
  Baronet behind him (Sir Lawrence Palk) complained that this Bill did not make provision for the compulsory establishment of hospitals. A Notice had been given to insert clauses with this object. At present he was not prepared to carry the compulsory provisions any further. It had been suggested that the public officer of the district should come between a private individual and his medical attendant. He did not think that public would approve of any such provision at present. He should not be justified in risking the whole Bill by the endeavour to introduce into it provisions which would be likely to excite strong opposition. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) said, that good might be done by greater watchfulness on the part of the Department of the death-rate of the country. His right hon. Friend wished, in fact, to see a Department of Preventive State Medicine. He could assure his right hon. Friend that the Returns of the Registrar General were most carefully watched by the medical officer of the Board, and the quarterly Returns were submitted to him as President of the Board, and selections were made of those cases where visitation and inquiry seemed necessary. He hoped that as time went on, more work would be accomplished by the Department in the way of visitation and inquiry into preventable diseases. With regard to the 16th clause, he could assure his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) that ample powers were given for the protection of private owners if their property was interfered with in the construction of sewers. He would only add that although hon. Members might think that the Bill had come before the House rather quickly after being reprinted, yet the substantial Amendments proposed by the Government had been before the House and the country for three months, and no Bill had been more carefully scanned and watched by clerks to local Boards and other skilled and competent persons than the present measure. Every local sanitary authority seemed to have received a copy of the Bill for consideration, and there were few of them from whom he had not been favoured with suggestions. Many of them touched upon the same points. When he thought them feasible and desirable he should be ready to adopt them, and he must bear the respon-

  883
  sibility as well as he could where he could not give his assent to them. The number of Acts which were consolidated was very great, and whatever trouble there might be in passing the Bill through the House—and he must rely on the indulgence of the House to enable him to carry it through—he was satisfied that it was a faithful codification of the law. A similar plan might be followed in future in other branches of legislation. He looked forward to this Bill being subjected to many additions and revisions before receiving its final and complete shape, and hoped the House would be inclined to assist the Government in placing the law on as satisfactory a footing as possible.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he understood that the paper entitled a "Statement showing the principal amendments of the law" applied to the reprinted Bill, and that no substantial amendment had been made in the reprinted Bill which was not in the original measure. His right hon. Friend had, he thought, made out a case for the confidence of the House in regard to the treatment of this Bill in Committee. The Bill consisted of 341 clauses, and it would be quite impossible to effect a consolidation of the law in a Bill of these dimensions, unless the House received it in good faith. They must trust to the honour of the head of the Department. He thought his right hon. Friend was entirely justified in asking the House to accord their assistance in passing this measure. He trusted that the House would immediately go into Committee, taking the word of the President of the Board, and passing the Bill as quickly as possible into law. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) had complained of the chaotic state of the law with regard to the appointment of medical officers, and this unsatisfactory state of things he said arose from the fact that he (Mr. Stansfeld) had chosen to make the Boards of Guardians the rural sanitary authority. He did not choose the Boards of Guardians, because they were already the existing sanitary authorities, and he must say that, on the whole, they had performed their duties exceedingly well. The duties conferred upon them were, moreover, in accordance with the recommendations of the Sanitary Commission. He regarded this question as a branch of the great question of local government. He did not
  884
  believe that it would be possible to make this country healthy by Act of Parliament. It must be done, if at all, by the willing and intelligent supervision of the local authorities; and if he had increased the number, he should have added to the multiplicity of conflicting bodies of which the House had heard so much last night. The whole country was at present mapped out into either urban or rural districts, and there was no part either of town or country which was not under one of these authorities. And if hon. Members would carry their thoughts towards those good times when the financial County Board would be in existence they would see the reason why he had thought it unadvisable to create new bodies and new areas, and why he had taken those which already existed. The House could not do all that it wished to do if it attempted to train the country in the work of sanitary improvement merely by legislation. It was a question of administration, and great responsibility rested upon the Local Government Board so to administer the Public Health Act as not to discourage the growing interest felt in sanitary administration by the local authorities, but to make them willing co-operators with him in the administration of the law. The statement made by his right hon. Friend was satisfactory to him, and he hoped that the policy which he had foreshadowed would be abided by.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had great confidence in the good intentions of the President of the Local Government Board. He maintained, however, that something more should be done by the Central Board than had been accomplished. He thought that Board should furnish the local authorities with special information where it seemed to be needful, relative to the principles applicable to sewage, and other matters involved in sanitary questions. He considered, also, that the officers of the Board, whether they were medical men or engineers, should institute something more than perfunctory inquiries. Care should be taken that the burdens thrown on the parishes did not become intolerable, and that the intentions of Parliament should not be frustrated.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he had never intended to ask his right hon. Friend to make large areas compulsory.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Powers for making sewers. P. H., s. 45. L. G. Am., s. 4. S.U. 1865, s. 4.).
  MR. MUNTZobjected to the clause as trenching on private property and rights. It would give power to the local authority to carry any sewer "into or under any lands in their district." It would give a surveyor power to enter a man's garden, to go through his yards, or even to enter his house. Such enormous powers had never been given before. He, therefore, moved, in page 9, line 40, after "street," to leave out to" district," inclusive, in page 10, line 3.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexplained that what was set out in the clause was simply the existing law; it had been so for the last 10 years. If the Amendment were carried, it would paralyze many important works. There were ample powers of compensation under the 307th clause.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he was quite aware of the 307th clause, if it were sufficiently worded; but that appeared to be doubtful. He would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped an assurance would be given by his right hon. Friend that the clause giving proper compensation to owners would be distinctly expressed. That would be but fair; if any defect existed it should be cured.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwould very readily give his right hon. Friend that assurance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Sewage to be purified before being discharged into streams. S.U. 1865, s. 11. L.G. Am., s. 4).
  MR. WALTERsaid, he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend to line 11 in this clause. The clause provided against the conveyance of sewage into "any natural stream or water-course," and he proposed to add these words—"or into any lake, pond, or canal." The reason he did so was that on one occasion he happened to be present at a meeting where it was proposed to carry a Bill of this kind into opera-
  886
  tion, and it was suggested that the sewage should be carried two miles off into a private lake.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved, that they might hope soon to have watercourses kept pure in another way. He should have no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by his hon. Friend.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he quite agreed in principle with the Amendment, but a difficulty might arise from the want of some definition in the Bill of a lake, though perhaps "ornamental lake" or something of that kind might de.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he would have no objection to add the words "except for the purpose of deodorization." His object was that "lakes, ponds, or canals" should not be used as receptacles for the sewage. He thought the words very material to protect private property of this character from any chance of invasion in this matter.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHengaged to bring up words on the Report which would carry out the object of his hon. Friend.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Map of system of sewerage. P. H, s. 41).
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKproposed to substitute "shall" for "may," so that every local authority should provide a map of their district.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the Amendment, as it might be the cause of adding greatly to the expense of districts.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Power of local authority to enforce drainage of houses. P. H., s. 49. San. 1866, s. 10).
  MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, that if the Bill were one of consolidation he would not object to this clause, but as it was one of amendment, as the clause stood it would, where new drains were made, make every person in the neighbourhood liable to the expense of their construction, although they might think them fraught with danger, and merely so many channels for the diffusion of

  887
  typhoid fever through the town, while no such danger attended the use of the dry system of sewage. He therefore proposed to amend the clause by striking out the whole of the proviso.
  MR. WHALLEYwished to know what was the opinion of the Government medical authorities as to water sewerage?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved, that the Local Government Department did not pledge itself to any particular system of sewerage, dry or wet; and he himself believed that both systems might be usefully resorted to. The proviso would only apply where there was an existing system of sewerage, into which, by the existing law, people could be compelled to drain.
  MR. CAWLEYremarked, that whether a water-closet system, or a dry-earth system, or any other system was best did not affect the question before the Committee, as sewers must be constructed to get rid of our slops.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Penalty on building houses without privy accommodation.)
  MR. CAWLEYproposed to amend the clause by omitting the words which required every water-closet, earth-closet, privy, or ashpit should be furnished with proper doors and coverings. In some cases doors and coverings were most objectionable, as when the ashpit joined the privy and free ventilation was required. He would further amend the clause by providing that the conveniences referred to should be of such form and description and in such situation as should be satisfactory to the local authority.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the Amendment, as there was great reason to apprehend that the local authorities would make an arbitrary use of such power.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 35 to 58, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 59 (Power to supply water to authority of adjoining district.)
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, it would be a great advantage to have the water supplied by meter instead of by rates. He did not intend to propose any Amendment, but only made the suggestion.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would have a note made of it.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 60 (Local authority may require houses to be supplied with water in certain cases. P. H., s. 76. L. G., s. 51. San. 1866, s. 50.)
  MR. BECKETT-DENISONconsidered that a most important clause, but he complained that there was no power to compel the builder or owner to supply their houses with water. The question was, whether speculative builders running up houses ought to be compelled to supply them with water or not? If they did not, the local authorities had to supply water at the expense of the ratepayers. He should be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered that matter, and whether he would insert a proviso in the Bill to oblige the builders to supply water?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that was one of the difficult questions which surrounded the question of the water supply. He could not make any distinction between speculative builders and other builders, and the clause referred to houses which had been built for years, and with regard to which no responsibility as to water supply had attached to the builders or owners heretofore. At the present moment he was not disposed to accept any such suggestion.
  MR. MACIVERsuggested that the word" owner "ought to be more strictly defined.
  MR. A. BROWNpointed out that there were cases in which, while houses were wanted, builders could not supply water by boring, and a proper water supply could only be obtained by means of the local authorities. The only effectual remedy for the crying want of a proper water supply in many districts was to make it compulsory upon the local authorities to provide such supply, instead of leaving it to their option to do so.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 61 agreed to.
  Clause 62 (Vesting of public cisterns, &c. in local authority. P. H., s. 78. L. G., s. 45. (5.) T. I., s. 121. N. E., 1860, s. 7.)
  MR. PELLmoved to leave out all the words after "convenient" to the end of the clause. The clause was old law, and one of its consequences was that while one end of a village had been supplied with water by the owners or landlords, the other part, the owners of which not being so careful, was left without water at all. The local authorities then came in and supplied water at the expense of the rates. That was a state of things which he thought ought not to be allowed to remain.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire had some case of apparent injustice in his mind; but he could give instances in which a supply of water by the local authorities had been very beneficial. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would not strike out the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 63 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 68 (Power to close polluted wells, &c. P. H. 1874, s. 50.)
  MR. RATHBONEmoved to insert after the words "used, or likely to be used for domestic purposes," "or in the manufacturing of drinks for the use of man." He moved that Amendment to prevent beer and soda water and other drinks being made with polluted water.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that was already covered by the Bill.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRconsidered the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) was of great importance, inasmuch as polluted water might be used without detection in the brewing of beer or manufacture of soda water, though in the preparation of lemonade it betrayed itself, by the liquor becoming viscous and ropy.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTwas afraid that aerated waters were deleterious, and suggested that his right hon. Friend should accept the words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BECKETT-DENISONmoved further to amend the clause by the insertion of words to compel owners of wells or cisterns to repair them in case they required it. If this was not done, it would be in the power of owners who chose to deprive their tenants of water
  890
  to close up wells which, from any cause, got out of repair.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would assent to the insertion of the words—of which, however, he had received no Notice—reserving the right at a later stage to move their omission in case it proved that they were unnecessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 69 to 88, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 89 (Definition of nuisances. N. E. 1855, s. 8. San. 1866, s. 19.)
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked for some information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the definition of the word "nuisance" in the Bill. A thing might be an offensive nuisance without being injurious to health, but it had been ruled in the Court of Queen's Bench that a nuisance to be a nuisance must be injurious to health, and that merely being offensive was not enough.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, medical men were of opinion that all sorts of matter that might by some be considered nuisances were not injurious to health. He thought the word "offensive" might be added to the word "nuisance."
  MR. GORSTsuggested that these clauses should be postponed in order that the case affecting the smoke nuisance might be more fully considered. He knew that in the North of England some portions of the law with regard to the nuisance of smoke were unsatisfactory, and he thought an opportunity should be given to place Amendments on the Paper.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would be sorry to see the definition of nuisance restricted to matters "injurious to health," and he would consider the matter before the Report. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he had to say that the clauses to which the hon. Member referred had not been altered in the slightest degree since the Bill was before the House. He had not received a single complaint with regard to the smoke nuisance; but he would be happy to put himself in communication with his hon. Friend on the point before the Report.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he thought the clause, as it stood, was a step in the right direction.
  LORD ESLINGTONcomplained that smoke was an injurious nuisance, and did great damage to vegetation. There was a very strong feeling—a growing feeling—that something ought to be done to prevent injury to vegetation by smoke.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, there were numerous descriptions of nuisances most difficult to define—for instance, a peacock, although a beautiful and proud bird, was a nuisance in some cases.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHgave assurance that the matter should receive his careful consideration.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 90 to 128, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 129 (Power of local authority to provide hospitals. San. 1866, s. 37.)
  MR. PELLmoved the omission of the clause. He considered it a most mischievous clause. It was old law. For instance, hospitals were often erected and provided under the clause, when there was really no necessity for them.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would retain the clause. Hospitals were most valuable in cases of infectious diseases to send such people to.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, infectious diseases were not spread by hospital drainage, as he was informed, and the value of hospitals for infectious diseases, such as small-pox and other infectious diseases, to which people could be sent and treated, was very great. He therefore hoped the House would retain the clause.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) what he would do in case of a ship coming into port with cholera on board, if there were not an hospital to receive the affected patients? He was able to state a case wherein a ship came into harbour, and there not being an hospital in the neighbourhood to receive the patients, the ship was ordered to leave the harbour and anchor in an open roadstead. Thus not only endangering the lives of the crew but prolonging unnecessarily the sufferings of the poor fellows affected with the cholera.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, this was a most important question, and one deserving the serious consideration of the Committee. He remembered one in-
  892
  stance of typhoid fever breaking out, and that a certain class of the inhabitants called in a medical man. He consulted the Central Government Board, and they advised that an hospital should be built. Well, an hospital was built, at considerable expense, and for two years no one could be induced to go into it. That such would be the case had been foretold, and the hospital was entirely useless. That was the result of the action taken by the Central Government Board without consulting the local authorities. He hoped the hon. Member would go to a division, and he should certainly vote for his Amendment.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Leicestershire would not act upon the expressed wish of the hon. Member for Peterborough.
  MR. PELLasked where was the money to come from to build hospitals?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Out of the general expenses of the district.
  MR. PELLsaid if, that was the case, he should divide the Committee, for the clause was a most unfair one to the ratepayers. It would make parishioners who did their duty as regarded sanitary government pay for some parishioners who, from ignorance or otherwise, had failed to do their duty and take proper precautions. He was not speaking without book, for he knew of a case where typhoid fever had broken out in his own parish. The medical men said, "build an hospital;" but, as there were no funds, that was not done. The sick people were to have been moved into a school; but that was prevented. While the doctors were trying to do that the people stopped up all the wells and brought water into the place in carts from a distance. They drained the village, and from that time there had never been another case of fever in the place. If a hospital had been built it would be standing there at that time perfectly useless.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that almost all workhouses were provided with fever wards, but there were many populous places where hospitals were required.
  MR. PELLmaintained that these three clauses did not meet the case of paupers.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he hoped the Committee would not be divided on such a question.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that unless they were very careful the benefit now given by cottage hospitals would be lost, and that the class that was bordering on the verge of pauperism would find themselves altogether deprived of relief.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 130 to 167, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 168 (Urban authority may provide place for public meetings, &c.)
  MR. PELLopposed the clause, which, he observed, was new law and of very questionable advantage. Such places, built at the expense of the ratepayers, might be let, he presumed, to Messrs. Moody and Sankey, or for objects which did not warrant the expenditure of large sums of public money. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was hardly serious in proposing such a clause.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not think this clause was of any great importance, but it had been pressed upon him during the last 12 months from various quarters of the country. Places which were towns all but in name often did not possess a public building for meetings. If they were municipal boroughs they would have a town hall, and it seemed only right that such places should have similar accommodation. The power was strictly guarded, and could only be exercised with the consent of the ratepapers. He could see no objection to the clause himself, but would not press it if the feeling of the Committee were against it, but he would recommend them to pass it. It was not new law, but clauses of a very similar character had been passed which were not new law.
  MR. WHITWELLopposed the clause, fearing that it would lead to great and unnecessary expenditure.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he thought the clause valuable, and the power one which ought to be given.
  MR. WHALLEYalso supported the clause, believing that the facilities it would give for holding public meetings in certain localities were necessary; but while increasing these facilities, care should be taken to preserve the liberty of speech, which, by the doctrine of Contempt of Court and in other ways, had of late been seriously endangered.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKstrongly supported the Bill, urging that as the clause provided that those buildings were to be erected with the consent of the ratepayers he could see no reason why Parliament should interpose a difficulty in this way. They ought to help those who were inclined to help themselves.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the clause did not deal with sanitary questions, and was therefore out of place in a Public Health Bill.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought the clause objectionable, inasmuch as, though the buildings were to be provided with the consent of the ratepayers, the majority would bind the minority, who would have to pay for the buildings whether they liked them or not.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no intention, as he before stated, of pressing the clause against the wish of the Committee. He would, therefore, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the clause, and the discussion could be revived on the Report, if any hon. Member thought fit to do so.
  Clause negatived.
  Clauses 169 to 189, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 190 (As to medical officer of health, &c. P. H., s. 40. P. H. 1872, s. 10. P. H. 1874, s. 5.)
  MR. RATHBONEmoved the addition of words enabling the medical officer to appoint a deputy in case of illness or incapacity.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 191 to 198, inclusive, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  And it being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELLrose to call attention to certain defects of the Scotch Education Act; and to move—
  "That it is expedient that the provisions of the Scotch Education Act relating to the transference

  895
  of Denominational and Subscription Schools to School Boards he assimilated to those of the English Education Act, in order that such transference may be facilitated, and the burden on the ratepayers thereby relieved; and that an effectual audit of the annual accounts of School Boards in Scotland be by Law provided."
  The hon. Baronet said, he rose with great reluctance in pursuance of this Notice, and he could assure the House that he should be as brief as he possibly could. He regretted that no steps had been taken to remedy the defects of the present Act during the present Session. It was only on account of the many representations that had reached him from persons whose opinions were well worthy of consideration that he took the liberty of calling the attention of the Government and of the House to the amendments he had ventured to suggest. In remarking that the Education Act of Scotland was at present in a very defective condition, he would not be supposed to speak with any Party bias. The changes which that Act made in the system of Scotch education were so numerous and so sweeping that it was hardly to be expected that such an Act could be passed in a state which would not be found to require considerable amendment. In the late House of Commons, in which it was passed, he had not the advantage of possessing a seat, and he took no part in the discussion of the subject out-of-doors. It was under these circumstances that he had the honour of being selected by the late Government as a member of the Education Board in Scotland—a position which gave him the opportunity of seeing the working of the Act more than perhaps any other person, except the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay). Since he had placed this Motion upon the Table, he had received a large amount of correspondence upon the subject—so large that he had been obliged to leave much of it unanswered. A number of the letters he had received came not from his own political friends, but from Gentlemen belonging to one or other of the parties composing the other side of the House. The Resolution that he had placed upon the Notice Paper alluded to what appeared to him the two principal and main defects of the Scotch Education Act, and those defects he proposed to notice in their order, giving his reasons for considering them defects which required
  896
  immediate legislation. But before proceeding to speak of them, he would mention other defects of the Act. He would take them at random, and as they presented themselves to his notice; and would remark, before alluding to them, that in nearly all the points he was about to refer to, defects existed in the Scotch Education Act which were not to be found in the English measure of 1870. He would deal first with the borrowing powers of school boards. As the House was well aware, school boards were empowered by the Act to borrow sums of money from the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the purpose of "providing and enlarging schools." Those powers in Scotland were not held to cover many items of expense which were very serious and important, and which in the aggregate sometimes amounted to as much as the cost of new schools. There were repairs, furniture, enclosure of ground, water supply, and there might be other charges. These items were not included in the Scotch Act, though he believed that they were in the measure applying to England. When sites were required by schools, there were no compulsory powers in the Scotch Act by which they could be obtained. The crotchets or unreasonableness of a single landed proprietor might put a whole district to very considerable inconvenience. This, he was sorry to say, was no imaginary case; such occurrences had taken place. Grave doubts appeared to exist whether it was legal for a member of a school board to sell a site to a board of which he was a member. It was obvious that in many cases no land could be obtained except by purchase from a member of a school board, unless, indeed, he presented it as a free gift. It was known, he believed, to the House generally—Scotchmen were certainly aware of the fact—that school boards were compulsory by law all over Scotland. No matter how remote the district, no matter how satisfied the inhabitants of a district might have been with the old system of education, still these school boards must be formed. One would have expected that an Act which compelled the election of school boards would have at least been careful and precise in its directions as to their procedure; but that was very far from the fact. Even in the most obvious matters they

  897
  had been left entirely without directions. One would have supposed, for instance, that such circumstances as death and removal would have been in the minds of those who framed the Act; but, strange as it might appear, they had not made any provision for those contingencies amongst a people who were, like other men, mortal, and beyond other men, migratory. He was not sure that it was unlawful for the chairman of a school board to die; but there were grave doubts whether his disconsolate fellow members might provide him with a successor. Resignations of members had not been unknown; but they had the opinion of eminent counsel that resignation was not legal. There were several cases in regard to this point worth mentioning to the House. In one instance known to him, four members out of a school board of five resigned. The survivor, contrary to all law, picked up four of his friends, placed them on the school board, and now conducted the educational affairs of the parish according to a law of his own making. In another case, a death vacancy having occurred, two of the members, without retiring from the board, expressed their intention of attending no more meetings. The educational proceedings of that parish were paralyzed. No assessment was raised for the next year, and the schoolmaster had to go without his salary. Again, nothing in the Act vacated a seat at a school board. No neglect of duty would affect the tenure of a seat, or render its vacation necessary. Bankruptcy did not vacate it, neither did imprisonment for crime. He would beg the House to remember that he was not putting an imaginary case, but speaking of things which had actually occurred. One gentleman had the misfortune to become bankrupt, and he was requested to resign his seat. He replied that he would do nothing of the sort; and that having now no business of his own, he would have more time to attend to the affairs of the school board. Members of school boards were not precluded from holding places of profit under the boards to which they belonged. They might even enter into pecuniary contracts with their own boards. He thought it was only necessary to mention these defects to show how much the Act
  898
  required amending. He would say nothing as to the grievances of the teachers, but merely remark in passing that whereas the Act was devised, amongst other objects, to improve the status and position of those gentlemen, it had had a most unlooked-for effect. Any school-master that met with an unreasonable board had no way whatever of enforcing the rights that the Act gave him except by an appeal to the tribunals of his country. He thought that an Act which created such an elaborate machinery ought to have provided for such contingencies; and ought not to have left petty differences between schoolmasters and school boards to be fought out before the Court of Session. He had now exhausted the general remarks which he had to make upon the Act, and would turn to the two points touched upon in his Motion. The first of these, the House would observe, touched the transference of schools, and affirmed that—
  "It was expedient that the provisions of the Scotch Education Act relating to the transference of Denominational and Subscription Schools to School Boards should be assimilated to those of the English Education Act, in order that such transference might be facilitated, and the burden on the ratepayers thereby relieved."
  After the passing of the Scotch Act, it might have been fairly assumed that all persons connected with the schools in question would be very desirous, at all events quite willing, to transfer them to school boards. The object they had in view was, the education of the people; and they might reasonably expect that when its superintendence was transferred to a body formed of the representatives of the people, that object would be carried out in a much more efficient manner. All the usual motives of human action—generous and selfish, patriotic and calculating—seemed to combine to suggest and prompt such transference. But what had been the result? The Church of Scotland, at the time of the passing of the Act, had 900 to 1,000 schools. Of this number 78 were transferred to the school boards, 420 were still in operation under their old management, and something like from 450 to 500 might be supposed to be discontinued. The Free Church had 548 schools in operation at the passing of the Education Act. Of this number 142 had been transferred, 95 were still in operation, and they might therefore suppose that 311 had been discontinued.

  899
  With regard to other denominations, he was not furnished with the figures, except that he knew that in the case of the United Presbyterian body only a single school had been transferred to a school board. He did not give the House these figures as being precisely accurate; but they approximated near enough to accuracy to give an idea of the working of the Act. The Act was passed, he contended, mainly for the purpose of promoting transference, but so far it had proved unsuccessful. It was not difficult to discover the cause of its ill-success. The cause was to be found in the stringent provisions of the Act. Instead of blaming the trustees of the various denominational schools because so few schools had been transferred, they had reason to thank them that so many transferences had taken place. The conditions with regard to the transfer were much more onerous in Scotland than in England. A small amount of debt on a school was sufficient to prevent a transfer. When there was debt on a school, some such negotiations as this took place:—The trustees of a Free Church school, that was to be transferred, said to the school board—" We are willing to transfer our school, but we have debt upon it to the amount of £100, which we think you ought to pay." The school board, however much they desired to acquire the school, were obliged to say—" We are precluded by the Act from assuming any debt." The result was that the building was converted into something else; and the parish, instead of obtaining the school for such sum as, say, £100, in many cases would spend from £1,200 to £1,500 in the erection of a new one. No doubt the stringency of this condition might be defended on the ground that it was meant to put down private jobbery; but he thought that in attempting to protect the public from pillage they had overshot the mark, and subjected the public to almost equal expense in the creation of new schools. Other conditions imposed upon those who desired to transfer their schools were also very onerous. Free Church schools were in many cases built in connection with manses and churches. He mentioned the Free Church on account of the large contributions it had for so many years made to the educational
  900
  prosperity of Scotland. The school, the church, and the manse often formed a group in a village, or the neighbourhood of a town. It was surely reasonable that the trustees in whom this property was invested, in transferring the school should wish to make some arrangement by which it should be maintained as a school and not be used for any other purpose. Here, again, the Act came in and stopped them. The school board was obliged to say—"We think your school is a very good one; we may not be able to build such a one for double the money; but we cannot enter into any negotiation. We must have full power over the building, and the only condition we can make with you is that while it remains in our hands you are to have the use of the school when it is not required for teaching purposes." Thus the negotiation fell to the ground; the trustees very properly declining to take the risk of the school being appropriated to other uses—being turned, perhaps, into a public-house or a music hall, or some purpose which would damage their adjacent property. Here, again, the Act failed—the school was not transferred, and a new school had to be erected at great cost. He thought it would be obvious to hon. Gentlemen that in these points the Act required amendment, and should be assimilated to the English Act, where a school might be transferred to a school board, if the debt with which it was charged did not exceed the value of the building. He was not sure that the people of Scotland would ask even so much as this. He thought that if the debt were to be restricted to half the present value of the property, that might be a very fair and reasonable compromise. But he maintained that the public, as represented by the school boards, should have the opportunity of acquiring these schools for what, he believed, would turn out to be reasonable terms. Let the Government, in dealing with the question, take proper precautions against jobbery and institute a searching scrutiny; but let the great waste of public money which he foresaw in the ensuing year be, if possible, avoided. The reason why he especially pressed this point upon the Government was that even if in a future Session the remedy which he sought should be provided, it would come too late; the new schools

  901
  would have made considerable progress towards completion; and many of the present schools would have been applied to other purposes. He now came to the last point of his Resolution—namely, the question of audit. This was a case which only required stating; and he need not trouble the House with any argument on the subject. By the provisions of the Act the Edinburgh Education Board were empowered to appoint an accountant, and they had accordingly appointed a very efficient officer, with a competent salary. This gentleman entered upon the course of his duties last year, when the accounts of the school boards were presented to him, and he, of course, criticized them carefully, and pointed out various items which he conceived violated the law and which ought to be disallowed. But upon examination it turned out that no power existed anywhere to disallow any item, however it might contravene the obvious letter of the Act. He would give the House some examples of cases which had actually occurred. The first that he would take was that of a rural parish. The high charges which the returning officer had made for the election of a school board in that parish attracted the notice of the accountant. The items themselves were high, and the list was closed by a gratuity to the returning officer over and above the high charge at which that gentleman had appraised his services. The auditor naturally disallowed this; but it was found that he could disallow nothing, and the ratepayers had to pay for the ill-judged generosity of the school board. The next case was that of a Northern burgh. It appeared that opposition had arisen to certain acts of the school board. The inhabitants and the ratepayers were not pleased with what was being done, and a public meeting was called. Placards were posted all over the town, and a demonstration was made against the school board. The school board did not like the aspect of things—in fact, it became frightened. It entered into negotiations with the leaders of the opposition, and the result was that it agreed to pay, out of the pockets of the ratepayers, the expenses of their opposition. £30 were handed over to these gentlemen, and the school board charged it in their accounts. In another town, a sum of no less than £100 was given
  902
  to the clerk of the deacon's court of a Dissenting chapel, in consequence of "his valuable services in the transfer of schools "—services, the House would observe, which were rendered not to the school board, but to the court of which the deacon was the clerk. Here, again, there was no redress. The next case was in a well-known seaport. There the school board, some time after the election, received the accounts of the election expenses incurred by some of their own members, and defrayed these expenses, in plain defiance of the 3rd section of the Act which had constituted them. The last case was in a burgh in the North of Scotland. There had been some extraordinary change of opinion in the school board of that burgh, on the question of maintaining two separate schools or making them into one school. The school board had decided the case both ways; and its business had consequently got into a muddle, causing great excitement. Hoping to escape from its dilemma, the school board conceived the scheme of holding a sort of plébiscite of the ratepayers. A hall was hired; there were placards, cabs, and even a band of music; all the excitement of an election prevailed, and the plébiscite was taken. The school board met next day, and voted that their proceedings were legal and regular; and charged the expenses on the rates. All these cases were, he believed, brought under the notice of the Education Board of Edinburgh, but neither the accountant nor the Education Board in Edinburgh, nor the Department in London, over which his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) presided, had been able to disallow a single item of these absurd and ridiculous charges. He thought he had said enough to show that the ratepayers of Scotland really had a right to be protected against such charges. It was not a very extravagant request to ask that the same protection should be afforded to them as was afforded to the English ratepayers. He would remind the House and the Government that these school boards would lapse under the Act in the course of next year. Early next spring new elections must take place, and there was every reason to expect that when it was known—as by this time it must be pretty well known in the country—that accounts were subject to no sufficient audit, the extravagance which took place

  903
  in 1873 would be repeated, if not exceeded, in 1876. He believed that most of his hon. Friends from Scotland in that House, to whatever Party they belonged, or whatever their own private opinions might be as to this Act, would admit that more than a year ago it began to excite considerable discontent in Scotland. The assessments had given rise to very great dissatisfaction, and he was sure that all hon. Members who went through a contested election last year, must be perfectly aware of this fact. He did not say this was of itself a conclusive reason for altering or amending the Act; but he thought that considering how well disposed his country-men were to education, and what sacrifices they had shown themselves capable of making for it, it was not likely that in that country, at least, any ignorant clamour would be raised against the just and necessary expenses of education. Thanking the House for the patient hearing it had given him, he would entreat the Lord Advocate and the Vice President of Education to take this grievance into their consideration, and remedy it by some short Act during the present Session providing a power of transferring of schools on fair terms, and an efficient audit of accounts—things which he believed he had shown to be urgently required. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the able statement to which the House had just listened had rendered it unnecessary for him to occupy much time in making any remarks on the Resolution before them. He thought, however, that it might satisfy the minds of those who had taken an interest in the subject of education in Scotland if he explained that the Board of Education had been guided by the opinion of eminent counsel, which was obtained about 18 months ago at the instance of a committee of the General Assembly of the Free Church, who were appointed by that Assembly for the purpose of carrying out and facilitating the transfer of the Free Church schools to the school boards in the various parishes and burghs throughout Scotland. That Committee addressed to the counsel the following questions:—Would it be competent under the Education Act for the school managers to stipulate as a condition of transfer, and for the school board to accept the same
  904
  —First, that in the event of the school and other buildings ceasing to be used by the school board for the purpose of the Act, the property shall revert to the congregation; or, secondly, that in the event of a sale the congregation shall have a right of pre-emption? Would it be competent to the school managers to stipulate and to the board to agree that in the event of a school being sold the board shall be bound to provide the same accommodation as at present furnished by the existing school, and to make such stipulation a real burden affecting the property? Would it be competent for a school board to accept the use of schools, not by way of lease, but for an indefinite time? It was unnecessary that he should read all the questions addressed to counsel, as some of them had no direct reference to the terms of the Resolution before the House; but the questions which he had read were answered—all of them in the negative. On a subsequent reference to the Board of Education, that Board had held that while it was not competent for a school board to accept the lease of a school for an indefinite time, there might be cases in which trustees of existing schools might grant the temporary use of them which a school board might accept. He thought he had sufficiently shown the necessity for a change in the law, and therefore would not take up the time of the House with further illustrations. There was another question which affected the ratepayers very much, and although he concurred with the hon. Baronet in saying that their countrymen would not object to any reasonable expenditure for educational purposes, yet he thought it could not be the will of the Legislature that any unnecessary expense should be put on the ratepayers or the Treasury. Now, there were several points in regard to which something might be done in the direction of economy. The elections, which were numerously contested on the last occasion, were likely to be contested again in the same way next year, and the total expense of the first election was found from the Return obtained by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) to be above £28,000. Now, this was an expense which he thought might well be mitigated, by making the elections not triennial, but once in every five years. If the schools were once properly or-

  905
  ganized and the teachers doing their duties efficiently, it was not necessary that the school board should do much, and there was no reason for a change. Then there was another point. He did not see the necessity for making a new electoral roll, but thought the roll made up for Parliamentary elections might very well be taken, and although it might diminish the number of electors, yet the persons left out would be those who paid the least towards the rates, and took the least interest in the matter. There was good reason why greater facilities should be offered to persons interested in denominational schools to transfer them to the school boards of the country, rather than that they should be shut up or converted into dwelling-houses, as they certainly would be. He thought it might reasonably have been contended that, with regard to bodies like the Free Church, which had expended large sums in the erection of schools when no adequate provision was made for educational purposes, the sale of these schools should be sanctioned. But the hon. Baronet did not proceed so far, and only contended that the school board should be authorized to pay the debt of any school it took over. He thought this proposal was a very reasonable one. Under the law of 1870, as amended in that of 1873, English school boards were authorized to take on lease any existing school, subject to restrictions or not, as might be arranged, and were authorized to pay a nominal rent, an understanding which he found was very liberally interpreted. In Scotland they could not rent any existing denominational school, and he thought it, therefore, of very great importance that something should be done in the direction indicated in the Motion, and he joined in the appeal that something should be done to give relief on this and other points to the people of Scotland. In conclusion, he gave Notice of his intention to propose that Amendments with this view should be made on the Sutherland and Caithness Bill. He begged to second the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient that the provisions of the Scotch Education Act relating to the transference of Denominational and Subscription Schools to School Boards be assimilated to those of the English Education Act, in order that such
  906
  transference may be facilitated, and the burden on the-ratepayers thereby relieved; and that an effectual audit of the annual accounts of School Boards in Scotland be by Law provided."—(Sir William Stirling-Maxwell.)
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought the people of Scotland were very much indebted to the hon. Baronet for bringing this matter forward; and, for his own part, he thoroughly agreed with the Resolution before the House, although he confessed he did not agree with some of the reasons and illustrations by which it had been supported. It appeared to him that the main evil which existed under the administration of the Education Act in Scotland was the extravagance of school boards, and the absence of any efficient audit. The Resolution of the hon. Baronet, however, struck at the root of the evil. In Scotland an auditor merely meant a person who should add up the accounts and certify that they were clerically correct. He had had some experience of auditing, and never once found an item struck off. In England the Poor Law auditor not only added up the accounts, but examined them in order to see that the items of the expenditure were in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and if they were not, then he struck them out; and what they wanted in Scotland was an auditor who should in like manner disallow all items which came in contravention of the School Board Act. The amount of expenditure incurred by the school boards during the last year or two was perfectly appalling. They had heard a great deal about the good Education Act, and especially about its being a good deal better than that for England. The expense of education before the Act was passed was £50,000 a-year. Now, the expenditure for elections alone, as shown by the Return which had been alluded to, was £28,000, and some of the places where disputes had arisen had not given any Returns. The city which he had the honour to represent—Edinburgh—was pre-eminent in its extravagance; and, in consequence of the auditors refusing to pass the accounts, the expenditure of that city, amounting to £2,500, was not included in the Returns. Salaries, too, had been largely on the increase, and £270,694 was now given in salaries formerly mainly included in the £50,000.

  907
  Schoolmasters, in many cases, had been exceedingly rude in setting the school board at defiance, and refusing to admit them to the school; and he was sorry to see that a judgment of the Supreme Court seemed to sanction this overbearing and highly reprehensible conduct by the teachers to their superiors. Scotland prided herself on having a school for every parish in the country; but on reference to the Estimate for the present year it would be seen that new schools had been erected in rural parishes alone to the cost of £500,000, and in burghs to the extent of £250,000, making altogether £779,000 that had been estimated in the current year for building school-houses in a country which was supposed by those who knew little about it to be so amply furnished with school-masters and schoolmistresses. This was a startling statement, and it seemed to him necessary that Parliament should put some check on this expenditure. He knew of no method so good as the system of audit. The mere odds and ends of the expenditure of the present system amounted to more than the whole cost of the former parochial schools. The total expenditure for the present year was estimated at £1,137,832. This was a startling sum for a small country like Scotland to spend in one year for educational purposes, on a population not much exceeding 3,000,000. The expenditure for salaries of teachers, &c, was £295,694; for salaries of other officers £33,254, and the estimated general expenditure, which did not come under specific heads, £50,896. It appeared to him that one great cause of this new state of things was the new mode of electing members of the boards. In place of taking men who would manage economically, they looked for men who were supposed to be educated men, and who did not care a straw about expenditure or where it came from, and they had managed matters in the extravagant way to which he had alluded. By the use of cumulative votes he defied any man to have the least idea of how the elections would go in large constituencies; but had the elections been under the ordinary system, men much more given to economical views would have been appointed. The hon. Baronet had mentioned the difficulty of getting denominational schools transferred to local
  908
  school boards. The hon. Baronet had rather misled the House in saying that the United Presbyterian body, numbering several hundred thousands, had only transferred one school to the school board. The explanation was that the United Presbyterians disapproved altogether of having denominational schools. They held that the parish school was the national school, and that the United Presbyterians had the same right as Churchmen to those schools. This accounted for the fact that the United Presbyterian body transferred so few schools. The objection was, in his opinion, well founded to giving up the schools of the religious bodies to the parishes without having the use of them for religious classes for young men or girls, or prayer meetings, or purposes for which the school-houses were erected by the religious denominations. Schools transferred should be held to be the property of the parish to be used for any parochial purpose—for temperance meetings, religious meetings, political meetings, and other purposes. He rejoiced exceedingly at this Motion having been brought forward by the hon. Baronet, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would endeavour to do something, either in the Bill now before the House or in another Bill, to remedy this state of things. The Act provided that the school accounts were to be concluded on the 15th day of May in each year, but were not to be sent in until the 1st day of January. It appeared to him that this period of nearly seven months was too long an interval. He would venture to say the largest establishment in Scotland would balance their accounts in one week. When kept over in this way there was great temptation to manœuvring and dishonesty. He had only now to say a few words on what the Americans called the "one-man system of legislation" which prevailed respecting Scotland. The Lord Advocate for the time being, and not the members, performed the legislation. It was so in the passing of the Education Act, and however unwise some of the clauses were, Members knew that to rise in the House and point them out would be useless. This was the cause of so many bad working clauses being in the Bill, which would have been rejected had the common sense of Members of that House been allowed to

  909
  operate in giving effect to changes which might have been made.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he found some difficulty in making himself heard by reason of the hoarseness under which he was labouring, but he would endeavour to do as well as he could. It must be understood that the Government who now sat on his side of the House were by no means responsible for the provisions of the Scotch Education Act. He himself availed himself of opportunities for taking exception to many of its provisions; but, unfortunately, he felt his voice had not much weight in the discussion, and his objections, which were such as had arisen in the course of the present discussion, were not entertained. He felt it his duty at an early period of the Session to bring under the consideration of the Government the question whether there should be any amendment of the Education (Scotland) Act in the course of the present Session. The general impression was that it would be premature to bring forward any amendment of the Act of 1872 until a longer opportunity had been afforded to watch the working of the Act. Therefore, it was that the Government did not authorize him to bring forward any amendment. It could not be regarded as anything but reasonable action on the part of the Government that they should decline to rush into the amendment of an Act which had been so lately passed. They preferred to give a fair amount of time for its defects and its advantages to be fully ascertained. Nobody was more entitled to express an opinion on the working of the Act than the hon. Member for Perthshire (Sir William Stirling-Maxwell), and he could appreciate the feelings under which he had acted in bringing forward his Resolution. He would, however, beg the House to remember that the Resolution was only placed on the Paper that morning; and therefore it was really not known what were the points to which the hon. Member intended to direct the attention of the House. It now appeared that there were two points in respect to which he thought it was necessary to ask for immediate legislation. He must tell his hon. Friend that the representations and complaints made to him had been by no means confined to those two points. There were many other points in reference
  910
  to which dissatisfaction had been expressed. The difficulty the Government had felt was this—that if they brought in a Bill now, stirring up anew the questions which were dealt with in 1872, there was no saying to what extent they might not be called upon to extend their amendments. His hon. Friend had confined himself to the two points; but if a Bill were brought forward for amending the Scotch Education Act of 1872, they would find that those two points by no means comprised the whole of the objections, but that many others would be brought forward. That was a circumstance which must be taken into consideration. The Government felt that there were details in the Act of 1872 in regard to which some amendments would eventually be necessary; but the question was, whether the time had yet arrived for such amendments to be made? The Resolution asked, in the first place—
  "That the provisions of the Scotch Education Act relating to the transference of Denominational and Subscription Schools to School Boards be assimilated to those of the English Education Act, in order that such transference may he facilitated, and the burden on the ratepayers thereby relieved."
  But he was afraid his hon. Friend could hardly have understood what the provisions of the latter Act were as interpreted by the Privy Council. He would find, on reference to the provisions of the English Act, that the Education Department was precluded from agreeing to the transference of voluntary or denominational schools to school boards except for a mere nominal consideration, and not on a valuation of the schools as they at present existed. The policy of the English Education Act of 1870, for which the present Government were not responsible, was that wherever they found schools which had been instituted for the purpose of affording education to the poor, those schools should be made available as board schools without any payment being made to the owners by way of price. The reason of that was apparently the feeling that where buildings had been erected by means of Government grants and public subscriptions for the purposes of education, when a school board assumed the responsibility of supplying education for the poor, the buildings in question should be transferred to the board without

  911
  any price excepting such payment as might be considered fair on account of charges or burdens actually affecting the buildings at the time of the transfer. The 23rd clause of the English Act laid down the rules by which existing elementary schools might be transferred to the school board, and the 38th and 39th clauses of the Scotch Act provided for the transfer of existing schools on similar principles. The opinion of counsel had been taken on this very point. One of the counsel was the right hon. Gentleman the author of the Act, the late Lord Advocate. He said that, in his opinion, it was intended that schools which had been erected by subscriptions and Government grants should not be the subjects of acquisition by purchase, but that they fell under the 38th and 39th sections of the Scotch Education Act, and that it was deliberately intended such should be the effect of the Act. The hon. Member for Perthshire was mistaken in supposing that Scotland was placed in any worse position than England. It was contrary to the intention both of the English Act of 1870 and the Scotch Act of 1872 that existing voluntary schools should be taken by school boards for any other consideration than the charges actually existing in regard to them. He wished to remark that it was not till that morning he knew of the nature of the first Resolution; and he would point out to the hon. Baronet that so far as the audit was concerned the present Government were not responsible for the system which had been adopted, but when they came to consider what amendments ought to be made in the Act this was a matter which would deserve very careful attention. If, however, they were at the moment to open the question, he was at a loss to say where they would have to stop. Ought they not to wait to see the result of the election which would take place in the course of the next year? If they once opened a sluice there was no saying what the rush might be. He was afraid that quinquennial instead of triennial elections would not be satisfactory to those who found they had got a board of whose policy and proceedings they disapproved. The last part of the Resolution had reference to the question of audit, and if that question could be separated from that of the general revision of the Act it might
  912
  be perhaps possible to deal with it this Session.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought they might make a distinction between the amendments which were, in a great measure, new to the House, and which had not been much ventilated in the country, and those which were urgent. He did not think it would be wise, after the statements made by the members of the Board of Education as to the abuses which had arisen, that they should wait for the new election to see what might happen. He thought the hon. Member for Perthshire had made out a strong case, and he would put it to the Government and to the House whether they might not meet his proposal at once. He would submit that the subject might be further followed out by Committee in a written Report, so as to bring the facts clearly before the Government, the House, and the country. Something had been said about the way in which the Scotch Act was carried through the House; but he thought it was unfair to cast upon the Lord Advocate of the day all the responsibility which ought to be borne by the House, which passed the measure, including the Scotch Members.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he thought they might depend on it that if there had been a large expenditure amongst the prudent and economical Scotch, it was because such an expenditure was required. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) spoke as if the whole expenses of the education in Scotland was represented by the cost of the parochial schools, amounting before the Act to £50,000 a-year, but that did not represent anything like the cost. Then, it had been said that the denominational schools were being slowly absorbed; but his conviction was that they were being absorbed as rapidly as could be expected, although he would be glad to see some of the difficulties to transference removed. In the very first year of the existence of the Scotch Act 415 schools were absorbed into the national system, of which 228 were subscription schools and 186 schools belonging to separate denominations. He quite agreed with the Lord Advocate that it was a very dangerous thing to open the flood-gates by a complete alteration of the Act at present. It was perfectly certain that

  913
  in working such a large new system, making it, in fact, national over all Scotland. defects would be found. The defects were such as could not have well been foreseen. There was one thing they were all agreed upon, and that was that a system of audit would be of great benefit; and if the Government would give them a short Act on the subject, it would be very much valued. He thought it would be desirable to let them derive more experience from the working of the Act generally, but to bear in mind the suggestions which had been brought before them.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he thought that during the present Session it would be well not to meddle with the Education Act, although no one could be more sensible than he was of the force of some of the complaints made in regard to its operation. He was never a great lover of the measure; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that the Bill was drawn with such remarkable skill that any Amendment made at the time when it was before Parliament would have been fatal to it. He hoped it would be allowed to remain in operation undisturbed a little longer, in order that the country might thoroughly understand the mischief caused by some parts of the Act, and the probable incidence of the rate for the future, which at present acted very oppressively in some districts. The absence of a proper system of auditing hitherto might have led in some cases to an unnecessary burden of taxation. He hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire would be satisfied with having called attention to the subject, and that hon. Members who sympathized with the Motion would not be called upon to vote against the Government, and thus place themselves in a false position, at all events, with reference to the Lord Advocate, who was fully conscious of the importance of the complaints which were made, and who, when the proper time arrived, would no doubt be prepared to deal with them.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the Scotch Members ought to thank the hon. Baronet for bringing forward this subject. Although he could not agree with all the remarks of the hon. Baronet, particularly those respecting the grievances of teachers, still on many other points he had made out a very strong case in-deed, which was not met by the Lord
  914
  Advocate saying it was too soon to make any amendment of the Education Act. The present Government had not shown the same caution in regard to other measures of the late Administration, as might be seen in the glaring instances of the Endowed Schools Bill, and the Regimental Exchanges Bill, in both of which they had been eager to upset the legislation of their predecessors. Greater facilities ought to be given for the transfer of schools, or irreparable evils would take place. He considered a better audit desirable, and if the Motion was pressed to a division, he should give it his support.
  MR. KINNAIRDsuggested to the Government that, although it was out of the question to attempt to re-model the Education Act this Session, they would have no difficulty, after the unanimous expression of opinion by Scotch Members, in passing a Bill to deal with the question of audit.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the earnest wish on both sides of the House was to make the Scotch Education Act work as efficiently as possible. With regard to the transference of schools, the Government were not prepared to hold out any hopes of putting the powers of transference of denominational schools in Scotland on a different footing from what had been accorded to the denominational schools of England. The subject had been watched with great care in England, and there were more dangers to be avoided than hon. Members who had not watched the matter as attentively as the Government, were aware of. There was considerable difficulty, for instance, in dealing with the subject of tests, because when a school received the Government money a declaration had to be made that it was free from any tests whatsoever. Objections were also entertained to paying the money of the ratepayers to the denominations to which these schools belonged. With regard to the matter of audit it was a very grave fault in the Scotch Education Act that there was no means of checking the expenditure of the school boards. The complaints which the Government had received were of so serious a nature that they shrank from opening up the whole subject of the Act during the present Session, but sooner or later a satisfactory audit must be provided. He asked the House to leave it to the discretion of the Government to deter-

  915
  mine when would be the best time for dealing with the question of audit, which he assured the House would receive their very best attention. The Government would consider very carefully whether the matter could be dealt with either this year or in a short time; but it must be dealt with soon as the grievance was too serious to be neglected.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELL, in reply, said, that after the favourable reception his proposal had received, he thought it would not be fair of him to put the House to the trouble of a division. His noble Friend acknowledged the urgent need of an audit in Scotland; and the Lord Advocate had made the same admission. Therefore, he hoped the Resolution he had placed on the Paper had not altogether failed of its object. He admitted that the transference of schools required more consideration than was required by the audit, and it might receive it sooner rather than later. He urged his noble Friend to do something this year, as next year would be one of exceptional expense arising from the election of school boards.
  Question put, and negatived.

PARLIAMENT—STRANGERS (PRESENCE AT DEBATES).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SPEAKER: In reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), which stands next upon the Paper, I have to state, for the information of the House, that by the Rules of the House it is irregular to propose any Motion which anticipates discussion of a matter already appointed for consideration by the House. Those Rules may apply with some severity to the hon. Member for Swansea, because he was the first Member of the House during the present Session to propose any Motion with reference to the exclusion of Strangers; but the circumstances of the case are such as to preclude the hon. Member from making a Motion, inasmuch as the Motion of which the hon. Member has given Notice is substantially the same as one of the Motions submitted to the House by the noble Lord the Member for Radnor (the Marquess of Hartington), and which the House has appointed to take into consideration
  916
  on Monday next. On the 4th May the noble Lord the Member for Radnor, having given Notice of three Resolutions, proceeded to submit them to the House. He argued in support of all those Resolutions, and was prepared to submit them successively to the House; but when the first Resolution was proposed a debate arose, and was adjourned. That debate was adjourned from time to time, and now stands for Monday next. When that debate comes on the first Resolution will be proposed in due course, and when that has been disposed of the other two Resolutions of the noble Lord will be put from the Chair and disposed of, forming part of the same Order of the Day. Thus if the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea were now to be put to the House the debate on Monday next must necessarily be anticipated, and that inconvenience would arise which it is the object of the House to prevent.
  MR. DILLWYN: Perhaps I may be allowed to thank you, Sir, for so lucid an explanation of the position in which the matter now stands, and to say that I of course, and unhesitatingly, bow to your decision. Had the Rules of the House allowed me to bring on my Resolution I should certainly have done so; because I believe it relates to a matter which might have been, and ought to have been, disposed of some time ago, and which should be disposed of as soon as possible, as we do not know how soon another disturbance may arise similar to those which we have experienced. I can only express my regret that the Rules of the House do not allow me to proceed with the matter.

COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS TO WORKMEN BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for Compensation to Workpeople engaged in common employment in cases of injury by accidents when employed.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that this was a subject which ought to be carefully considered by a Select Committee, and he hoped that the Government would give its assistance in the matter, in order that a remedy might be found for what was an injustice to work-

  917
  men who might meet with injuries in large establishments.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the subject was deserving of serious consideration, and promised that, on the part of the Government, he would give the matter his best attention, but he was at present entirely ignorant as to the purport or effect of the proposed Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for Compensation to Workpeople engaged in common employment in cases of injury by accidents when employed, ordered to be brought in by Sir EDWARD WATKIN, Mr. KINNAIRD, and Mr. LAVERTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.]

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL— [BILL 32.]
(Sir Henry James, Sir William Harcourt.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL— [BILL 32.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  Clause 4 (The accounts of a returning officer may be taxed).
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved, in page 3, line 15, to leave out "in Ireland the Civil Bill Court."
  Amendment agreed to.
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the further Consideration of the Bill be adjourned,"—(Captain Nolan,)—put, and negatived.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Tuesday next.

  LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER [SALARIES, &c]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Salaries, Remuneration, and Superannuation Allowances of the Registrars, Assistant Registrars, their Clerks and Servants, that may be appointed under any Act of the present Session for facilitating the Transfer of Land, and of the incidental expenses of carrying-such Act into effect; and of Compensation to the Officers of Local Registries for any loss of fees and emoluments by reason of their business being diminished in consequence of such Act.
  Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

  POLICE EXPENSES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to make further provision respecting the Contribution, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, towards the Expenses of the Police Force in the Metropolitan Police District and elsewhere in Great Britain.
  Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

  INDUSTRIAL SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir EDWARD WATKIN, Bill for facilitating the establishment of Provident Savings Banks in connection with industrial enterprise, ordered to be brought in by Sir EDWARD WATKIN, MR. SHERRIFF, and Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 185.]

  DRUGGING OF ANIMALS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN ASTLEY, Bill to make the administration of poisonous Drugs and Compounds to Horses and other animals a punishable offence, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN ASTLEY, Mr. CHAPLIN, and Mr. ROWLAND WINN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 184.]
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock till Thursday.