Sitting of 3 August 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading—Parochial Records* [283].
Select Committee—Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment (Dublin)* [207], nominated.
Considered as amended—Elementary Education [277].
Third Reading—Tralee Savings Bank* [275].
Withdrawn—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) (No. 2)* [194]; Union of Benefices* [248].

ARMY—COURT MARTIAL ON CAPTAIN ROBERTS.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEasked the Judge Advocate General, Whether it is the fact that Captain Roberts, of the 94th Regiment, made formal application to the Horse Guards that the Court Martial directed to be held on his conduct, while stationed at Newry, should take place, not at Belfast, but in London, in order that he might have the benefit of the evidence of two Members of Parliament, Lord Francis Conyngham and the Right honourable Sir Colman O'Loghlen, who were unable to absent themselves from the House of Commons; whether such application was not refused, and Captain Roberts thereby deprived of his common law right to a change of venue, and of the material advantage to be derived from the aforesaid evidence; whether it is not the fact that the charges made against Captain Roberts were framed in direct violation of the instructions contained in the third paragraph of the Appendix (A) to the Queen's Regula-

415
tions, which directs that "in framing charges care should be taken to render them specific in names, dates, and places," inasmuch as there was no mention made in the charges of the name of the gentleman to whom Captain Roberts is alleged to have written, or of the date of such communication; whether an Officer holding Her Majesty's Commission is thereby deprived of the legal right to address a communication to a private friend seeking counsel and advice; whether, after the close of the case for the prosecution, it was either legal or equitable to admit the evidence of Sergeant Burgess; whether the finding of the Court Martial was the unanimous opinion of the Officers constituting that tribunal; and, whether there will be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, before the promulgation of Captain Roberts' sentence, Copies of the full record of the charges, evidence, statements of prosecutor and prisoner, and of the Deputy Judge Advocate, and the finding of the Court Martial?
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in reply, said, it was the fact that Captain Roberts made the application stated in the Question of the hon. Member; but the application was refused as being contrary to usage, and also on the sufficient ground that of about 60 witnesses examined 57 were in the Belfast district, while only three were in London, and of these three not one was summoned by the prisoner as necessary to his defence. He would remind the hon. Member that there was no such thing as a common law right to a change of venue; and having a regard to all the circumstances, the prisoner was clearly not deprived of any advantage by the course which was followed. The charges upon which Captain Roberts was arraigned, both legally and specifically alleged, the offences for which he was tried, and he was of opinion that those charges were framed, not in violation of, but in conformity with the paragraph of the Queen's Regulations to which the hon. Member referred. He was also of opinion that an officer holding Her Majesty's Commission was not thereby deprived of the legal right to address a communication to a private friend seeking counsel and advice. He was of opinion that the Court acted both legally and equitably in admitting the evidence of Sergeant Burgess at the time when he was examined as a witness. He had
416
no information as to whether the finding of the court martial was or was not the unanimous opinion of the tribunal; and having regard to the oaths prescribed by the 152nd Article of War, he could not inform the hon. Member if the Court were unanimous. It was not in accordance with the usual practice to entertain any application for the production of proceedings until after the promulgation.

TREATIES RESPECTING NON-EUROPEAN COUNTRIES—HERTSLET'S "MAP OF EUROPE BY TREATY."

  QUESTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government will hold out any inducement to MR. Hertslet, Librarian of the Foreign Office, to publish a Collection of Treaties respecting non-European Countries on the same plan as his recent work entitled "The Map of Europe by Treaty?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, the Government highly appreciated the work alluded to, and he believed it would be a useful thing if a similar book respecting Treaties affecting non-European countries was published. No representation had, however, been made to the Treasury by the Foreign Office.
  Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would repeat the Question to-morrow to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

PUBLIC HEALTH—THE SHEERNESS SEWERS.—QUESTION.
MR. PEMBERTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that on the 21st ultimo a man employed by the authorities of the War office at Sheerness lost his life in cleaning out a drain owing to the foul air and gas; and, whether such drain had been allowed to remain uncleansed for many months, although the attention of the officer who had charge of the drainage was repeatedly called to its condition by the Local Board of Health in the district?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Yes, it is true. The drain in question was regularly emptied every 24 hours, and special means of flushing are provided; but these means had not been in use in

417
consequence of the water in the moat from which it is flushed having been drawn off to allow the Local Board to obtain earth from the moat for formation of the sea embankment, which earth was given them by the War Office. The Local Board have on two occasions stated the outlet of this drain to be a nuisance, but the accident occurred over 400 yards from this outlet, at a man-hole which has never been complained of, and which has not been opened for 20 years. At the Coroner's inquest a verdict of "Accidental Death" was given after a thorough investigation. The drain has always been in good working order, and a letter received this morning from the Town Clerk of Rochester reports that the spot has been inspected by the principal water bailiff, and—
"that there is no nuisance existing by reason of the discharge of the sewage, and that no nuisance is occasioned provided the sluice is opened at proper intervals (it is opened regularly every 24 hours), and that due provision appears to have been made in this respect up to this time."

ARMY (INDIA)—ARREARS OF PAY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL JERVISasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any reply has yet been made to the letter of His Excellency the Commander in Chief in India, dated Head Quarters, Simla, 9th August, 1875, addressed to the Adjutant General to the Forces, Horse Guards, War Office, London, respecting arrears of pay due to certain officers of Her Majesty's British troops by the Government of India, and as such letter refers to previous communications and concerns a number of officers of high standing in the service, he can explain the cause of so unusual a delay; and, whether he is aware that His Excellency the Commander in Chief in India, by letter dated Simla, 1st April, 1875, Deputy Adjutant General's, Royal Artillery, directed the Commander in Chief of the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras not to forward any further applications, as a reply was shortly expected on the subject from the Horse Guards?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply,said, that no reply had been made to the letter dated 9th August, 1875, as no decision had yet been received from the
  418
  India Office to the references made to that Department on the subject of the claims put forward in that letter. Nothing was known in the War Office of the letter dated Simla, April 1, 1875.

ARMY—CAPTAIN ROBERTS—THE 94TH REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has any objection to produce the Certificate regarding the soldierly and satisfactory condition of Captain Roberts's Company, 94th Regiment, which Captain Mackinlay, at the recent Court Martial in Belfast on Captain Roberts, admitted having written and signed when he took over that Company on the occasion of Captain Roberts being removed from the command by Colonel Lord John Taylour; and, whether it is not the fact that, at the same Court Martial, Captain Mackinlay deposed on oath that Captain Roberts's Company, at the time of his, Captain Mackinlay, being appointed to the command thereof, was in a most unsatisfactory and bad condition?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The certificate regarding the company of the 94th Regiment referred to is connected purely with the interior economy of a regiment, and does not refer to the order of the company as regards drill and appearance or cleanliness of the men, but to the condition of the arms and accoutrements, accounts, &c. The document is as follows:—
''I certify that I have received over the arms and accoutrements, great coats and necessaries, together with the accounts of Letter H Company, from Captain F. Roberts. I am perfectly satisfied with the same and become responsible for company from this date.
"J. MACKINLAY, Lieutenant 94th Regiment.
"John W. TAYLOUR."

Should it appear to His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief that there is any discrepancy between Captain Mackinlay's certificate and his evidence on oath, the matter will be dealt with by the military authorities as a question of discipline.

ARMY—THE MONCRIEFF GUN CARRIAGE.—QUESTION.
MR. MAITLANDasked the Secretary of State for War, For what reasons the

419
experiments on Major Moncrieff's hydro-pneumatic system of gun carriages have not been further proceeded with?
LORD EUSTACE CECIL, in reply, said, the experiments had not been proceeded with, because such gun-carriages were not required for heavy guns. The question as to whether such carriages should be used for siege purposes was now under consideration.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1872—MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.—QUESTION.
DR. CAMERON (for Dr. LUSH)asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will state to the House the reasons why he has recently refused to confirm the appointments of medical officers of health for a longer period than one year; and, on what grounds it is believed that such a limitation of tenure is likely to operate beneficially in securing activity and efficiency in the performance of the duties of sanitary officers?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, under the Act of 1872 it was provided that the first appointment of medical officers of health should be for a period of five years. An experimental period was adopted in order to see whether the arrangement was satisfactory, or whether any change would be desirable. He agreed that the efficiency of an officer was increased by the permanency of his appointment, and the practice was to sanction permanent appointments where the medical officer of health devoted his whole time to the performance of his duties. In cases where he did not devote his whole time he (MR. Sclater-Booth) thought that the rule of five years would be convenient. The Report of an experienced Inspector reviewing the whole question would soon be submitted to him.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—THE BUCKS YEOMANRY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD (for MR. E. HUBBARD)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter written by the Lieutenant Colonel of the Royal Bucks Yeomanry on January 1st, 1876, to the Inspector of Auxiliary Cavalry, acknowledging the letter of the War Office 0070 734,
  420
  which not only ordered the guns attached to the Regiment to be returned to store, but disbanded the men and Serjeants of the two troops of Artillery themselves; and, whether, in view of the testimony of the Commanding Officer to the efficiency of these two Troops as Yeomen, and to the great sacrifice of time and money made by both officers and men in learning the additional duties of artillerymen, he would think it right to accept the offer of their continued service in the Regiment as Light Cavalry, with some acknowledgment of the services they have already rendered?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply,said, his attention was drawn to the letter in question, which was duly replied to. In communicating to the Officer Commanding the Bucks Yeomanry on the 15th December, 1875, that the two Artillery troops could no longer be permitted to form part of the establishment of the regiment, and that they must be disbanded; it was not the intention that these troops should be necessarily disbanded in the literal sense, but that they should be discontinued as Artillery and their guns withdrawn, the troops remaining in the regiment as Cavalry, and retaining with their officers their regimental positions. This was subsequently explained to the Officer Commanding by letter dated the 26th of January last. The services rendered by the Artillery troops and their efficiency were fully appreciated, and an expression of the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government of their efficiency was made to the Officer Commanding on the 15th December last.

THE ROYAL MINT—THE NEW SITE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANKEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a map has been prepared and laid upon the Table of the House, showing that the site of the present Mint comprised in the gross 203,624 superficial feet, or a little more than four acres of ground, of which 13,775 superficial feet, are now let on an unexpired term of six and a quarter years, and that the ground required for the Mint which it was proposed in 1871 to build on the Thames Embankment was only 123,174 superficial feet, thus showing that a new Mint could be erected on the present site, and leave

  421
  66,675 superficial feet, or about one and a-half acres to spare, and which could be sold in part payment of the cost of a new Mint on the present site?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply,said, that the figures which the hon. Member had given were accurately quoted from the map in the Library. The frontage of the Mint was very narrow, and a new Mint could not be erected on a part of the present site without pulling down the main building and incurring enormous expense. There was only one Mint in this country, and the coinage could not be carried on during the reconstruction of the building, nor could it be suspended. Owing to the shape of the existing site the back part of the premises could not be sold with advantage, as there would be great difficulty in obtaining access to it. It would be much cheaper, even if it were not absolutely necessary, to sell the present unwieldly site and place a new Mint, properly arranged and concentrated, on a new and more convenient one.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—LIGHT DUES.—QUESTION.
MR. NORWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the increase of five per cent. recently made in Light Dues on Shipping was rendered necessary by a falling off of receipts below the amount required for the maintenance of the service; and, if that be not the case, to inquire the purpose to which this increased revenue will be applied?
Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: The recent increase of 5 per cent in the light dues has been rendered necessary by a falling off of receipts below the amount required for the maintenance of the service. The reserve fund, which in April, 1874, was £250,000, had in April, 1876, fallen to £60,000. There is also an increased expenditure going on in supplying fog signals at several light stations.

PUBLIC HEALTH—THE EAGLEY MILK EPIDEMIC.—QUESTION.
MR. CHARLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, When the Report of MR. Power, the Commissioner appointed by the Board to in-
422
quire into the circumstances connected with the Eagley milk epedemic, will be presented?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, the Report on the subject had been communicated to the sanitary authorities interested.

ARMY—MILITARY PRISONERS—HANDCUFFS.—QUESTION.
MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the injury done to a soldier travelling under arrest in the Bourton accident to the Great Western Express on the 27th ult.; whether he is aware that, in the West Drayton accident to the same express, another case of injury through a prisoner travelling in handcuffs occurred; and, whether he will either direct that prisoners under arrest be not conveyed by these fast express trains or will permit the removal of their handcuffs?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: It has been mentioned in the newspaper that a soldier was injured in the late railway accident, but no official report has been received at the War Office. I am not aware that a prisoner when travelling in handcuffs was injured in the West Drayton accident; no report was made of such an occurence. Soldiers do not, as a rule, travel by fast express trains; but it would be undesirable to prevent prisoners being taken by these trains when necessary. Handcuffs are necessary for the safe custody of prisoners.

COMMERCIAL FRAUDS.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government has yet considered the question of amending the Law and procedure for dealing with Financial and Commercial Frauds in their modern developments; and, whether it is proposed to take any action on the subject?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply,said, the question referred to by the hon. Member was, no doubt, one of considerable difficulty; but he was advised that a Bill had been brought in by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (MR. Chadwick) which would, to a great extent, prevent the frauds which were referred to in the Question. The hon. Member for Macclesfield had been as-

423
sured by the Government that they would be very glad to see that Bill become law, and if it did not become law during the present Session, he trusted that either under the auspices of the hon. Member or of the Government, some similar measure might be passed into law during next Session.

TURKEY—GUARANTEED LOAN 1855.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL MUREasked MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the coupons and drawings of 1855 Turkish Guaranteed Loan, due on the 1st August, have been paid; if so, whether the funds out of which such payments have been made were deposited in the Bank of England or France on the Egyptain Tribute Account, under the Third Article of the Convention between England and the Sublime Porte, by which these payments form a special charge on the annual amount of the Tribute of Egypt "which, remains over and above the part thereof appropriated to the 1854 Loan;" or, whether the money has been paid or supplemented by the Governments of England and France, or from any other source?
  THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The best answer I can give to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member will be to mention the facts. On Saturday, the 29th of July, the Bank of England wrote to the Treasury that the necessary funds had not been provided to meet the charge of the Imperial Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855, falling due on the 1st of August. On the 31st of July, the Treasury communicated this information to the Foreign Office, in order that a proper representation of the circumstances might be made to the Turkish Government. On the same day the Treasury informed the Bank that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to fulfil the guarantee which they had given jointly with the French Government and severally; but they (the Treasury) asked the Bank to advance the amount of the dividend in the first instance. This was an act of courtesy to the Turkish Government in order to afford them the opportunity of acting on the representation which had been made to them. On the 1st of August the Bank paid the dividend as requested by the Treasury. On the 2nd of August
  424
  the Foreign Office forwarded to the Treasury a copy of a letter from the Turkish Ambassador, saying that he was in communication with his Government. Up to the present time no further information has been received. The facts have been made known to Lord Lyons for communication to the French Government.

  UNITED STATES—EXTRADITION—RETURN OF CASES.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Return respecting cases of Extradition between Great Britain and the United States, ordered several weeks ago, will be presented?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply,said, the Government were anxious to make a Return as soon as possible, but the facts with regard to Canada had not yet arrived in this country. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would consult with him he would endeavour to meet his wishes on the subject.

CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—THE CONVICT KIRWAN.—QUESTION.
MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that Kirwan, who was convicted of the murder of his wife, under circumstances of great atrocity, at Ireland's Eye, has been set at liberty; and, if so, on what and whose recommendation?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: presumed that the hon. Member referred to a convict whose name was not quite identical with that given in the Question, but who was convicted of this murder and sentenced to death, which sentence was commuted to penal servitude. He had not been set at liberty, and was still undergoing his sentence.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Sir, I have given Notice of my intention to move the adjournment of the Orders preceding that of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill. But, Sir, as you have been good enough to inform me that I have not put down my Notice of Motion in a manner exactly in accordance with the Forms of the House,

  425
  I hope hon. Members will allow me to make a short statement in moving the Adjournment of the House. I have never moved the Adjournment of the House before, and I hope never to move it again, in similar circumstances. I should have no other opportunity of explaining what has occurred; but I feel that I ought to apologize to the House for doing anything to prolong the most dreary, weary, dismal, doleful, and dispiriting Session that I have ever known. I must also apologize to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for coming in his way, and I certainly should not have done it at any other time, or in any other circumstances. If the Education Bill is so important, we surely should remember that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (MR. Smyth) is also an Education Bill; and being so, I think it ought to have the support of the Representatives of the brewery trade in this House, from whom we have had three Motions in favour of religious education. I wish seriously to say that I do not think the Government have acted—I will use as mild a word as I can—quite justifiably in regard to the Bill of my hon. Friend. I do not think they have acted quite fairly to the House, to Ireland, or to their own Party. Now, let us look at the history of my hon. Friend's Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] It will not take long to tell. This Parliament is not a very old one, and I shall not go further back. The Resolution, founded on the Motion brought in in 1874, and in favour of which the Irish vote was 4 to 1, was defeated by a course not creditable to the opponents of the measure. I am not blaming the Government very strongly for opposing the Resolution then, because they had just then come into office on the appeal to the country; and the instructions the country gave them were that they were to promote the sale of intoxicating drinks in every possible way. ["Oh!"] If these were not the instructions why did they do it? We could not expect that in 1874 the Government would try to put a stop to the sale of drink in Ireland when they were promoting it in England. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Baronet that he is not at liberty, under cover of a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, to discuss the merits of a Bill which is on the Orders of the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask whether I am empowered to allude to the conduct of the Government with respect to the Bill, keeping in my remarks clear of the merits of the measure?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet would be quite in Order in asking the Government to give him a day for the discussion of the Bill which is in charge of the hon. Member for Londonderry; but to discuss the merits of the Bill upon the present occasion would be quite out of Order.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: In that case I will merely discuss the conduct of the Government in reference to the Bill. In 1875 a scene occurred when my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry brought in a Bill which must be fresh in the recollection of hon. Members. There was a majority expected in favour of the Bill; but a short time before the hour for adjournment the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (MR. Wheelhouse) rose, and amid loud cries of anguish from all sides of the House, said it was too late then to proceed further with a measure of such importance, and moved the Adjournment of the House. I say he did that with the connivance of Her Majesty's Government. I have heard it stated in the North, where the hon. and learned Member came from, that there was an intention to make him a Baronet by way of reward for his service. More than that, I have been told, under no seal of secrecy, that when the Prime Minister called together his Supporters shortly after to discuss the political situation of the day, he made the strongest appeal to them to assist him in getting rid of the Bill of the hon. Member for Londonderry. That appeal was successful. This year my hon. Friend obtained a majority of 57 in favour of his Resolution, comprising 5 to 1 of the Irish Members and 10 to 1 of the Scotch. Upwards of 40 Tory Members preferred their principles and the good of their country to Party ties, and I honour them for it. A remarkable event happened on that occasion. Three Gentlemen officially connected with the Government, and representing Irish constituencies, walked out of the House without voting—the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who represents the county of Dublin (Colonel Taylor), the hon. and learned Solicitor General for

  427
  Ireland, who sits for Dublin University, and the noble Lord who represents Enniskillen (Viscount Crichton). We know what the noble Lord said when he went down to his constituents. He said that no personal considerations should be allowed to stand in the way of duty, and that his joining the Government might give him an opportunity of serving his countrymen. "For instance," he added, "there was the Sunday Closing Bill, and in regard to that subject he would be able to bring public opinion before the Government in an authoritative manner." That is what was said by one of the most respected officials of the Government. It has been said that in the last debate Cork was against the Bill; but there has been an election in Cork since that time, and the result has been the return of a Tory Member, whose first speech was in favour of the measure. If a Resolution on an English question was supported by 5 to 1 of the English Members, would a day, would an hour have been lost before the Government brought in a Bill to give effect to that Resolution? Especially if public opinion had been in favour of it, as you know it is in Ireland—["No!"]—where it is as near unanimity as anything can be in Ireland. What is the use of crying, "No," when the facts are before us? It is not only the magistrates and the clergy, but even the publicans are in favour of it, and this is a fact that should carry weight with hon. Gentleman opposite. Although there was such a great majority, however, the Government would give no facilities for getting on with the Bill. The Prime Minister gave the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (MR. Butt) facilities for the discussion of his Land Bill, which was not supported by anything like the unanimity in favour of this Bill, and I cannot understand why the same facilities should not be given to this Bill. My hon. Friend, however, got a day in spite of them, and he got it on a day when there were three Motions before his. Those Motions were by a Home Ruler, an English Liberal, and a Scotch Tory, and they all made way for my hon. Friend. No one dared to divide against the Bill on the second reading, and the consequence of a speech then made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that the Government was complimented by a distinguished speaker on their entire good faith in removing this
  428
  matter from the stage of Parliamentary discussion and putting an end to contention. In spite of all that complimenting, a fortnight elapsed before they could extract from the Chief Secretary the Amendments he was to propose in the Bill. It was like drawing teeth to get them out of him. I have the fear of you in my eye, Sir, and so will not discuss those Amendments; but, whether they are good or bad, the Government should have seen that an opportunity was given for discussing them. But after the Prime Minister gave the promoters of the Bill a Wednesday's sitting, the Chairman of Ways and Means brought on a discussion, which lasted an hour and a-half, on a Resolution which was subsequently withdrawn, and which prevented that full discussion of the Bill which was anticipated. The Mover said that it was not his purpose to prevent the discussion of the Bill, which was no doubt very true. I put it to the Government if it is really too late to save this Bill from the Massacre of the Innocents, and I am sure there is not a more innocent Bill in the whole lot. In any case, be it understood that it is not the machinations of the hon. Member for Dundalk (MR. Callan), and his little band of heroes who count out and talk out on every possible occasion, but the action of the Government to which the defeat of the Bill is due. It has been argued that the Session is too far advanced to get the Bill through; but it should not be forgotten that last year at this very time they were engaged in discussing a very important Bill—the Merchant Shipping Bill. That Bill was read a second time on the 30th of July, and a third time on the 6th of August, and was subsequently passed by the House of Lords. The Prime Minister, it is true, attributed the passing of that Bill to a dramatic incident; but it was not so important as this Bill, because a distinguished Member of the Government—the Judge Advocate General—was down in the country lately, and spoke about it as rather a miserable affair which would only affect some 700,000 persons. There is plenty of time to pass the measure, to which the Government has given its assent on the principle through an Amendment that has been proposed. Let us proceed with the debate, and come to a decision on a question which has secured an amount

  429
  of unusual unanimity in Ireland. We have been told that we can do nothing, as the Session is too far advanced. It is quite possible to get this Bill through yet if anybody is in earnest about it. In the case of the Merchant Shipping Bill, to which I have referred, I think it is a folly that the Government will not carry a Bill through this House unless some one stands on one leg and shakes his fist at the Prime Minister. There is time. Do not talk to me about the House of Lords not passing it. I know as much about the House of Lords as anybody else, and I do not think that any House of Lords could nail its colours to the mast and say that it is desirable to make Irishmen drunk on Sundays. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter, and give us some little assistance. It may be true, or it may be not, that the Government do not mean to offend English publicans. I have told you before that Irish publicans do not care much about it. I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he has not said a single word that could commit him to the publicans. He might throw them over to-morrow, and he would be quite consistent. I hope he will. With one word he could carry the Bill now. ["No, no!"] Yes, he has plenty of time to put it down and the same evening to get it through. But I say that if he refuses this almost unanimous, this earnest, this constitutional demand from the Irish people, he is the greatest upholder of Home Rule that is to be found, and he will perpetuate Irish dissatisfaction and discontent. I think the House is entitled to have more facilities given to it for carrying the Bill. If the Government persists in the dead weight of opposition, my hon. Friend has no chance; but I would appeal to the Government, even now at the eleventh hour, to give this House an opportunity of maintaining its own decisions, and, at the same time, do an act of justice which is demanded by the almost unanimous voice of the Irish people. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  MR. DISRAELI: I cannot help feeling, Sir, that the exhaustion of the
  430
  Session is to some degree evidenced by the remarks of the hon. Baronet, as they lacked that vivacity which has so often amused us; but what has struck me as remarkable in his speech is that I could not gather from it what his complaint really is. The hon. Baronet regrets that a Bill in which he is deeply interested has not passed, and that is a regret with regard to other measures that I can share with him. But that justifies the remarks the hon. Baronet has made. Now, without going into any long story as to the history of the Bill to which he refers, let us look at its course during the present Session. There was a division called for in a very full House upon a Resolution which was to be the foundation of the Bill. The Government opposed the Resolution, and were defeated by a considerable majority in a full House. Well, what was the course we took? I do not think 24 hours elapsed—certainly a very short time did—before we communicated with the promoters of the Bill, and stated that we should look upon that majority in favour of the Resolution as equivalent to a vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill. Is that conduct of which anyone can complain, or make the foundation of a charge against the Government that they have been extending to this Bill an unfair opposition? Well, that being the case, the hon. Baronet proceeds with his complaint, and says that my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was a fortnight in preparing his Amendments. I am not aware that a fortnight is a long time to take in a work of the kind when you are attempting to reconcile the passing oaf Bill, the principle of which you have opposed, with circumstances which you think may be attended with inconvenience and injury to the public. After the lapse of a fortnight, then, the Amendments were laid on the Table, and the time arrived at which the fate of the Bill might have been decided, and, had the Amendments been accepted, the stage of the Bill would have been passed. Who refused to accept the Amendments? Why, the promoters of the Bill. ["No!"] No, then I have been entirely misinformed as to what occurred yesterday. If the promoters of the Bill accepted the Amendments, I believe it was unknown to us. Then we hear it said this Bill is one that has been supported unanimously by the Irish Mem-

  431
  bers. [An hon. Member: Almost.] Almost! Almost is a very ambiguous word. I must look to facts in attempting to guide the House in the management of their Business. What are the facts of yesterday? There was a debate on this Bill. A great many Irish Members spoke. Ten Irish Members spoke, and they all spoke against the Bill. What evidence was that of almost unanimity on both sides? We can only draw from that circumstance that this Bill, which might have been passed if the Amendments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had been accepted, was, in fact, defeated by the continuous speaking of Irish Members on both sides of the House. It has been said that hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill spoke against time, and that may be true; but, if it is true, why did not hon. Members who desired that the Bill should pass denounce the practice, or answer the arguments adduced, instead of remaining perfectly silent during the whole debate. All we know is that the whole morning was taken up by Irish Members speaking, and speaking against the Bill. The hon. Baronet has complained that the Chairman of Ways and Means wasted a considerable portion of the Sitting before this Bill was reached by speaking on another question. With regard to that matter, I can only say that the hon. Gentleman, as an independent officer of the House over whom I have no control, spoke in the fulfilment of a most important duty. He rose to move Resolutions founded on the Report of what is rarely heard of, a united Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. That certainly was a duty which he was called upon to fulfil, but what did the Government do even under those circumstances? Why, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary absolutely rose and prevented discussion. Instead of inviting discussion, instead of occupying the greater part of the morning, which he might have done, on a matter which all must acknowledge was of grave interest, my right hon. Friend absolutely suppressed discussion to give a fair opportunity to Irish Members to advance this measure in which they are so deeply interested, and of which all the English public know is that 10 Irish Members each, one after another, opposed it. However mortifying, therefore, the result of the
  432
  discussion may have been to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, I think the House and the country will agree with me when I say that he has no shadow of a claim to object to the conduct of the Government on the occasion. It must be the memory of some previous mortification in connection with a congenial subject that has induced the hon. Baronet to charge upon an innocent Administration a desire to impede the progress of the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Londonderry. I trust, under these circumstances, that the House will not assent to the Motion, but will proceed with the Business on the Paper.
  MR. R. SMYTH: I do not, Sir, rise under any feeling of mortification, such as has been curiously ascribed to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson), nor do I intend to utter any words of complaint. A complaining man is usually taken to be a beaten man, and I do not acknowledge myself to be in that condition at all, having in my mind the experiences of the present Session. There was at least one statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government which came upon me with considerable surprise, to the effect that, after the carrying of the Resolution on the 12th of May, the Government did not allow 24 hours to pass until the promoters were made acquainted with their intention to accept the decision of the House as equivalent to a vote on the second reading of the Bill. Now, all I can say is that no such communication ever reached me. On the evening before the second reading of the Bill there were vague rumours through the Lobby that the Government did not intend to oppose the second reading; but until the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland rose in his place to announce the intention of the Government, I had no idea whatever, founded on authentic information, what these intentions were. I think it extraordinary that a message should have been sent to those hon. Members whom the right hon. Gentleman has designated the promoters of the Bill, and that this message failed to reach me who had mainly the charge of the measure. If I may be allowed to allude to the events of yesterday, I shall do so in no spirit of bitterness, or of complaint at all. I beg to

  433
  assure the House that when, we pressed forward the consideration of the Bill, we had no other motive or expectation than the bringing about a moderately satisfactory settlement this year. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland and my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (MR. Maurice Brooks), who moved the Amendment, know, and they knew yesterday, that if we had got into Committee I was prepared to make a statement which might have facilitated the progress of the measure. So anxious were the friends of the Bill to get into Committee, that we agreed among ourselves to observe a strict silence, in order that there might be no excuse for wasting time in the discussion of a principle which had been so thoroughly considered in a previous debate; and so strictly was that covenant observed that out of the 61 Irish Members who voted or paired for the principle of the Bill not one man opened his lips yesterday. The whole of the speaking was confined to the 11, or a portion of the 11 Irish Members who voted against it, reinforced by some two or three neutrals, whose opinions appear to be as yet unformed and of a somewhat flabby character. I deny in the most emphatic manner that we had any purpose before our mind except a settlement of the question—and such a settlement as, preserving our own consistency and liberty of future action, would have taken into account any reasonable wishes of the Government. That was perfectly well known to the right hon. Baronet opposite; but I suppose it was not considered necessary to communicate it to the head of the Government. If I may express an opinion which I profoundly entertain, I will say that the waste of time which occurred at the commencement of the Sitting yesterday contributed largely to bring us into that condition of dead-lock in which we are now unhappily placed. I do not for one moment intend to convey to the House that the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means was in concert or had any understanding with the hon. Member for Dundalk, but the fact is, that to all appearance, the expenditure of time was deliberately wasteful, for the Chairman of Ways and Means said at the opening of his speech that the conversation upon his Resolutions was not likely to come to any definite issue. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman could not refer to former debates.
  MR. R. SMYTH: Well, then, that which occurred yesterday at the commencement of the Sitting, unwittingly on the part of the hon. Gentleman, afforded substantial aid and comfort to the hon. Member for Dundalk to fight this Bill, not by argument, but by the hands of the clock. And now what is to be done? If we made no declaration yesterday with reference to the Amendments of the Government, the reasons of that silence on our part are perfectly obvious. We had no certainty as to the issue of the measure this Session. It might not pass after all, and I may as well candidly say, that if the war is to be carried on in Ireland throughout the Recess, it will be a much simpler thing for the people of Ireland to continue it on the old lines, and not in any way embarrassed by premature compromises. But I think the time has come when the Ministry, as such, ought to take this subject earnestly in hand. I suppose I have done all that can reasonably be expected of a private Member. I am perfectly well aware, as every hon. Gentleman in this House is aware, that no Bill vigorously opposed can be carried by a private Member without the co-operation of the Government. But if it is still the opinion of the Government that this question, which has now become one of undoubted importance, should be left in private hands, all that remains for me is to move that the Order for going into Committee be discharged for the present, and to give Notice that at the earliest moment next Session I shall ask leave to introduce the Bill exactly as it stands, and I will make my appeal once more to the judgment of the House of Commons.
  MR. RAIKES: The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), by what was no doubt a slip of the tongue, has imputed to me purposes which it is not customary in Parliament for one Member to impute to other Members. I feel sure, from what I know of the hon. Baronet, that on reflection he will be the first to regret that he should have imputed to any Member purposes which he would have resented if they had been imputed to himself. I do not care to defend myself against any insinuations thrown out by the hon. Member for Londonderry (MR. R. Smyth). His natural feeling of disappointment

  435
  at the loss of his Bill may be held an entire excuse for anything he may care to say about me; but I feel it only right to this House, of which I am an officer, and to the Government, of which I am not a Member, to say that the course I took yesterday—certainly a deliberate course on my part—was taken in concert with nobody, without any communication passing between me and the Government, or between me and the hon. Member who opposed the Bill. That course was taken by me simply because yesterday appeared to me to be the best occasion I could take during the few remaining days of the Session for the discussion of a matter which I regarded as one of great public importance. The hon. Members who have objected to the course I took know very well—or if they do not I hope there are few Members of the House who do not know—that I have carefully studied to avoid any imputation of being a partizan ever since I have had the honour of having a seat at this Table; and it has been simply as the mouthpiece, as the very humble mouthpiece, of a very important body—the joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, dealing with a question of very great importance—that I ventured to trouble the House yesterday. I may have been right or I may have been wrong in thinking that the conduct of the Private Business of this House is of more importance than the Bill of the hon. Member for Londonderry. I tell him, however, plainly and frankly that I think it infinitely more important. The Private Business of this House is a matter that affects millions of property; it affects the interests of great municipalities and of large populations, and it is of the highest importance, in my opinion, that the business should be conducted in a proper and becoming manner; and I venture to think a question touching upon that was more important than the prospects of a moribund Bill at the end of a moribund Session. I freely excuse the observations made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. I have too high an admiration for his public character to think that he could have willingly intended to wound me or to impute tome anything unworthy; but in the course I have marked out for myself as an officer of this House, I am not going to be
  436
  deterred by any criticism from any individual Member, or by any fear of displeasing any one, no matter on what side of the House he may sit, from performing the duty that I think devolves upon me.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that he had been from the first a cordial supporter of the Bill for closing public-houses in Ireland on Sundays, as it appeared to represent the almost unanimous wishes and sentiments of the people of Ireland; but, at the same time, he could not help giving his equally cordial testimony, having sat through the whole of the debate on the Wednesday in question, from 12 o'clock till the Bill was talked out at a quarter to 6 p.m., to the straightforward, honourable and manly conduct of the Government in regard to the Bill. When the Government found the strong feeling in its favour which existed on both sides of the House, and had listened to the representations on its behalf from all parts of Ireland, they had abstained from all further opposition, though the Chief Secretary had on more than one occasion expressed his own sentiments objecting to it. The Bill had therefore passed its second reading without any division, and the Prime Minister had even gone so far as to fix a day for going into Committee upon it, which actually was the Wednesday in question: nay, more, the right hon. Gentleman when appealing to the House a few days previously to have the two remaining Wednesdays during the Session surrendered to the Government for Public Business, when he found that there was an earnest desire that the hon. Member for Londonderry's (MR. R. Smyth's) Bill should go into Committee and undergo consideration, at the same time, as the new clauses proposed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he at once most courteously withdrew the request he had made. It was not fair, now, to taunt the Government with interposing any obstacle in the way of the further progress of the Bill, for they had really done all in their power to expedite its progress, and even during the protracted discussion on Wednesday the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had earnestly appealed to the Irish Members to allow the Bill (it being then 3 o'clock in the afternoon) to go into Committee and allow the clauses to be considered. The

  437
  fact was that the Government were not at all to blame, but it wag the determined hostility of certain Irish Members which barred all attempts at progress. He had waited himself for an opportunity to say a few words in favour of the Bill, and to deprecate further delay; but the hon. Member for Dundalk (MR. Callan) had got possession of the House at half-past 4 p.m., and what did he do? He did not mate a speech, but he actually continued reading extracts from Irish newspapers till the clock pointed to a quarter to 6, and the Bill was thus talked out after a tedious and protracted discussion of several hours, during which they had not advanced a single inch. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) could not help saying that after the large majority by which the Motion of the hon. Member for the County of Derry had been originally carried early in the Session, and after the second reading of the Bill, afterwards introduced, without a division being challenged by those hon. Members for Ireland who opposed it, the conduct of the hon. Member for Dundalk was most unwarrantable. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that on reflection the hon. and learned Baronet would see that he was applying motives to the conduct of an hon. Member of that House which were not admissible.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I am sorry for having made an imputation on the hon. Member for Chester (MR. Raikes) which was not well founded. I thought he was acting in concert with the Government; but I was wrong in making that statement, and I withdraw it and apologize for having made it. The hon. Member for Chester acted on his own responsibility, and said he did not make his Motion, with any intention of delaying the Bill. My own impression is that it did delay the Bill. With the permission of the House I beg to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
  (Viscount Sandon, MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer, MR. Assheton Cross.)
  [BILL 277.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Viscount Sandon.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, principles have been introduced into this Bill since its Second Reading which were not then either mentioned to or contemplated by the House, which tend to disturb the basis on which Elementary Education now rests, to impede the formation of new schools, to introduce discord and confusion into the election of School Boards, and to place the management of schools in the hands of persons who neither contribute to their support nor are elected by the ratepayers,"
  said: I hope the House will, in the first place, allow me to make a few words of explanation as to the exact form in which the Motion I am about to submit to it stands upon the Paper. My wish, of course, was, if the Forms of the House would permit, to place on the Paper a Resolution which would not in appearance have been so hostile to the whole progress of the Bill as that which now stands in my name. What I desired to do was to move the re-committal of the Bill, in order that certain clauses and provisions which were not in the Bill at the second reading might be considered and omitted, and I wished to place before the House the reasons why I desired to make that Motion. But on consultation with the authorities of the House I found that though it would be in my power to move the re-committal of the Bill, it would not be in my power to do so accompanied by a statement of the reasons which induced me to take that course, and I therefore was constrained to place on the Paper the Resolution which stands in my name. The Resolution which I have placed on the Paper, though undoubtedly hostile to the Bill, is, at the same time, not necessarily fatal to the progress of the Bill. If the Resolution were agreed to, the consideration of the Report would only be delayed, and it would be possible to move again that the Bill be re-considered. I admit in form it appears hostile to the Bill, and I have ventured, therefore, to offer to the House an explanation of the exact form in which it now stands. I need hardly tell the House I take that course with no intention of delaying the progress of the Bill. I do not think it necessary, and it is not my desire, that this Motion should lead to protracted debate. It would have been better if the principle of the Bill had been more fully and clearly debated,

  439
  and if that course had been taken, I think the time of the House would have been saved. I know it is the opinion of hon. Members opposite that a great deal of time has been wasted in the discussion of the clause of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (MR. Pell). I cannot agree in that opinion, because, though I think the clause to be most objectionable, I also think that the protracted discussion to which it was subjected, if it has not modified the spirit of the proposal, has to a great extent taken away its power of mischief—and I feel that time will not be wasted if I now ask the House at this stage of the progress of the measure to consider the changes which have been introduced since the Bill received the assent of the House on the second reading. This Bill was introduced, not as a change in the policy of the Education Act of 1870, but as an extension of the principles of that Act. The noble Lord, in the very moderate and judicious speech in which he introduced the Bill, dwelt chiefly upon the fact that under the Act of 1870 efficient schools had been provided almost over the whole country, that the advance in public opinion which had been made since 1870 had now rendered the country ripe for some further measures to enforce upon parents the undoubted duty of taking care that their children were educated, and that all that remained to be done was to proceed as we had begun. The country was now ripe for a system of universal compulsion of some kind or another. It is true they differed as to the direction in which that system of universal compulsion was to proceed. Many of us on this side of the House thought it would be a simpler and more efficient mode of proceeding if we advocated a system of direct compulsion, by making it the duty of every parent to educate his child, inflicting a moderate penalty to enforce this duty. That points of difference existed among us there can be no doubt; but at the time of the second reading we were almost unanimous in accepting the principle of the Bill, believing that principle to be the adoption of some system of universal compulsion in education. We were aware at the time that the Bill was to be for denominational schools, but we did not complain of this. I do not think it would be reasonable of us to expect the Government to throw away the great
  440
  advantages which denominational schools had acquired by the legislation of 1870. I do not think it would have been reasonable to expect that they should not have taken care that the denominational schools, for which it is well known they entertain a decided preference, should receive their full share, and perhaps something more than their full share, of the advantages which would be gained by all schools. But I ask the House to consider the effect of the changes subsequently introduced in the Bill on the position of denominational schools and of Nonconformists who were in favour rather of unsectarian than the denominational system of education. Under the Act of 1870 denominational schools have been to a very great extent established all over the country, especially in the rural districts. These denominational schools were in many instances a heavy burden on their managers, because they had not the means of obtaining the payment of fees, or of enforcing the payment of fees. By this Bill the managers will be relieved of a great portion of the burden hitherto cast upon them, because they will be in a position to exact payment of such fees as it may be in the power of parents to pay, and also because of the number of children who will be compelled to attend school. What is the position of Nonconformists under the Bill as introduced? They were forced for the first time to send their children to schools of the character of which they did not altogether approve; they were forced by the provisions of this Bill to contribute to the prosperity and success of schools of a character they considered objectionable, but which they hoped might in the course of time disappear, not by the action of any violent change, but by the gradual change in the public opinion of the country, and give place to a system which in their opinion was vastly superior. This is the position of Nonconformists under this Bill. They were called upon to submit to these disadvantages in the name of educational progress, and, as the logical consequence of the legislation of 1870, passed by their own friends, and I think the House will admit that these circumstances do not make the grievance any less than it was before. Who are the persons to whom I have been referring? Are they persons of whose feelings, sympathies,

  441
  and prejudices, the House ought to be negligent? Are they persons as to whose interests no respect ought to be entertained in this House? I will not go into religious topics. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I know, have a monopoly of regard for religious education. But I would repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (MR. Richard) said on this subject. The Nonconformists are the descendants of those men who formed their congregations, not out of the ranks of the Established Church, but by going into the haunts of ignorance, poverty, and crime in times when the Church Establishment was less careful of religious instruction and education than it is now. But if I may not speak of religion, I may speak of liberty. I say these Nonconformists are men to whom, in this country, we owe a great deal politically. Almost every advance in liberty, from the time of the Stuarts to the time of the Reform Act of 1832, has been in a great degree promoted and assisted by the exertions of the Nonconformists. Its to them, as much, if not more, than to any other body in the country, that we owe the blessings of that free Constitution which, on both sides of the House, we prize so highly. These are men whose feelings and prejudices cannot be safely neglected by either side of the House. I should have thought, if not justice, at all events generosity would have led those having at their command a powerful majority in both Houses of Parliament to consider carefully the feelings, and even the prejudices, of these men, and when they knew that a measure would be distasteful to them they would have imposed it with the greatest consideration and forbearance. The Act of 1870 was in the nature of a compromise between the advocates of denominational and national, education. That Act contained much that Nonconformists disliked exceedingly, but it contained two provisions or principles, one of which was a palliative of the essential and inherent vice of the measure, and the other was undoubtedly a redeeming element. The two principles are these: The Act of 1870 proceeded on the principle that denominational education should only be established in those districts where the existence of a certain amount of voluntary effort in support of schools showed that the feeling of the locality was in
  442
  favour of the system. That was not by any means an exhaustive, it certainly was not an adequate test; but to a certain extent the existence of voluntary effort in support of denominational schools was a test of the character of the school, and that it was not in that district opposed to the feelings of the community. The second principle was the establishment of school boards. It was declared by Parliament that in districts where the community was not willing to come forward and make voluntary contributions in favour of denominational schools the management of the school should be not in the hands of magistrates or ministers of any denomination, but in the hands of representatives directly elected by the people. The principle, I say, was one which was, in the eyes of many, a redeeming feature of the Act of 1870. There are many of us—and I do not scruple to say I was one of them—who believe that the principle of school boards is the right and true principle in this matter. We believe that being the right and true principle, it will in the end prevail. We believe that when once the time has arrived that Parliament has declared the education of the country is the business, not, as formerly, of individuals, but is the business of the State itself, it becomes inevitable that, sooner or later, State education must be in the hands, not of individuals, but of representatives of the people. I think we have been in the habit of looking a little too much at the circumstances of the pecuniary support of schools as being the only element in the matter. No doubt schools cannot be supported without pecuniary contributions, and no doubt the making of those contributions gives to the contributors some right to interfere in the management of the schools. But pecuniary support is not the only element of the schools. The parents and the children are also important elements for consideration in the schools; and I do not know that we are to assume it as a settled principle that the pecuniary supporters of the schools alone are to be consulted about the management, and that the parents and the children are not to be allowed, unless under certain circumstances, to have any share in the management of the schools. Both the principle of voluntary denominational education and the principle of school

  443
  boards have been attacked—not by the Bill introduced by the Government, but by measures which have since been introduced. It is quite true that the noble Lord, when he introduced the Bill, explained that there would be a provision in it which would relax in certain cases the existing rules as to the term of existence of schools in rural districts; but the provision was not a very clear one, and the House had no conception how it would work or the extent of its operation. Since the second reading that clause has been withdrawn, and it has been replaced by a clause which altogether abandons the principle hitherto adopted by Parliament—that assistance should be given to denominational schools only in proportion to the voluntary contributions. Is it now no longer a necessary condition that that voluntary support should be given. In fact, the word voluntary ought in this matter now to disappear altogether. These schools may be maintained entirely through the fees paid by parents, or by Parliamentary grants. They are denominational schools, but they are not voluntary schools with the provision which has hitherto existed. I need hardly say, after the lengthy debate on the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell), that the school boards are attacked by the Bill. It is all very well to say that it is unnecessary school boards that have been attacked; but that adjective will not be any great comfort to those school boards that are in danger. What is the moment chosen by the Government and the Party opposite to attack the school boards? They have selected a most injudicious moment. At the very moment that the necessary work of the school boards has been, to a great extent, completed, and at a moment when, under the circumstances of the case, the school boards are most unpopular, that very moment is selected by the Party opposite to make this attack on the school boards. We know there is nothing in this country more unpopular than increasing the rates. We know that in many districts of this country the school boards must have caused a considerable increase of the rates. Compulsion, direct compulsion, too, may not in all cases be very popular—at all events, until its beneficial operations are made apparent. Whatever unpopularity may spring from
  444
  these causes has full effect now, and this is the time selected by the Party opposite in making their attack on the system. Neither can we pass by the language used by the Government in speaking of school boards. I admit that in his opening statement the noble Lord spoke without disparagement of school boards; but in the course of the discussion in the Committee we have heard the noble Lord utter threats and hints—and they were terrible hints—respecting the unpopularity of school boards; and the language of some of the supporters of the Government, as we all know, has been more open and more decided. They have not taken the trouble to veil under any hints whatever their uncompromising hostility to school boards, whether in the case of necessary or unnecessary school boards. Now, I believe the Resolution which I have placed on the Paper makes certain assertions, and I venture to say none of them are capable of contradiction. I wish to go over those assertions one by one; I say that "principles have been introduced, into this Bill since its second reading which were not then either mentioned to or contemplated by the House. "The principle to which I refer is doing away with the condition of voluntary support to denominational schools. There was nothing said by the Government to induce any one to believe that the attack on the school boards would have received their support. I say further that this principle "tends to disturb the basis on which elementary education now rests," and I have endeavoured to explain to the House what, in my opinion, is the basis on which education now rests. The basis of the school-board system has undoubtedly been disturbed. I go on to say that this measure will "impede the formation of new schools." That statement cannot be contradicted. I say that "discord and confusion have been introduced into the election of school boards," because where before the question before the electors would be mainly educational, now you introduce a new element—whether the school board is to be allowed to exist any longer or not. Although the Amendment refers only to school boards which have no schools, all that a school board will have to do in certain cases will be to transfer its schools to denominational managers, and then they can get rid of the school board al-

  445
  together. The concluding clause of my Resolution—namely, "that the Bill will place the management of schools in the hands of persons who neither contribute to their support nor are elected by the ratepayers," is a proposition which is self-evident, and upon which I need not dwell any further. Nothing is more frequently said than that education ought not to be made the subject of political debate. Nothing is more assented to, but nothing I think is more generally disregarded. My opinion is that that is inevitably so. I, for one, am unable to see how questions which affect the mind and conscience of men can be removed altogether from the arena of politics, and however much we may wish it, I do not think it is in our power to remove them from the political arena. I am of opinion that it would be well in the interest of education that a truce, and as long a truce as possible, should be secured between the contending Parties in educational politics. I believe that previously to the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell) being introduced in Committee, it was possible that such a truce had commenced, and might have been extended to an indefinite period. I know very well that in many towns there are persons who are extremely anxious to re-open the war on all controverted questions. But I do not believe that the public opinion of the country was with them, and I think they felt themselves that the time had not arrived when the agitation upon the education question could be re-opened. But I must say that the action of the Government has gone very far towards re-opening the whole question. I cannot see on what ground of political justice it can be contended that if the Party in power has the right, and exercises the right, of altering the settlement made in 1870, the other Party will not be justified when they have the opportunity, in re-opening the question. Therefore, I think it is right that we should take this opportunity of placing upon record our opinion, and I for one, most distinctly and decidedly hold that if these educational controversies are to be re-opened, it is due not to the Party on this side of the House, but to the action of the Party that sits on the other side. It is for these reasons—because I think the changes introduced are educationally inexpedient, and some of them politically
  446
  unjust, and because they tend to re-open questions and divisions amongst us, which might otherwise have been settled or remained quiet—that I have ventured to place this Amendment upon the Paper, and I ask the House, at all events, in dealing with this Resolution, to allow me, and those who agree with me, to thus place upon record the objections we entertain to this Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, principles have been introduced into this Bill since its Second Reading which were not then either mentioned to or contemplated by the House, which tend to disturb the basis on which Elementary Education now rests, to impede the formation of new schools, to introduce discord and confusion into the Election of School Boards, and to place the management of schools in the hands of persons who neither contribute to their support nor are elected by the ratepayers,"—(The Marquess of Hartington,)
  —instead thereof.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: The noble Lord has told the House that he would be glad to establish a truce on educational subjects, and, at the same time, has not hesitated to inform the House very plainly that, in his opinion, educational matters can hardly help being treated politically. Now, I confess that this remark is calculated to increase the satisfaction with which I listened to the noble Lord's opening words, when he said that, looking at the Government Bill, and, putting aside two or three clauses, he could not avoid paying a tribute to the measure as a whole; for it is, indeed, considerable praise to the Government Bill that it should obtain so high a meed of approval from the Leader of the Opposition at the very moment when he states that education can hardly help being treated as a Party subject. Gratified though I am at the noble Lord's approbation of the Bill as a whole, which makes me feel that when he has more fully considered the Amendments to which he now objects he will not find them of the serious nature he apprehends, I was rather astonished, I must acknowledge, at some of his criticisms upon the conduct of the Government respecting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell), because I cannot but

  447
  remember that the Committee has not, during the prolonged discussions on the Bill, received that active assistance from the noble Lord which, if he felt so keenly on the subject, they had a right to expect; and I, for one, must honestly say that when the noble Lord is not here it is always a great loss to the sense and wisdom of the House. I will not follow the noble Lord into a discussion of the old issue between direct and indirect compulsion, as, surely, we have amply discussed this question, and the opinion of the House, at least, may now be considered on that point to be virtually settled. When, however, the noble Lord speaks of the general assent which has been given to the principle of the Government Bill and pointedly charges this side of the House with the responsibility of any interruption of that harmony, I must remind the noble Lord that the Government has had to run the gauntlet of two set debates, and of three formal Divisions, any one of which, if successful against the Government, would have been, of course, fatal to the Bill. There has not, therefore, been that lying down of the lamb with the lion which might be supposed from the noble Lord's speech. First, the hon. Member for Sheffield (MR. Mundella) moved a Resolution in favour of direct compulsion, which was rejected by a considerable majority. Had this been successful, of course the Bill would have been lost, as the Government measure was framed on quite a different principle. The second reading was also divided against, though it was carried by a great majority. Further, the Bill had again to fight its way against another great obstacle. There was the important proposal moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr (MR. Richard), on going into Committee, that all schools should be put under public management. The noble Lord, with great consistency and courage, had opposed that Motion; but I think I have showed that, independently of various attacks in Committee on vital points, the earlier progress of the Bill has not been conducted through that calm and sunshine to which the noble Lord has referred. The noble Lord's remarks simply come to this, that formal attacks from his side of the House are not to be considered as interruptions of harmony, that the Government is to be applauded, as we
  448
  have been, for assenting to many Amendments coming from his side—and almost all, and very important ones too, we have accepted from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—but that if hon. Members make Amendments on this side, and the Government, having refused the greater number of them, accept at last some few which they consider improvements, and which do not affect the principles on which they announced their measure to be based, then we are all to be taunted with destroying the harmony of our proceedings and being the causes of the violent, unusual, and prolonged opposition which the noble Lord's Friends have lately displayed.
  I must be allowed once more to remind the noble Lord that, in my opening speech, I invited Amendments, provided they were within the principles of the Bill, feeling anxious, on a subject of such importance and complexity, to get the advantage to the country of all the experience of the House; and also, that when on going into Committee I announced certain changes which, after the second reading debates, Government proposed to make in the earlier parts of the Bill, I expressly reserved to myself the right to propose or accept other Amendments—and this announcement of my reserve was warmly cheered by the noble Lord's Friends. But I pass on to further points in the noble Lord's speech. He was certainly quite right in saying that Members on the Ministerial side could not be expected to interfere with voluntary schools, as certainly he might have said the same of the Government. But more, I had assuredly hoped that he would also have said it of himself and of those with whom he now acts. For surely, neither he nor the Committee have forgotten that in 1870 the Leaders of the Party opposite declared that this Bill was not intended to interfere with voluntary schools at all; but now the noble Lord appears to be in favour of a universal school board system, the adoption of which would give the death-blow to voluntary schools. Unless the noble Lord and the Party opposite have changed their platform, he ought to have said boldly—"We do not wish or intend now, any more than when we assured the country of this in 1870, to attack or destroy voluntary schools." But the case seems now to be

  449
  different. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (MR. W. E. Forster) then said that his object was only "to fill up the gaps," and "not to supplant," but to complete the voluntary system. Now the noble Lord has raised a suspicion that if he could he would attack voluntary schools, though, I must say, I shall no longer be able to compliment the noble Lord on his wisdom, to say the very least of the proposal, if he intends, as his speech to-day would lead us to suppose, using a common phrase, to "run a rig" against the 12,000 voluntary schools all over the country. The noble Lord's speech has placed this matter in so serious a light, that I must beg the House to listen to the assurances of the then Prime Minister, on the faith of which the country accepted the Education Bill of 1870. After the right hon. Member for Bradford had assured the House—"Our object is to complete the present voluntary system and to fill up gaps," the right hon. Member for Greenwich (MR. Gladstone) said, on the third reading of the Bill of 1870—
  "It was impossible for us to join in the language or to adopt the tone which was conscientiously and consistently taken by some Members of the House who look upon these voluntary schools, having generally a denominational character, as admirable passing expedients, fit indeed to be tolerated for a time, deserving all credit on account of the motives which led to their foundation, but wholly unsatisfactory as to their main purpose, and, therefore, to be supplanted by something they think better…..I am quite sure it will be felt that it has never been the theory of the Government."—[3 Hansard, cciii. 746.]
  I cannot, however, bring myself to think that there is real cause for alarm, for the voluntary system has been built up gradually by our people themselves, and is in harmony with our habits and institutions, and I have a conviction that, as a matter of fact, the voluntary system is so deeply seated in the hearts of the people of England that even if it encounters the opposition of the noble Lord I believe it will survive his hostility. But I must now allude to an extraordinary assertion of the noble Lord's. He says that this Bill will for the first time force Nonconformists to send their children to denominational schools, of which they disapprove; but at this moment, wherever you have bye-laws for compulsion this may easily happen under
  450
  the Act of 1870, for that Act does not allow the fact of there being only denominational schools available for a child to be a reasonable excuse, but only when they have no conscience clause would such a plea hold good. Further, however, the noble Lord must have forgotten or overlooked the fact that MR. Dixon's Bill for universal compulsion and universal school boards in every town and village of the land, for which the right hon. Member for Bradford, I believe the noble Lord himself, and many of his friends, on various pleas, in concert with the hon. Members for Merthyr, Nottingham, Leicester, and other leading opponents of this Bill, voted earlier in this very Session, would have swept the Nonconformist children into denominational schools, for MR. Dixon repeatedly said that under his Bill the school boards would have no power to interfere with voluntary schools or to build any where they were not wanted, any more than under the Act of 1870. Yet that Bill established compulsory school attendance everywhere. [MR. W. E. FORSTER: By school boards.] Yes, but that did not alter the thing in the least, for no option was given to these universal school boards under MR. Dixon's Bill, and whether there was only one school or many, they were to be bound to pass bye-laws to compel the attendance of children at school if they were not otherwise instructed, provided there was a Conscience Clause. Thus it was indisputable that Nonconformists' children would be just as much swept into denominational schools under the Bill brought forward by MR. Dixon in three successive Sessions, and receiving the whole Nonconformist support on the side opposite, as under this Bill of the Government. If the noble Lord would examine the speeches made by MR. Dixon and the right hon. Member for Bradford, they would put the matter beyond all shadow of doubt. The noble Lord said the Nonconformists had hoped that the voluntary schools would disappear. I did not think it possible that any legislator could take his stand in an argument merely upon the unsupported hopes of any Party. I want to know what reason had the Nonconformists for entertaining more than a a vague hope that the voluntary schools would disappear? During the discussions on the Act of 1870 the Noncon-

  451
  formists were told repeatedly by the Leaders of the Liberal Party in Parliament, the authors of the measure, that these schools were not intended to disappear. It seems then that they had no solid ground for considering the overthrow of the great voluntary school system of England as a part of the scheme of the Act of 1870; they had perhaps general, and perhaps not unnatural, aspirations that these schools to which they were opposed might perish under the new Act; but surely the noble Lord cannot seriously take up these vague hopes, which his own Government said at the time were not justified by their measure, as an element which ought to be taken into consideration by the House on the present occasion. The noble Lord has made so much of his attack depend upon the supposed fact that Nonconformists will be grievously wronged by the Bill owing to its driving Nonconformist children into denominational schools, that I must endeavour to show him that he is really mistaken as to its operation. I must therefore again quote the printed Circular issued from Birmingham after I introduced the Bill, by the Central Nonconformist Committee, which represents, I believe, the whole Liberal Party in the Nonconformist Bodies. I will ask leave to read the principal passage—
  "The effect of these proposals will be to introduce both direct and indirect compulsion into many parts of the country where Nonconformists are numerous, but where the only schools in existence are schools connected with the Established Church. The Committee feel strongly the injustice which is involved in compelling the children of Nonconformists to attend schools which are established with the avowed intention of educating children in the principles of the Church of England, and which are under the almost irresponsible control of the clergy. But practically the injustice already exists. It is one of the inevitable evils resulting from the denominational system. Nonconformists of every description are anxious to give their children as good an education as possible; but in many parts of England they have no choice of schools. They are obliged to send their children to the schools of the clergy or to leave them uneducated. We believe, therefore, that the number of Nonconformist children who are not actually at school, and who would be driven into Church schools by Lord Sandon's Bill is extremely few. The children whom the Bill would reach are for the most part the children of ignorant or careless parents, and it is better that they should be driven into the schools of the Church than that they should receive no education at all. While, therefore, we recognize the strength of the abstract objection to the compulsory proposal of the measure, we cannot recommend that these
  452
  proposals should be resisted. In the interest of the neglected children and of the country at large, we think that they should be accepted.—Signed by W. Middlemore, J.P., chairman; R. W. Dale, H. W. Crosskey, J. Jenkyn Brown, hon. secs.; F. Schnadhorst, secretary.
  It is signed, as the House has heard, by the well-known leaders of this party, and surely the House could not have better or less prejudiced evidence on this point than this testimony of the members of the Birmingham League. Some hon. Members had ventured to say that the Government had no care for the Nonconformists of this country. This was a very serious accusation to make, and should not be rashly made. I deny it entirely, and it is certainly a strange and unfortunate time to make such an assertion, seeing that the Government has within the last day or two willingly accepted a clause of no slight importance, which makes it the duty of the local school attendance authority in every town and village to report to the Education Department any infraction of the Conscience Clause. The noble Lord, according to the statements made by the public Press, mentioned this yesterday as an important clause, and I was publicly thanked in this House by the hon. Member for Merthyr (MR. Richard) for the cordiality with which the Government had accepted it. This one fact is worth many pounds of sentiment, and it shows the anxiety of the Government that no real grievance should be imposed under this Bill upon the Nonconformists. The noble Lord has gone over the different points in his somewhat remarkable Resolution. The first point was that the Government had introduced into the Bill since its second reading "principles which were not then either mentioned to, or contemplated by, the House." Does the noble Lord remember what passed with regard to the Act of 1870? I have never heard that it is wrong to introduce after the second reading very considerable Amendments into a Bill, and I imagine that older Members of the House would say that frequently large Amendments have been accepted by the Government after second reading, when a Government has had the advantage of hearing the criticism of Parliament and the country during the usual debates on introduction and second reading. I find, with reference to the Act of 1870, that many great alterations were accepted by the

  453
  Government of that day, of which the noble Lord was a distinguished Member, at a very late stage. For example, the school boards were, in the Bill as read a second time, to have power to allot rates to voluntary schools. That was a most important feature of the measure, yet it was swept away after the second reading, and thus the whole character of the Bill was altered by the action of the Government which introduced it. There was then a Conscience Clause, but not a Time-table Conscience Clause; and the whole character of that Conscience Clause was changed by making it necessary that the religious teaching, &c, should only be at the beginning and end of the teaching. That change again was made after the second reading. Then they all remembered the famous "Cowper-Temple Clause," which was not even foreshadowed in the early part of the debates on the Education Bill of 1870. That clause, as its title indicated—the "Cowper-Temple Clause"—came from an independent Member, and altered very materially the whole colour of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced we heard that there was to be perfect freedom of religious teaching; but by the adoption of that clause, religious teaching was shackled, and formularies distinctive of a particular denomination were forbidden in board schools. Again, the cumulative vote was accepted at the hands of a private Member after the second reading—a very considerable change both in principle and practice, and acknowledged to be a most important experiment in election arrangements by leading politicians all over the world. Again, have hon. Gentlemen opposite forgotten that vote by ballot was dragged in after the second reading of the Bill? The ballot was then one of the most hotly-disputed matters in politics; but it was foisted in, in obedience to the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), at the end of the debates on the Bill. The country, I think, will surely feel that, in view of those great changes, the mouths of hon. Members opposite ought to be closed in respect of the two or three small changes which had been made in the present Bill, which did not exactly coincide with their views, but which were not for a moment to be compared in magnitude
  454
  or wide-extended effect with those which the late Government introduced into their Education Bill of 1870—changes which were mostly exceedingly distasteful to hon. Members on the Conservative side, and of which no hint was given when they were invited, with success, to support that Bill in its earlier stages. But, next, in this famous Resolution it is said that these changes in our measure disturbed the basis on which elementary education in this country now rests. This is a very grave and a high-sounding sentence. I quite acknowledge, as the noble Lord has said, that the Government announced they were against any great reversals of policy, unless the country generally, and beyond a doubt, declared such reversals necessary, and I gladly again repeat what I said on this subject on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. But I must frankly say that beyond this general principle which affects all past legislation, I am not aware of any great compact such as the noble Lord alludes to, having been made by the Act of 1870. Hon. Members on the Conservative side gave, I must say, a very generous support to that measure, without which I do not believe it could have been carried, and being anxious primarily to secure the education of the whole people they made many sacrifices of matters connected with schools which were very distasteful to them, and I am sure they received very slight concessions to their views in return; but, to grant for one moment, only for the sake of argument, that some compact was made—which, however, Idol not assent to—how have hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench, how has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, how have hon. Members below the Gangway, kept that supposed compact? Has the compact remained up to this time unbroken? If the Government were to be told that they were culpable for having departed from that compact, why did hon. Members opposite vote for MR. Dixon's Bill for the establishment of universal school boards, and for universal direct compulsion, involving a change of the general basis on which education rested? And why but a year or two ago did hon. Gentlemen opposite vote for abolishing the 25th clause, which was one of the essential arrangements of the famous Bill of 1870? I cannot, then, under-

  455
  stand how hon. Gentlemen opposite can, with any feeling of propriety, throw into the teeth of the Government the charge that they were disturbing the basis on which the system of elementary education rests, when early this very Session, as before, they themselves had tried to disturb it still more. Further, how does the change as to the 17 s. 6d. disturb this basis? Of course, as the House is well aware all State aid to schools is now made by Government upon the principle of payment by results. But Her Majesty's Government felt that this principle was not fully and fairly carried out, as deductions were now made from such earnings, unless half the expenses were met locally by fees or subscriptions. The change, therefore, which the Government had lately proposed was, that the State should hereafter ask no questions as to whence a school was supported, but should contribute up to 17 s. 6d. per head, if the children earned it by their intellectual acquirements, a payment which would represent a simple solid education, but no more. This change, I must remind the House, had been urged upon the Government by such a concurrence of good educational opinion of various sorts that they felt convinced that it was the best course to pursue in the interests of the country. I trust the House has not forgotten the very earnest appeal which was made on this subject to the Government by the London School Board, one of the best education authorities in the land, who represented that the promise made in 1870 had been really broken, because the average increase in the Government grant had not risen to more than 25 per cent, whereas expectations were held out in Parliament when MR. Gladstone's Government decided that the provision should be taken out of the Bill by which school boards might aid voluntary schools out of the rates, that an increase of something like 50 per cent would be made in the State grant to all schools. Now, the figures quoted by the London School Board and elsewhere showed an enormous increase in the cost per child. Appeals from various quarters showed that owing to the conditions imposed by the Government the burdens were becoming almost intolerable to the schools both board and voluntary. The London School Board entreated the Government to interfere, on the ground that public injury of a
  456
  very serious character would accrue to education if any large proportion of good elementary schools now under Government inspection were closed, or were transferred to the board, and that the destruction of these schools, independently of the educational loss, would entail such an enormous increased charge on the rates as could not be contemplated without apprehension; so that, for the sake both of the voluntary and board schools, the Government were strongly urged to do something in the direction of what had been promised in 1870. The state of the case was this—The average cost per child was now 32 s., and the average Government grant was 13 s. 8d., which still left 18 s. 4d. to be supplied locally; so that, taking the average of fees at the high figure of 10 s. per annum, a considerable sum was still left to be supplied by voluntary subscriptions. I do not deny that the scheme, proposed principally for the sake of the poorer districts—and they were very numerous in both town and country—is not a small matter, but the object in view is to meet and remove a grievous injustice. That injustice is not disputed. The more it is examined the greater it will appear to be. The burden of keeping up a school in Bethnal Green, or in poor country village, is far greater in proportion than it is in more prosperous districts; but in proportion to the poverty of the school, the Government grant dwindles. I feel sure that so great a grievance cannot be left unredressed, and we have endeavoured to meet it in the broad way which the Committee has now approved, and I ask whether in the change we have made there is not complete security that, as a matter of fact, the rich districts would have, in most cases, considering the figures I have just quoted, to supply still a large amount of local subscription? It was a mistake on the part of the noble Lord to say that this was a complete change as compared with the Act of 1870. The noble Lord seemed to be under the impression that under that Act schools were obliged to have subscriptions to meet the Government grant. That is not so, and I have before shown in detail, during these discussions, that a considerable number of schools are self-supporting, that is to say, are maintained wholly by the children's fees and the Government grant without any sub-

  457
  scriptions, and a larger number probably almost self-supporting, of which the great proportion belong to the Nonconformist bodies. So far, therefore, as principle is concerned, there is no change whatever. We have been boldly told, as if it was an indisputable fact, that the schools could no longer be considered voluntary schools. I deny altogether the soundness of the basis, and the supposed facts upon which the argument is rested. I have shown already, taking the high average all round of a payment per child in fees of 10 s. per annum, that owing to the great increase of the cost of schools, even where the children do well at the inspection, there must remain a very considerable margin of money in the great majority of cases to be supplied by voluntary subscriptions. But even supposing there was not, do hon. Gentlemen forget, and count for nought, the invaluable personal services of the promoters and managers of voluntary schools? Do they think the annual maintenance and reforms of the schools are nothing? Further, still, do they overlook the enormous amount of capital that has been sunk in the schools—£13,500,000 spent voluntarily on the school buildings, to which the State had added only some £1,735,000? Of the entire £15,250,000, no less than £13,500,000 had come out of the pockets of the volunteers! Surely the possessors of those valuable schools have a right to be considered in this matter, and also in virtue of these invaluable contributions to the education of the people. Surely they have a most valid claim to have these schools accounted as voluntary schools, ranking in a different category from those bought or built and maintained by the rates alone? I will not now allude to the special moral and social advantages of these schools, as well as to the gain to the community of having a variety in their schools, besides the healthy competition which is kept up by these different sorts of schools. Upon all these points, if the question of the voluntary system is really raised, a great deal will be found to be said of a very weighty character. But, considering the light and jaunty way in which some hon. Members treat the question of the maintenance of our great system of voluntary schools, I should like to call attention to the serious pecuniary difficulty in which, the House would find
  458
  itself if they were to get rid of this system, which now was, as a matter of fact, part of the national life. The school board schools, numbering nearly 2,000, had involved an expenditure of £6,500,000, and they afforded accommodation for 550,000 children, being an expenditure of £11 10 s. per head, as against £5 10 s. in the case of the voluntary schools now numbering some 17,300, with accommodation for over 2,772,000 children. If by sane legislation voluntary schools were destroyed, I want to know what the noble Lord proposes to do to find school houses for the 2,772,000 children now accommodated in the voluntary schools. Does he propose to confiscate these buildings to the State? He cannot, for no private property would then be safe. Does he propose a forced sale? Is he prepared to oblige the ratepayers to supply the £13,500,000, which the volunteers have spent upon them? in addition to the £6,500,000 already imposed upon them by board schools? or would he charge thorn on the Imperial funds? but surely the £13,500,000 required would rather upset the Budget of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. All this goes to prove, I think it must be now agreed, that every consideration both economical, educational, and social, shows that the State ought to show every regard for the managers who possess this great body of voluntary schools, who keep them up, and give in many cases, from their personal interest in, and knowledge of, education, what no merely State system can secure, their time and their care—more valuable than any money. This management would be valued every day more by the parents, as it became known more and more by experience that the weak point of the rate-supported board schools is, and is likely to be, the management of their schools. Then, to go on with the Resolution, it proceeds to connect in some mysterious way the clause of the hon. Member for South. Leicestershire, accepted by the Government and the Committee, which provides for the dissolution of unnecessary school boards, with a check to schools themselves—it says it will "impede the formation of new schools!" How, I cannot make out. Really, as in the former parts of the Resolution, the noble Lord is very much astray on this matter also. The noble Lord says that everybody will

  459
  represent school boards as unnecessary; but he could not have read the clause of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell), for if he had he would have seen that it referred to school boards which had no schools and no sites, and these boards could only possibly be 500, but it was more likely the number would be under 200. The real position of the Government as to that clause was this—they did not feel bound to make the proposal if the subject was not mooted, as they did not think it necessary to put in their Bill all the various improvements into our education system, however desirable they might be in themselves; but the moment they were brought face to face with it—and it was brought before them from various parts of the country as well as in the House—they saw they could not decline to consider it, and on considering it their opinion was that there was no tenable argument which could be urged against it. The noble Lord had said that the Amendments which the Government had adopted would impede the formation of new schools; but here, again, a little more consideration would have shown the mistake into which he had fallen. As the law stood at present, no school board could build a school unless it was needed in the locality; so that, under the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, no alteration which impeded the formation of new schools was made, because, although the school board might have been dissolved, the Department would retain and exercise the power exactly the same as before, and as at this moment under the Act of 1870 to order the erection of schools in all places where it could be shown that they were needed. With regard to the transference of schools, the course was equally clear. If any governing body of a private school wished to hand over their school to a public body, they had only to close the school, and if the necessary accommodation was not supplied forthwith a school board would and must be established by the Education Department to supply the want. I think then I have shown that this part of the Resolution has as little foundation in fact as the preceding portions. The noble Lord goes on to urge in his Resolution that the changes made in the Bill will introduce discord and confusion into the elec-
  460
  tion of school boards. How the possible dissolution of unnecessary and inefficient boards can effect this result I cannot imagine, nor has the noble Lord enlightened us in his speech—and no other change we have accepted can even, remotely affect elections of boards. On the contrary, the only change as to the election of school boards which we ourselves proposed is the one by which bye vacancies are to be filled up by the boards themselves—a great boon to large towns specially, as saving them unnecessary expense and election excitements. If we had accepted the proposals coming from the right hon. Member for Birmingham (MR. John Bright) and from others of the noble Lord's Friends, who desired to place the management of schools in the hands of Town Councils and Boards of Guardians and to give them all the powers of school boards, we should indeed have introduced discord and confusion with all the religious difficulty into the elections, not of school boards, but of every leading municipal and local authority in the Kingdom. Happily, however, the Government and the Committee refused to entertain these disastrous suggestions—so I think this part of the attack also falls to the ground. The noble Lord, in conclusion, had laid great stress upon the point that by changes in the Bill, the management of the schools was allowed to be in the hands of persons who did not contribute to the maintenance of the schools, and were not elected to the positions of governors; but this might and did occur under the Act of 1870, and I do not think the state of things will be much altered by the provisions of the present Bill. And as to these schools not being under public control, they were under a much greater control than mere local control—their whole curriculum of study, the whole of their arrangements were, in fact, under the control of the Education Department—and they could hardly stir to the right hand or to the left without the assent of the Code or of one of Her Majesty's Inspectors. The State certainly had full control over all the schools, voluntary and board just alike, which received her grants, and took good care at this moment that the money was spent for purposes she desired. It is a mistake to suppose that the present Bill will prevent the establishment of school boards in localities where they

  461
  are desired by the inhabitants, or that the Government had done anything to prevent them—and I must remind the noble Lord that he entirely refused to countenance or accept the Amendments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bury and Newcastle, which proposed to prevent localities which had sufficient schools from having boards if they desired. I have been so frequently taxed of late with being hostile to school boards, because when hon. Members chose to say that they were so generally liked by the country, and were so excellent, and that therefore it was a kind of sacrilege to allow localities to get rid of unnecessary ones, I felt bound to say that the printed official Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors and other public documents, if I was obliged to quote them, would show that not a few boards were not efficient instruments for education, and that the feeling of the country was, in many parts, against them. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that I have no desire to run down school boards as an institution, and I have, as the House remembers, on many occasions defended them here against attacks from various quarters. But as my position towards, and opinion of, school boards has been so much misrepresented and has been alluded to by the noble Lord, I had, perhaps, better frankly state what my views are respecting them after the official knowledge of the last two years and a-half. I believe that in the large towns the school boards are generally doing an admirable work, and that they are mostly free from that sectarian atmosphere of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (MR. Bright) has spoken so bitterly as pervading school boards in general, and in which he said, as I formerly quoted, no good thing could thrive. In towns of medium size the school boards are frequently doing good work; but it must be admitted that in these places cases occurred, more often than they could have hoped, in which the board seemed to think more of sectarian differences than of the education of the people. As far as school boards in small rural districts are concerned, the system has, to a considerable extent, broken down, partly owing to the fact that the smallness of the areas made it impossible to get fitting people to act as members of the boards. This, then, is my opinion of the
  462
  working of school boards, which I think it only right, after the noble Lord's remarks, that I should place at the disposal of the Committee. I believe now I have gone over all the points of the attack of the noble Lord, and I flatter myself that the Committee will agree with me that the matters in which the noble Lord blamed the Government have been fairly proved to be without foundation—so that nothing remains now but to accept the more agreeable part of the noble Lord's speech, in which he gave an evidently sincere approval of the Bill as a whole. The Government has throughout endeavoured to look at the question from the point of view of the interests of the children of this country, and I have a full confidence that those who look at it in this way, and not with a view to any bye objects, will give it an increasingly hearty approval. If, however, hon. Gentlemen opposite choose to take up the position of being the advocates of universal school boards, the Government will be glad to meet them on that issue before the country, and will willingly await the general judgment on this ground. If, further, they wish to stand forward before England as those who insist upon retaining school boards in places where two-thirds of the inhabitants have stated, and the Education Department has affirmed, that no board is any longer wished for or is necessary for purposes of education, I certainly will not grudge them this strange satisfaction. If they wish to appear as the opponents of that relief to the poorer schools, and that impulse to education generally, which our removal of the present vexatious restrictions upon the Government grant will afford, at the entreaty of many of the most experienced friends of education, it is not for me to ask them to forbear. And if, beyond all this, the noble Lord thinks it wise that his Party should be considered the enemies and assailants of a great national institution like the voluntary school system, which has struck its roots deep in every community, I cannot interfere with, nor do I apprehend the results of, their policy. We shall leave them willingly to settle these matters with the schools, with the ratepayers, and with their countrymen generally, and can only trust for their sakes they will find their self-chosen position a useful and beneficial one. For my own part, I sincerely

  463
  believe and earnestly hope that the action of the Government has been that which is best calculated to promote the sound education of the whole country. We have kept steadily in view the great and important object of maintaining the freedom and responsibility of the parents as much as is consistent with the welfare of the children, and of interfering as little as possible with the habits and necessities of honest industry; and I can truly say that, in all the dealings of the Government with this great and most important but difficult question, we have looked principally to what was, to the best of our belief, for the good of the children, and for the continued honour, happiness, and welfare of our common country.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) was altogether wrong in supposing that after a Bill had passed the second reading, no Amendments, except such as referred to points of detail, could be introduced in it. The Amendment, therefore, of the noble Marquess must be rejected, for if such a doctrine were once allowed to prevail all proceedings in Committee upon Bills would become practically useless. Why did not the Nonconformists do as the Roman Catholics did? The Roman Catholics built schools for their own children; why did not the Nonconformists, who were a more wealthy body, do the same? The Roman Catholics considered the Conscience Clause a sufficient protection, and he was at a loss to conceive why it was not so considered by the Nonconformists. ["Divide!"] He considered that to compel children to learn by forbidding them to work was a mistake. Children should before all be educated to be useful and earn something for the family. This was even better than the three R's. It would be wiser to provide that children shall go to school at certain hours and under certain conditions, and interfere as little as possible with their useful employment. The education of the poorer classes ought to have reference to their useful employment and earning a living. But education—especially of girls—was now sometimes calculated to make them too proud to work. Thus it was very difficult to obtain domestic servants. How would it be under this Bill? It would be easy to provide
  464
  for children of decided talent a higher education. With regard to school boards, the Department would not allow any school board to be dissolved which it might be necessary for the cause of education to maintain. Now, he wished to say nothing against school boards, for there was no doubt however they might have worked in some cases, in others they had done well. At the same time, he could not understand the indignation felt by hon. Members at the idea of touching a school board as if it were a sacrilege to do so. It was not zeal for education, but for education without religion, which animated the strong opposition which was now given. The question with those Gentlemen was not whether school boards were or were not the best means of educating the country, but whether secular education was to be indefinitely extended. The country, however, had come to the conclusion that denominational education was best, and it was for giving children that education which would make them when they grew up useful citizens and loyal subjects of the Crown.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the House was very anxious to divide, and he would not detain them more than two or three minutes; but so many allusions had been made by hon. Members in the course of these discussions and by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council that evening to the Act of 1870, that he might be pardoned for saying that it was distinctly on account of the relations of this Bill to that Act, and of the changes made in it, that he felt called upon to vote for the protest made by his noble Friend. He would not for a moment attempt to give a history of all the controverted questions raised at the passing of the Act of 1870; but he thought it would be acknowledged by both Parties that the Government of that day had, along with a sincere desire, a difficult task in hand—to do all they could for the improvement of education. In doing that they acknowledged the existing schools, and while saying that they were not sufficient to meet the educational want, they proposed the system of rate-aided schools. Consequently, when the Bill of 1870 became an Act of Parliament it had two systems; it worked with the voluntary system, supported by denominational energy; and with the rate system, re-

  465
  lying on the principle of elected bodies taking care of the education of the locality. No one could doubt, and he was himself perfectly aware, that it was a difficult matter to get these two systems worked together. He would not detain the House with reasons for that; but they had passed an Act which, after much discussion, kept these two principles side by side as it were to take care of themselves. On one hand, the denominational school had denominational zeal to support it; on the other hand, there was the possibility that a rate would be a danger to voluntary schools, because a man disliked giving a subscription to relieve another man's rates. Every one who remembered the discussions must be aware of the forces and principles brought into action. Parliament passed the Bill with the understanding that each of these forces and principles was to take care of itself and do what it could in the matter of education, and he thought it was a mistake of the Government now to introduce any change which would supply to any extent the want of denominational energy and zeal by any additional State aid. The noble Lord in his opening speech stated—and he had not the slightest doubt of the fact—that the object of his Bill was to meet the attendance difficulty and get the children into school. On that side of the House he (MR. Forster) and those who were with him had differed to some extent with the noble Lord in his mode of meeting the difficulty; but, at the same time, they fully acknowledged and appreciated his intentions. He would not go through the differences which existed between the advocates of direct and of indirect compulsion, but he was free to admit that the Bill in its progress had been very much changed, and changed for the better, so far as regarded the educational part of it. They had made several important changes in it. The noble Lord said that there had been three important debates on the subject; but there were only two, because he did not think the debate on the second reading lasted three minutes. There were great changes which he considered were to the advantage of the measure. It had been declared legally to be the duty of the parent to educate his child, and the 7th, now the 8th, clause as altered was almost as powerful as the bye-laws of the Lon-
  466
  don School Board, inasmuch as it enabled work and school to go on well together. But all these changes, although they were, as he had said, for the better, appeared to him to be strong arguments why the Government should not have altered the relations between the school-board system, the rate system, and the voluntary system. There was no doubt that in order to meet the educational difficulty something had to be done by the Government which was a blow at the rate system. Many hon. Members on that side of the House would have preferred to meet the attendance difficulty by universal school boards, but even those who were most strongly in favour of that mode of meeting it were aware that it was hardly possible for the Government, after the debates and divisions of the last two years, to have made that proposition. At the same time there could be no doubt that while the establishment of new authorities and school boards, and giving them the power to sweep the children into the schools, was very necessary for the cause of education, and could not perhaps be avoided, yet in itself it was a great blow to the rate system as compared with the voluntary system, and a great boon to the denominational system. This was not because it was intended to confer an advantage upon denominational schools, but because they could not make progress in education without it. But the Government ought to have recollected that there were very many persons who would consider the step they took in the interests of education was disadvantageous to them. They ought not, therefore, to have altered the settlement of 1870 as between the two classes of schools. He would not for a moment say that there was anything in the Act of 1870 that ought never to be changed, but he did say that the compromise, or the relations between the two systems and the two principles, had been arrived at after very great discussion and difficulty, and it was most unwise on the part of the Government in any way to change it. The changes introduced by the Government, in his opinion, had this effect. One of them discouraged school boards, and the other encouraged denominational schools. The clause which looked forward to the dissolution of school boards, although minimized and frittered down by the week's debate,

  467
  was, he thought, still a discouragement to school boards, and he thought that the clause which enabled a large number of schools to be conducted without voluntary subscriptions was a great encouragement to denominational schools. He believed it was unwise for the Government to have made that change, and although he agreed with the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council in his opening remarks, and although he would not have voted positively against the third reading, so as to get rid of the Bill entirely, because he believed that it was an educational step in advance, yet he did think it was their duty to put on record their protest against the change being introduced at this time. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He believed that this was a great encouragement to voluntary schools; but he thought it would eventually do them more harm than good. The noble Lord said there were schools in this particular position under the Act of 1870. It was quite true, but there were very few of them. Under the present Bill there would be a great many more, and especially in those places where there was likely to be most opposition to having voluntary schools without voluntary subscriptions. He was quite sure that the Government and their Supporters would one day regret that they had put denominational schools in the position of being sham denominational, instead of real denominational schools. He could not do otherwise than vote for the Motion of his noble Friend.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSthought the conclusions advanced by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) had been so satisfactorily met by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council that the House might without difficulty have proceeded at once to a division. Replying to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bradford, he would admit, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that he found himself in great difficulties in 1870 with respect to the conflicting claims of the voluntary and national systems, but those who then sat on the front Opposition Bench did all they could to enable him to get over those difficulties, and the course pursued on some occasions by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues was not altogether a fair return
  468
  for the facilities that were then afforded to him. If there were difficulties in passing the Bill of 1870 were there no difficulties six years afterwards in endeavouring to cure the defects and supply the wants in the practical operation of that Act? These difficulties they had to encounter during the present Session of Parliament, and he thought they might have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends for a little more consideration and aptitude to assist them during these protracted debates. His noble Friend had to meet the great attendance difficulty, and the right hon. Gentleman must admit that that difficulty had been met in a manner to which little objection could be made. It was said that changes had been made, one of which would have a tendency to discourage school boards in general, but it was only where the facts of the case proved that school boards were unnecessary for the purposes of education that the clause of his hon. Friend would apply. The other change, it was said, would have the effect of encouraging denominational schools. He had yet to learn that such a charge should be fatal to any measure that it would encourage a system of education in the country which by every test that could be applied had proved to be the system which most accommodated itself to the feelings, wishes, and convictions of the people. It was very much on that ground that he hoped the House of Commons would ratify by no inconsiderable majority the stage at which the Bill had now arrived.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 120: Majority 62.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  On the Motion of Viscount SANDON, the following clauses were agreed to, and added to the Bill:—
  Page 9, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause:—
  (Returns of registrars of births and deaths to School Boards.)
  "Every registrar of births and deaths, when and as required by a School Board, shall transmit, by post or otherwise, a return of such of

  469
  the particulars registered by him concerning deaths and births of children as may be specified in the requisition of the School Board.
  "The School Board may supply a form, approved by the Local Government Board, for the purpose of the return, and in that case the return shall be made in the form so supplied.
  "The School Board may pay out of the school fund to the registrar making such return such fee as may be agreed upon between them and the registrar, not exceeding two pence for every birth and death entered in such return."
  Page 11, after Clause 24, to insert the following clause:—
  (Power of officer of local authority to enter place of employment.—See 30 and 31 Vic. c. 146, s. 9.)
  "If it appear to any justice of the peace, on the complaint of an officer of the local authority acting under this Act, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a child is employed in contravention of this Act in any place, whether a building or not, such justice may by order under his hand empower an officer of the local authority to enter such place at any reasonable time within forty-eight hours from the date of the order, and examine such place and any person found therein touching the employment of any child therein.
  "Any person refusing admission to an officer authorised, by an order under this section, or obstructing him in the discharge of his duty, shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds."
  MR. M'LARENmoved to insert the following clause after Clause 48:—

  Part II.
  Application of the Act to Scotland.
  "In the application of this Act to Scotland, the following provision shall have effect:—The words 'so much of section ninety-seven of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, as enacts,' shall be construed as if the words were, 'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, and the Parliamentary grants made under the same, by minutes of the Scotch Education Department in force for the time as enact,' and that Clause 47 as thus varied and interpreted shall apply to Scotland."
  Clause 47 contained three provisions to which he wished to call attention. One was with reference to the grant of 17 s. 6d., which applied to England, and not to Scotland; another was that in a small parish of 300 people, a grant of £10 might be made in addition to the grant for school fees; and the third was that in still smaller parishes where there were only 200 people, there should be a grant of £15 in addition to that earned by the children. Neither of these
  470
  provisions were to apply to Scotland. Well, he need not tell the House that in Scotland there were a large number of parishes which were very thinly populated, and he thought that, taking into consideration the relative position of the two countries, if there was an advantage to be given to one country or to the other it should be given to Scotland in preference to England. The noble Lord opposite the Vice President of the Council had undertaken that the change he (MR. M'Laren) was now proposing should be effected by means of an alteration in the Privy Council Minutes, and had stated that as the measure would not come into operation before March, there was plenty of time to make the alteration in question. This would be sufficient with regard to the grant of 17 s. 6d., but he very much doubted whether any Minute could provide for the other two special grants. If it could be done with reference to Scotland, it could be done with reference to England, and as an enactment was required for the latter, he did not see why there should not be an enactment for the former. All experience showed that Scotch legislation was pushed back to the last days of the Session, promise after promise had been made by the Government, and yet there had not been a single Scotch measure of any importance passed, nor was there likely to be one. Assuming for the sake of argument that all that was necessary to be done in the interests of Scotland in the matter of this Bill could be done next Session by Minute or Act of Parliament, he still thought that it should be all done this Session by adopting his clause.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that the proposal was a very reasonable one, and the Government had great pleasure in accepting it. Scotland had a right to be placed in the same position—mutatis mutandis—as England.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. BOORDmoved the following new clause:—
  (No prosecutions to be undertaken except with the authority of at least two members of a School Board, School Attendance Committee, or Local Committee.)
  "No legal proceedings for non-attendance, or irregular attendance at school, shall be com-

  471
  menced in a court of summary jurisdiction, by any person appointed to carry out the compulsory bye-laws of a School Board or Local Authority, except by the direction of not less than two members of a School Board, School Attendance Committee, or Local Committee, who shall have previously investigated the circumstances under which it is proposed to take such action."
  He said that its sole object was to provide that due care should be exercised in dealing with defaulting parents under the stringent powers conferred by the Education Acts. The clause was in perfect harmony with the intention of the Act of 1870, and of the Bill at present before the House. It was also in accord with the professed policy of the London School Board, but unfortunately that policy, as expressed in a resolution passed in June, 1872, had not been acted upon. He wished again to disclaim any prejudice or opposition to school boards; as such, they had done good work, and he contended that, by the passing of this clause, their hands would be strengthened, and they would be enabled to recover some of the popularity they had notoriously lost in many places owing to the manner in which the compulsory bye-laws were enforced. He would remind the House that compulsion was new to Englishmen and opposed to their national instincts, besides which it was an interference with parental responsibility and the liberty of the subject; therefore, there was the more reason why, when justified by State necessity, it should be applied with moderation and discretion. It should also be borne in mind that recent educational legislation had completely inverted the traditions of our law in one important particular. Contrary to all precedent and practice in other matters, the person accused of a breach of the bye-laws of a school board was required to prove his innocence, an innovation that should be surrounded with safeguards to prevent injustice being done. Relying on the support he had already received, and feeling confident of the beneficial effect the clause would have, he begged now to propose it for the acceptance of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, it was impossible to shut his eyes to the fact that the feeling of the Committee had been in favour of some such instruction. After much consideration the Government had determined to accept the clause with an
  472
  Amendment. It would be necessary to insert the word "or" before "School Attendance Committee," and then let the clause stop there. He must decline to make it a condition that the members should themselves investigate the circumstances.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not think the clause necessary, because it represented the usual practice of the school boards. There had certainly been no dereliction of duty on the part of the London School Board, the members of which had, at a great sacrifice of time, personally examined into the circumstances before prosecutions were instituted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREproposed the following new Clause:—
  "The managers of any school which is in receipt of an annual grant from the Education Department shall once in each year prepare an account in a form to be approved by the Education Department, showing in detail the income of such school from all sources, whether from Parliamentary grant, free schools, endowment, or voluntary subscription, and its expenditure, whether on salaries, school books, maintenance, or other miscellaneous expenditure; and such account, certified by two of the managers of the school, shall be kept in the school building, and shall be open to inspection by the parent of any child attending such school."
  Clause (Statement of income of schools in receipt of an annual grant,)—(MR. Shaw Lefevre,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he could not accept the clause. There was not now any reason for the public inspection of the school accounts that did not exist in 1870, when no provision of the kind was made. The accounts were sent up to the Department, and could, he imagined, be obtained in any special case, where information as to a particular school was desired, by any hon. Member who moved for them.
  MR. M'LARENstated that the people in some rural places would look upon the money received by the school as a mine of wealth, and if they did not see how it was spent, all sorts of unfavourable rumours would be circulated. If

  473
  they had a sheet of paper exhibited in the school in which all the accounts were entered, it would prevent these stories from getting abroad in the majority of cases, and where they did get abroad, it would be a most effectual means of putting them down.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 82: Majority 15.
  MR. CLARE READ:moved an Amendment in Clause 5, to provide that a child at the age of 9 years might be employed at any suitable work if it had made 250 school attendances in each of the four previous years, and the same number of attendances since it had reached the age of 9, or if it had received a certificate fixed by Standard IV. of the Code of 1876. The hon. Member contended that the Amendment was much more needed now than when the Bill was first introduced, because the Government had since accepted an Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Lord Frederick Cavendish), the effect of which was that a child over 10 years could work as a half-timer, however ignorant it might be. Strong boys and girls of 9½ years of age were very useful in agriculture during the summer months. The Amendment now proposed was in accordance with the spirit of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 25, after the word "years," to insert the words "unless the child, being of the age of nine years, had made two hundred and fifty school attendances in each of the four previous years, and, since it reached the age of nine years, made two hundred and fifty school attendances, or had received a certificate fixed by Standard Four of the Code of one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six."—(MR. Clare Read.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding was accepted by the Government in deference to the marked feeling expressed on both sides of the House. The acceptance of that Amendment to which he had not concealed his personal dislike, as he feared it would seriously weaken the operation of the Pass system, and interfere with the
  474
  effect of indirect compulsion, had, he confessed, somewhat complicated the position of the matter; but, on the other hand, the provision of the Bill was stringent that where a parent habitually neglected the education of his child, the stern arm of the law was to interfere, and the child was required to attend school a certain number of days. If local authorities did their duty no child would reach the age of 10 without having had a good deal of school attendance. Considerable concessions had already been made to his agricultural friends in regard to opportunities for children engaging in husbandry, and the Government felt they must adhere to the rule they had laid down—namely, that no child should go to work under the age of 10.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he would not press the Amendment in the absence of so many agricultural Members.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Viscount Sandon, Amendment made in Clause 5, page 2, line 5, after "child," by inserting "being of the age of 10 years or upwards."
  Other Amendments made.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,in Clause 8, page 3, line 29, relating to children living on board canal boats, and who, from that circumstance, did not come within the comprehension of the Bill, requiring the attendance of children at the board schools, moved, after the word "attend," to insert, "but this excuse shall not be held to apply in the case of children living on board canal boats." The school boards had, the noble Lord observed, taken deep interest in those poor children, and he thought some provision ought to be made to secure their being educated.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 29, after the word "attend," to insert the words "but this excuse shall not be held to apply in the case of children living on board canal boats."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not think the Amendment would do any harm, and hoped it would be adopted.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, no one was more anxious than himself to meet the case of the poor canal children, but he thought the Amendment would, at this moment, do harm instead of good as the noble Lord desired, as the question was involved in such great difficulty. It would be almost impossible for the canal people to comply with its provisions, and therefore only useless irritation about education would be caused. How were they, living on board a canal boat, to attend a day school? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had promised to deal with the matter next year, and therefore he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, there were other classes of children with whom it was more difficult to deal, and in whose favour it was desirable that something should be done—he meant the children living on the shores of the river.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, there were children living in barges upon navigable rivers as well as canals, for whose education something should be done.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was a question whether these children should be allowed to travel in canal boats at all, the cabins often being as overcrowded as the worst houses in London. As the Government were considering the whole question, which would have to be dealt with on sanitary grounds, he trusted the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
  MR. WHITWELLsupported the view that the education of the classes of children referred to ought to be provided for.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, there was another class of children that ought not to be neglected—he meant the gipsy children.
  MR. PELLsaid, the children of the best class of boatmen resided on shore, and they would come under the Act. The children of the worst class lived on board and were exempt from the operation of the law.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, in consideration of these assurances, consented to withdrawn his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, on Clause 13, moved to make the distance from school which should be an
  476
  excuse for absence three miles instead of two.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 20, to leave out the word "two," in order to insert the word "three,"—(Lord Frederick Cavendish,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: moved an Amendment in the 14th Clause, to the effect that if the parent of any child resident in the district of a school board should be unable to pay any part of its fees at a public elementary school, and the school board fail to make regulations under Clauses 25 and 74 of the Act of 1870 for the payment of them, the Guardians, if satisfied of the parent's inability to pay, should pay the same, in accordance with the provisions of the section. The noble Lord said that his Amendment was directed towards an obvious injustice to poor parents, which he hoped the Government would remedy by adopting his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 17, after the word "pay," to insert the words "If the parent of any child who is resident in the district of a School Board is unable, by reason of poverty, to pay the fees of such child at a public elementary school, or any part of such fee, and if the School Board fails to make regulations, under Clauses twenty-five and seventy-four of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 for the payment of the same, it shall be the duty of the guardians, if satisfied of such inability, to pay the same in accordance with the provisions of this section."—(Lord Robert Montagu.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the clause would interfere with the 25th clause of the Education Act of 1870, and as that clause had worked well, he would advise that it be let alone.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: admitted that the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath had put his finger on a real grievance. There could be no doubt that Parliament did not intend that a parent should be obliged to send his child to a board school, if he objected to such school, simply because he was poor; and it was to be hoped cases of such injustice would not long exist. Perfect freedom to the

  477
  parent as to the choice of school for his child was undoubtedly the intention of the Act of 1870, and it was only in cases where there was only one school available that Parliament had agreed to compel the parent to use a school which he did not like; and then only in the case where there was the Conscience Clause. Certainly poverty was never intended to be allowed to be held as a reason why the conscientious feelings of a parent were to be disregarded. He did not believe, however, that there were many cases in which it operated, or a very strong feeling would be manifested against it; neither could he think that Parliament intended that any school board should take upon itself only to remit fees and not to pay them. As the Amendment, however, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (MR. Forster) would re-open the whole question of the famous 25th clause, he (Viscount Sandon) hoped it would not be pressed on this occasion. If it should be, he must oppose it.
  MR. MELDONcomplained that the Irish Members were being sacrificed by the noble Lord's acquiescence in a suggestion from the Opposition, and he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision, and take steps to remedy an admitted grievance. Notwithstanding great pressure, and especially with regard to the division that night, the Irish Roman Catholic Members had supported the Government in all the debates upon the Bill; and their wishes, which were in favour of the Amendment, ought to be consulted. He was glad the subject of education was now in the hands of the present Government, and that the late Government would never have the power to influence it again in that House; for whenever they attempted to secularize education there would be 60, or 70, or 80 Irish votes given against them.
  MR. BIRLEYdeclared that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. CLARE READsupported the Amendment, because in all questions of poverty the Guardians rather than the school boards were the best authorities for the payment of the fees.
  MR. SULLIVANhoped the Government would see its way to deal with this admitted blot on the Education Bill. He would remind the noble Lord that the Irish Liberal Members had supported the Government in the manly
  478
  stand which they had made for Christian education, not because they were enamoured of their general policy, but because they were a party of principle rather than a party of expediency. The poor Irish in the large cities and manufacturing districts of England were exactly the class most oppressed by the present state of things, and he urged the Vice President to accept the Amendment and take away the reproach.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERrepeated his opinion that the House would do well to let the 25th clause alone
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, having recognized that the Amendment was clearly equitable, would withdraw his objection to it. He should vote in its favour. After the noble Lord's candid confession that there was a grievance here, he could not see how hon. Members on the Conservative side could avoid voting with his hon. Friend opposite (MR. Sullivan)
  MR. STEVENSONopposed the Amendment
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYD, having admired the careful way in which the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had piloted that Bill through shoals and quicksands, would be disposed to acquiesce in any decision of his; but the present case, he knew from personal experience, was so much one of justice, and intended to remedy what was a real blot in the law, that he hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment
  MR. ROWLEY HILL, speaking from his own experience as a member of a school board, maintained that the blot which the Amendment was intended to correct was not a real, but only an imaginary one. He believed that these poor children would be received into denominational schools even without the adoption of the Amendment
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) had acknowledged that the demand made by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath was, in its principle, founded on justice, although he doubted whether the practical working of the clause was such as to render it necessary or advisable that they should deal with the difficulty. Some hon. Gentlemen said that no difficulty had actually arisen, while others said that it

  479
  had. On that point the affirmative evidence on the one side could not be rebutted by the negative evidence on the other; and it would be only fair and reasonable, therefore, that some provision should be made to meet it, and, under the circumstances, the Government would accept the Amendment, though they believed that there would not be many cases in which it would be really required to apply it.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHregretted extremely the statement just made. The acceptance of the Amendment simply meant making the 25th clause compulsory. Under that clause only some £3,000 or £4,000 a-year went to denominational schools in some favoured districts. Yet at the last Election nothing caused more excitement than that clause. As if the Bill did not trench closely enough on questions which went home to the hearts and consciences of the people, the Government seemed determined, to excite them further by making the clause compulsory. He could only express his extreme regret that the Government should have accepted the clause, which he believed would excite more religious strife than any other that had been proposed
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYdenied that the opponents of that Amendment were the only persons who had hearts and consciences, and urged that board schools were not intended to supplant but only to supplement denominational schools. The Amendment of the noble Lord had hit a blot in the Act of 1870, without in the least departing from the principle of the 25th clause of that Act
  MR. J. COWENsaid, the Amendment was the legitimate outcome of the 25th clause, and those who were in favour of that clause could not do otherwise than support the Amendment. From his point of view both the clause and the Amendment were equally objectionable. The consciences of parents had been referred to, but it should be borne in mind that many ratepayers had a conscientious objection to their money being applied to denominational education. The Education Act of 1870 was the means of dividing the Liberal Party and weakening them so that they were now not only a minority, but a disunited and disorganized minority. Hon. Members opposite, instead of speaking hardly of the Act of 1870, ought to con-
  480
  gratulate themselves that it had been passed. "Once bit, twice shy." The Dissenters were bit by that Act, and they had been shy ever since.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsupported the Amendment, expressing his satisfaction that it had been accepted by the Government
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he did not think the House ought to be called upon to divide upon an Amendment, the acceptance of which came upon them by surprise. It was true that the Act of 1870 weakened the Liberal Party, but he congratulated the Party that the Government were taking such strong steps to re-unite them. A clause had been already introduced into the Bill which practically involved what the Nonconformists hated very much—a scheme of concurrent endowment; and now this Amendment would weaken school boards by allowing Boards of Guardians in one respect to override them. This would rouse more bitter feeling in the country than the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (MR. Pell)
  MR. FAWCETTwished to protest in the strongest possible language against the Government. Not apparently warned by the time already wasted, they repeated their tactics up to the very last. An ominous summons from the Treasury Whip had brought up the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that what some hours before was a theoretical difficulty was a practical difficulty, and to accept the Amendment making the 25th clause compulsory. In order to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Question in these new circumstances, he would move the Adjournment of the Debate
  MR. DILLWYNseconded the Motion
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(MR. Fawcett.)
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, he was surprised at the proposal just made for the Adjournment of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (MR. Lyon Playfair) had taunted the Government with doing their best to reunite the Liberal Party. After the speech just made by an hon. Member (MR. O'Shaughnessy) the House would see upon the division whether the unanimity spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman existed

  481
  among the Liberal Party. He appealed to the House to support the clause on the ground of the poor parent. Parliament was now forcing education on the people, and, if there were efficient schools in a parish where a school board existed, parents had a right to say to what school their children should go in all cases.
  MR. W.E. FORSTERthought his hon. Friend (MR. Fawcett) perfectly right in moving the Adjournment of the Debate. This was a most important clause, and no one could have expected that it would be taken up and adopted by the Government. He knew 50 or 60 hon. Members who would have been in their places if they had supposed the Government would accept the clause. He warned the Government of the difficulties which the proposal would bring in its train. The Opposition never could have expected that in this last stage of the Bill such a clause would be entertained. He was entirely opposed to the Guardians being put in over the school board
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the clause had been put upon the Paper, and it was for the House and not for the Government to determine whether it should be added to the Bill. If the 50 or 60 Members alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (MR. Forster) were not in their places to oppose a clause of which due Notice had been given it was their fault, and there was no reason why its consideration should be postponed. He represented a neighbouring constituency (the Tower Hamlets) to that of the hon. Member for Hackney (MR. Fawcett), and he could say the clause would be received with great pleasure by his constituents. He trusted the Government would persevere in their course, and he should give them his hearty support
  MR. DILLWYNunderstood that the Amendment had only been placed on the Paper on the previous evening; but, in any case, there was a great difference between a Notice being on the Paper and its being accepted by the Government. He complained of that sudden sudden change of front on the part of the Government, and hoped the House would sit as long as it was necessary to enable the country to form an opinion on the question
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I ask the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council whether Boards of Guardians are to have the option of paying these fees?
  482
  ["No, no!"] Then I must say that I think it exceedingly objectionable that they should not; because it would be in the power of any parent to render Boards of Guardians subsidiary to any school which he might choose. I hope my hon. Friend below me is right, but I will take the case of a parish without a board school, but with a public elementary school to which the Board of Guardians may object. You cannot say to that authority—"If you do not like the school, erect another," for you have not given the Board of Guardians the power to do that. You say to them—"You shall pay to the school that exists, although you object to that school." Then I say that to make this compulsory is contrary to the whole principle of the Act, which renders the authority of the district responsible for the teaching for which it has to pay. The alterations in the terms of the code of this Bill appears to render it perfectly improper to make this payment obligatory without option on the part of the Guardians. That is a change which I hope has escaped the attention of the Government, and I for one shall certainly not vote for rendering Boards of Guardians subsidiary to any school in their district whether they choose it or not.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (MR. Newdegate) had hit the nail on the head. It would seem from the policy which the Government had pursued with respect to the measure that they were determined to have a new Education Bill every night. The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had not learned wisdom from experience. It took him a week to carry the clause of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and perhaps that was worth while, because he thereby obtained the alliance of the hon. Gentlemen who supported the hon. Member. But the noble Lord had other allies in the Roman Catholic Members of that House, so well represented by the noble Lord behind him (Lord Robert Montagu), who had proposed a clause which might be described as an exaggeration of the old 25th clause. The old 25th clause gave an optional power to school boards to subscribe the fees payable by parents who sent their children to denominational schools; but it was now proposed to make it compulsory on them to do so. This was a complete overthrow of the Act of 1870 as far

  483
  as regarded the 25th clause, and it was a complete change of the Bill of the Government, which did not interfere with that clause. The Amendment of the noble Lord only appeared on the Paper that morning, and within 12 hours afterwards it was adopted by the Government. It was a fresh attack on school boards, it was fatal to their authority, and intended to be destructive to those very school boards which the Vice President of the Council had eulogized. Heeded not complain of the course which the Catholic Members had taken; but he was surprised that his noble Friend, who was to a certain extent the representative of the Orangemen of Liverpool, should have entered into alliance with them on this matter. The whole theory of the Catholic Church was that education ought to be entirely in the hands of the priesthood. ["No, no!"] He was sorry if he had misrepresented the views of Catholics on that subject; but all he could say was, that the view of those who sat on the Liberal side was entirely the opposite; and one of the reasons why they desired to see the extension of school boards in this country was because school boards were essentially representative of the laity, and wherever they existed the authority of the laity to control the education of the people was effectually secured. He complained of the re-opening of that large question at the eleventh hour without any practical Notice to that House, and without any notice whatever to the country, and thought they would be only exercising their proper and legitimate functions in securing for the country ample time to consider the proposed change.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUobserved that he had given Notice of his Amendment as soon as he had discovered the blot in the Bill, which he desired to remove. In moving it he did so on the broad ground of justice, and he had simply declared that they had no right to compel the poor people to send their children to schools for which they were unable to pay the fees, unless they secured in some way that the fees should be paid for them. There was only one Party which had been consistent throughout on this question, and that was the Irish Party. He thought, however, that if the Government had changed their opinions on the question it was owing to what they saw was the feeling of the House.
  MR. PELLsaid, the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (MR. Newdegate) and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) showed that they had not fully examined the proposals contained in the Bill. The principle of the clause under discussion, so far from being a new one, was contained in the 14th clause of the measure, and was also embodied in a Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford in 1873—a Bill entitling Boards of Guardians to pay the school fees for out-door paupers, who also were privileged to select the schools to which their children should be sent.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, that if there had been any change of front on this question, it had been effected by the occupants of the front Opposition bench above the Gangway, whose right to taunt Her Majesty's Government with changing their front he begged emphatically to deny. On the question of shortness of Notice, he would remind the House that a deputation waited yesterday on the Leader of the Opposition, and that as the result of such deputation a formidable Notice of Motion appeared on the Paper that morning, side by side with that of the noble Lord's the Vice President of the Council's, which the House was then considering. That formidable Amendment was in the name of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition; but those of the disunited Liberal Party who had counselled its adoption had no right to place themselves in antagonism to the Amendment of his noble Friend. He challenged the Leader of the Opposition to raise the question at issue on the broad platform of public approval. The hon. Member for Newcastle (MR. Cowen), one of the most advanced Radicals in the House, and one who knew the feeling of the country far better than the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), had said that anyone who would vote for the 25th clause would vote for the Amendment. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (MR. Newdegate) complained that the clause would leave an option in the hands of the Guardians; but it was only an option to decide upon a question of poverty, and on such a subject he should think Boards of Guardians were likely to be the best judges. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had very skilfully raised a false issue by

  485
  saying that the question raised by the clause of the noble Lord was one between the laity, pure and simple, and those who wished for clerical domination in educational matters. He could only say that the Roman Catholic laity had no desire for clerical domination. They only wished to have it known that, in their opinion, an education divorced from moral ideas and conscientious principles—reverence for God and His teachings—might make skilful infidels, but would never make good citizens. It was by meddling with education in a way that touched the consciences of Irish Members that hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench were forced out of office, and it was a little short sighted of them now to pursue a similar policy in an aggravated form. They were the most inconsistent politicians in the world. In one breath they called for the demolition of the State Church, and in the next they sought to cram down the throats of the people a new State religion in the schools. As the Adjournment was moved for the purpose of an out-door agitation, he warned the Liberal Party, who were not united upon this and other questions, and who were glad in their turn to receive concessions from the Government, that if they went to the country upon this issue, the Government would stand before the country as saying that, while poverty had many hardships, it should not at all events have this additional aggravation—that while a poor man, as long as he could pay, was able to send his children to school in which his conscience was respected, his children should not, when he was no longer able to pay, be forced into a school from which his conscience rebelled.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, that the Scotch Act contained a clause enabling poor parents to apply to the Parochial Board, who, thereupon, paid the cost of the schooling. This clause was on all fours with the Amendment of the noble Lord, and it was a clause proposed by the late Government.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 192: Majority 101.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it could hardly be doubted that Her Majesty's Government would have refused
  486
  to accept the Amendment had it been proposed by any other hon. Member, but it was impossible to forget the ties of almost intimate personal friendship which bound them to the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath. That circumstance had doubtless induced the Government to accept the Amendment with such haste. There was no reason whatever why the Amendment should not have been moved in Committee on the Bill, and as he objected to an Amendment of such a character being brought forward at so late a period of the Session, he begged to move that the House should now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I rise to ask a question. Having come into the House after the discussion of the clause had proceeded to some extent, I put a question to hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, to which I have received no answer. I trust the House will now allow me to explain the reason of the vote which I have just given. As the clause stands the Guardians are compelled, if the parent is poor, and is resident in a district where there is not a school board, to pay the fees to any denominational school in the district to which the parent may choose to send his child; and the Amendment which is now proposed would render it compulsory on the Guardians, in a district where there is a school board and a board school, to pay the school fees for the child whose parent is poor, to whatever school the parent chooses to send his child, although the education of that child might be provided for in a board school. We are placed in this difficulty. Unfortunately, the House rejected the Amendment which was proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford (MR. Hall) the other night, which would have insured religious education in board schools for every child whose parent demanded it. The House has failed to provide religious education in the board schools. It is quite true that in the great majority of board schools religious education is given; and I regret that there should be any exceptions to the rule; still, in the board schools generally religious education is given. Now, I hold that that ought to be compulsory at the option of the parent,

  487
  and I voted that it should be, but the Government rejected the proposal. What is the effect? Why, that the Roman Catholic Members rise to tell you that all the board schools are in principle secular. Whose fault is that? It is the fault of those who rejected the proposal that board schools should be compelled to give religious education when the parent demands it. That was a great mistake on the part of the Government and the House. It places the House in this position—that it has established secular without religious education, and the Roman Catholic Members take advantage of this. Of course they do. They represent the principle which is held by the Heads of their Church, that no religious education ought to be given except by the priesthood. ["No, no!"] That is the declaration of your own Episcopate. Well, we object to that principle; but, unfortunately, the House has failed to enforce the alternative—the alternative being that the parent should have a right to claim religious education in any public elementary school, maintained by public funds. The position of the Conservative Party is weak, because the principle of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford was rejected; but what is the position of the Government? Because, having opposed that clause, and placed themselves in a difficulty by opposing it, as they have given the Roman Catholic Members an opportunity of declaring all the board schools and union schools secular in principle, they are now proceeding on the principle of concurrent endowment. That is inevitable from their rejecting all religious education demanded by a parent in a board or other public elementary school. The other night I urged upon the Government the precedent set by the late Lord Derby in the year 1835, who, in instituting the national system of education in Ireland, provided for the religious education of the children as a part of the system. At the instance of Cardinal Cullen, when he first appeared as a Bishop in Ireland, in opposition to the decision of the late Archbishop Murray, that system has been abrogated in Ireland; but the power of the Cardinal Archbishop and the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in England is not yet what it is in Ireland, and if the Government had but acted in conjunction with their supporters when the hon. Member for
  488
  Oxford proposed that religious education should be given in the public elementary schools to all children whose parents demand it, they would not have been placed in the position in which they now are, and in which they have placed their whole Party. Of course, as an independent Member myself, I do not feel bound to vote against my convictions. I desire to promote religious education, and I contend that it is the duty of the State to provide religious education for every child whose parent demands it in a public institution. That is an intelligible principle: but I am sorry to see that the principle on which the Government are proceeding is this—they have adopted the doctrine of religious indifference in the sense of religious equality with respect to all the religions, the provision for which they are now about to enforce upon Boards of Guardians, and upon all school boards. I think this is a lamentable result; but it is the result of their having resisted their own supporters, when we asked the House to declare that the public authority should provide religious education for the children, whenever demanded by the parents, as was the case originally in Ireland. The position of the Government is, in my estimation, a false position, and I felt compelled in consequence to vote against them.
  MR. GREENEbelieved there was now no course before the Government except that of approving of the Amendment of the noble Lord. Had they gone to a division in opposing the clause they would have been beaten by their own Supporters. For his own part—although he always looked with suspicion upon a Motion proposed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu)—still on this occasion his prejudices had been overcome, and he had therefore voted against the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney. Although he so disliked Roman Catholicism, he would rather see a child educated in a Catholic school than in a secular one.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 195: Majority 104.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that as it was impossible to finish the debate

  489
  that night he would move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. FARLEY LEITH MR. FARLEY LEITH seconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Sir Charles Forster.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Government would consent to the Motion. ["No, no!"] The only result in not doing so would be that they would be engaged some considerable time that night in debating it, and which would not lead to a speedy or an amicable decision of that long education debate. There was not the slightest idea the question would have been brought before the House. It had been sprung upon them suddenly; and there was a minority sufficiently large to insist on more time for consideration. The proper course for the Government to take if they did anything in the direction intimated by the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath would have been rather to have repealed the 25th clause altogether, than to modify it by a proposal which would throw the whole working of the Act into confusion, besides taking from the ratepayers an option which they at present had, and doing that in a manner the most contemptuous and insulting. The clause was working tolerably well, and there was no reason why at the end of the Session it should have been re-opened.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it was a great pity that they should be wasting all these hours, but at the same time he did not know what was to be gained by adjournment. As they had a full House, and the matter had been fully discussed, he thought they had better decide the question. It was not a new question; it had been before the country for many years, and the whole of the consequences involved had been made the subject of anxious consideration, and of argument both within and without the House. He could not consent to the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that an hour and a-half ago the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council declared that he could not accept the Amendment; but a quarter of an hour later the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in his place and accepted it. He complained that the decision of the Government had been
  490
  sprung upon them unexpectedly. He, however, exonerated the noble Lord from any double dealing in the matter. The Amendment had been pressed upon him against his own convictions. He (MR. Mundella) contended that it would thrust the greatest possible indignity upon the school boards, for it involved the reversion of an important principle affecting their position, inasmuch as it would put the Board of Guardians over their heads. He believed it was the firm determination of hon. Members who had voted in the minority not to allow the question to be decided until the country had had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. If the Government were going to deal in the politics of surprise, they would be surprised to find that they would not finish the Bill that Session.
  MR. PELLsaid, the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath merely extended to the child of a poor man the same privilege as was given to the child of a pauper—namely, that in school-board districts the Board of Guardians should have power to send his child to school, though it left to the parent the choice of the school. He saw no reason why the clause should not be agreed to.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I believe that Roman Catholic Members speak their own sentiments, but they do not speak the sentiments of those by whom, their Church is governed. I am protesting against the State countenancing the principle of concurrent religious endowment. That is what I protest against. In December last a meeting was held at which MR. Lilley, the secretary of a Roman Catholic institution established to form a connection between the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country and Roman Catholic institutions abroad with respect to education, described the difference between the position of France and England, and he said this—
  "In France our course is simple, because the people do not see anything different between pure secularism and the Roman Catholic Church. The case in England is different. The people here are divided into various sects; but they are strictly and essentially a religious people. In England we have to contend with heresy. In France we have to contend with indifference."
  In France the course is simple, but in England the principle of religion is implanted deep in the hearts of the people; but that feeling is not represented by

  491
  the Government, who would, however, find a solution to this difficulty in accepting the principle of compelling the the board school and every public elementary school to give religious education whenever demanded by a parent, otherwise they will give to the Roman Catholic hierarchy the advantage of being able to denounce every board school and every union school as a secular establishment adverse to religion. They need no other position in order to produce in this country that which MR. Lilley declared the Ultra-montanes desired—Roman Catholicism on one side, and absolute religious indifference on the other. That is the position from which they look forward to success, and hope to achieve it; and the reason, assigned by themselves, why they have not become dominant in England, is the religious feeling of its people who now demand from this House the satisfaction of that feeling.
  DR. WARD,speaking as a Roman Catholic, said he would prefer to send his children to a Church school with a Conscience Clause rather than to a secular school
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKdid not wish, after the divisions which had been taken, to press the Adjournment; but as there was this peculiarity in the matter, that the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon) at first opposed the clause, it would be well that both the House and the Government should have further time for consideration
  CAPTAIN NOLANdenied that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council at first disapproved the clause; on the contrary, the noble Lord said it was an excellent one, but in the absence of his Colleagues at the time from the Treasury Bench he hesitated to accept it
  MR. HOPWOODwas somewhat astonished that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had not corrected, if an erroneous impression existed, the statement made to the effect that he had accepted the clause of the noble Lord
  MR. BIRLEYdenied that any such undertaking had been given. What the noble Lord said was that the Amendment hit a blot in the Bill which called for some remedy, but he hesitated to accept the clause, as he doubted the propriety of inserting it in the Bill
  VISCOUNT SANDONobserved that what took place was this—He said that
  492
  the Government could not do otherwise than acknowledge that the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) had hit a blot in the Bill, but that there was every reason to suppose that the school boards would become more and more aware that they had not exercised their functions quite justly in the matter; that public opinion, when the matter was understood, would insist that parents should be dealt with justly in the matter, and that children should not be forced into board schools when the parents were too poor to send them to denominational schools. But he said that at that late period of the Session, after the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bradford, there was not sufficient cause to justify him in opening the question. There followed, however, a remarkable exhibition of feeling on both sides of the House.—a strong feeling for which the Government was not prepared; and that made it desirable that the Government should reconsider the matter.
  MR. MELDONsaid, after the statement of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council positive evidence was given of the necessity of legislation in order to cure existing defects. He trusted hon. Gentlemen who thought they constituted the Liberal Party would be satisfied with the proof they had given of unification, and with having brought down the right hon. Member for Bradford as a repentant sinner.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 179: Majority 97.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, it was quite impossible the debate should be closed that night. The clause had been accepted by the Government suddenly and without Notice, and no opportunity had been given for proposing Amendments. He begged, therefore, to move the Adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(MR. Mundella.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsupported the proposal for Adjournment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 170: Majority 93.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANmoved the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(MR. Osborne Morgan.)
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAexpressed a hope that hon. Members would answer the arguments in favour of the Amendment, instead of resorting to the Forms of the House to defeat it. When the Irish Members did so to preserve the benefits of the Constitution for their country they were very much condemned for the course they pursued
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONwas afraid the temper of the House was such as to render any appeal to hon. Members opposite perfectly useless. As there were Strangers in the Galleries he did not think that was an occasion on which the House appeared in the best light. But, on the other hand, he did not admit that the blame could fairly be attached to the Opposition benches. He contended that the Government were seeking to force upon the House an important Amendment, brought forward without Notice, that it formed no part of the original Bill, nor was it alluded to in Committee, and it was but reasonable that time should be allowed to consider it and see whether it could not be amended so as to make it less objectionable than it was in its present shape
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the House was considering not a clause, but an Amendment—an addition to the 14th clause. The point was not a new one; it had been under consideration for years. The 14th clause provided for the payment of the fees of poor children in districts where there was no school board, and the Amendment extended that provision to school board districts, and the 25th clause of the Act of 1870 did not meet the case, as the option to pay the fees there provided was in many cases not given effect to. At the first blush the Government did not feel inclined to accept the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu), but since that time cogent reasons had been stated in support of the clause, and the Government felt bound to accept it. The principle in-
  494
  volved in the clause had been so long discussed that he thought there could be no difficulty in arriving at a decision on the question. If the proposal for Adjournment was agreed to the House would re-assemble at 2 o'clock for the further consideration of the Bill with no additional information on which to found a decision.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRhoped further time would be given for further consideration of the clause before the House was called upon to come to a conclusion concerning it.
  After further short debate—
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 160: Majority 88.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."—(MR. Blake.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 156: Majority 88.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MONKprotested against the Government springing a mine on the House, and moved the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(MR. Monk.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTproposed to move an Amendment on the clause to give the Government an opportunity, in a division, of asserting their view upon the subject as regarded the principle at issue, and with the object of deferring the consideration of further Amendments.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if it was to be distinctly understood that the present decision was to be final as regarded the principle, so far, then, there could be no objection to giving a few hours' delay for further consideration with regard to Amendments; but if the whole question was to be re-opened when the House met again, why, better fight it out at once.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the Government were willing to consent to some delay upon the terms suggested, on the

  495
  distinct understanding that the division on the proposed Amendment was to be regarded as equivalent to a division on the second reading of the clause.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, on the part of other hon. Members, declined to be bound by the proposed arrangement, on the ground that it would involve the surrender of all that they had been contending for.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 153: Majority 89.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BRISTOWE, pointing to the lateness of the hour—a quarter to 3 o'clock—moved the Adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(MR. Bristowe.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON thought the Government were scarcely meeting the Opposition in a conciliatory spirit.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconsidered that the Government had shown every disposition to meet the Opposition fairly.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 148: Majority 85.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(MR. Serjeant Simon.)
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 144: Majority 83.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the words "who is," in order to insert the words "not being,"—(Sir W. Vernon Harcourt,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'who is' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 140: Majority 83.
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'who is' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir George Balfour.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at half after Four o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Committee—Winter Assizes* (200).
Third Reading—Parochial Records* (194), and passed.

LORD LIEUTENANTS—CHOICE OF MAGISTRATES.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF SANDWICH:My Lords, I wish to trouble your Lordships for a few moments with a personal matter relating to a charge brought against me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (MR. Bright). That right hon. Gentleman, a Member of the late Cabinet, in a speech addressed to the other House upon a Bill now pending there, stated that, among other grivances suffered by Nonconformists, I had carefully excluded Nonconformists from the Commission of the Peace in the county of Huntingdon, of which county I am Lord Lieutenant.
  366
  To that statement I give my most distinct and unqualified denial. I will tell your Lordships how the matter arose. At the last General Election, MR. Arthur Arnold was a candidate for the borough of Huntingdon. I suppose he thought himself fit successor to the distinguished men who had in turn represented that borough—Pollock, Peel, and Baring. MR. Arnold, however, was not elected; and, being no doubt very much annoyed at his ill success, he wrote a letter to MR. Gladstone, the late Premier, declaring that I had distinctly refused to admit Nonconformists to the Commission of the Peace. MR. Gladstone did not take the course which I should have expected him to take, and which I submit would have been the proper course—namely, to apply to me to know whether the statement was correct—but he at once assumed that the case was so, and replied to MR. Arnold, recommending him to write to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor, being thus appealed to, gave a very dignified and proper answer—to the effect that he did not think a proper time to enter into such a matter was during the heat of a contested election; and, further, that if, at anytime, any complaint was to be made upon such a subject, it should, in his opinion, come from a gentleman connected with the county, and not from a stranger, and should be addressed to him directly and not indirectly through another. In this opinion I thoroughly agree, and I think your Lordships will also be of opinion that, under all the circumstances, MR. Arnold was not the man to make such a complaint. My Lords, I can only give a general denial to the statement. In making the appointments to the magistracy I have exercised my discretion without reference to either religion or politics. If there are so few Nonconformists on the Bench for the County of Huntingdon, the fault is not mine, but probably arises from the fact that there are so few Nonconformists in the county. I have never made politics a ground of disqualification for the magistracy, still less have I entered into religious questions in deciding upon the fitness of gentlemen for this office. It is impossible for me to know the religious opinions of the different gentlemen whose names are submitted to me, and the course I have usually followed has been to apply to the different chairmen,

  367
  of petty sessions, or else some gentleman in the district, so as to ascertain from those who are best qualified to give the information whether the gentleman recommended to me is a proper person to be appointed. That, I think, is the right course to adopt; and I can only repeat that I have never in any one instance suffered politics or religion to influence me in making appointments to the magistracy.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Perhaps I may say that when MR. Arnold wrote the letter to which my noble Friend refers, my noble Friend did me the honour of consulting me as to the course he should take. I then told him I thought his reputation as Lord Lieutenant of the county stood so high that it would be beneath his dignity to take any notice of a letter written, not to himself to complain of what had occurred, but to another person. I said that if his conduct as Lord Lieutenant of the county was to be found fault with, it should be in this House, where he would have an opportunity of explaining his conduct and the course he had taken. My noble Friend followed that advice and took no further notice of the charge then made against him, and I think he acted wisely in not bringing it forward. On the present occasion I think he has been justified in making this explanation, considering the charge has been repeated by a gentleman of such high position as the right hon. Member for Birmingham.

GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it was, no doubt, unusual to oppose a Private Bill on the third reading; but he had opposed the Bill at a previous stage, and should have accepted that decision but for a complete change of circumstances. On the last occasion on which this subject was discussed the noble Marquess who had charge of the Bill contradicted him when he stated that it was promoted by the Board of Trade. He (the Earl of Camperdown) could not contradict the statement at the time; but on looking at the Bill subsequently, he found that Sir Charles
  368
  Adderley's name was at the back of it. Moreover, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade was the first witness examined before the Committee. What the Board of Trade desired was that there should be an uniform supply of gas, the initial price being 3s. 9d., all over the metropolis. There were at that time two Bills before the House, and a third relating to the South of London was before the other House. But this latter Bill was objected to by the parishes of Camberwell and Lambeth on the ground that the Company had for years been supplying gas at 3s. 6d., and that if they were empowered to raise the price it would increase the income of the Company very greatly to the injury of the consumers, and the Bill fell through. Therefore, their Lord ships would have to consider next year what was the proper initial price for the south side of London. There were some doubts about the South Metropolitan Gas Bill; but it had now come on for the third reading, and the Company had thus, by their own motion, procured the passing of a measure which would limit the charge in their district to 3s. 6d. Bills on this subject were continually coming out and in like rabbits in a warren; and generally ended by disappearing, and it seemed to him it was highly desirable that when their Lord ships legislated on this subject they should consider it thoroughly and all at one time. They were now asked to pass the present Bill, which related only to the northern portion of London, and thereby to prejudge the question. If, however, they sanctioned the charge of 3s. 9d., they would not be doing what the Board of Trade originally proposed, because that Department wished to have an uniform charge of 3s. 9d. all over the metropolis. If their Lordships passed this Bill they could not retreat from the position they had taken up; and therefore he hoped they would not agree to the third reading.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("upon this day three months.")—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUBY,said, the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) had spoken of these Bills springing up like rabbits coming from their holes, but he did not know what

  369
  inference the noble Earl desired their Lordships to draw from this metaphor. As a matter of fact the present Bill had passed through all the ordinary stages and been subjected to all the precautions usually applied to measures of this kind. The Bill, moreover, had been approved by the Board of Trade, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Corporation of the City of London. It was introduced into the House of Commons, was examined by a Committee there, as it was subsequently by a Committee of their Lordships' House. It had been discussed on going into Committee of the Whole House and approved by their Lordships, and it certainly was a remarkable course to take to move the rejection on the third reading after all these siftings and discussions. There was one advantage, at all events, in the present proposal of the noble Earl, for there was no doubt now as to whether the effect of his action would be to destroy the Bill. The last time this matter was before the House there was considerable difference of opinion as to whether the result of the noble Earl, Motion would be the rejection of the measure, but there could be no doubt as to the object of the present Motion. The noble Earl said that if their Lordships sanctioned a charge of 3s. 9d. they would never be able to retreat from it. Well, if that were a danger we were exposed to it already, for Parliament had sanctioned a charge of 3s. 9d. in the case of these Companies. If this Bill did not pass they would continue to make that charge; and if the Bill did pass there were means provided in it for reducing the charge in proportion as the dividend of the Company increased. Indeed, in the opinion of competent persons it was likely that at an early period some reduction in the charge would be made—and it was probable that it would be a larger reduction than 3d., which was the object of the noble Earl's movement. If the dividend were raised even as much as 11 per cent the price would be reduced to 3s. 5d., and this would be a larger gain to the consumer than that which was contemplated by the noble Earl. The probability was that any hostile action would force the Companies to recede from a position in which great advantages were already guaranteed by Act of Parliament; and the real question at issue was whether the House
  370
  would prefer a bird in the hand to two in the bush, or, in other words, the almost certainty of having the price of gas reduced according to a sliding scale provided for in the Bill, or the putting the matter off for an indefinite period on the chance that the noble Earl by the unaided weight of his own eloquence might persuade the two Houses of Parliament to that which Parliament had never done before. There were reasons why the price of gas in the South of the metropolis should be somewhat higher than in the North, because the area being smaller the capital required was larger in proportion to the consumption than it would be in the North.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, the observations of the noble Marquess would mislead the House as to the law in regard to at least some of the Companies. It was not correct to say that if this Bill were rejected the Companies would have the absolute power to charge 3s. 9d. in perpetuity, because the existing Acts provided the limit that the dividend was not to exceed 10 per cent; and there was also this further limit, that the Board of Trade could be applied to for an inquiry as to whether 3s. 9d. was or not a necessary amount, in order that the Company might be enabled to pay that dividend, with due care and management. As to the greater expenditure of capital in proportion to consumption of gas in the South of the Metropolis as compared with the North, it should be borne in mind that the consumption of gas increased very rapidly, and as population increased in the South so would the consumption of gas increase also. The consumer ought to have the benefit of this, but by this Bill they would be able to divide more by having the advantage of the cheaper production of gas. The time would also probably come when there would be some improvement in the institutions of the metropolis, and probably gas would be placed in the hands of some public body. Such a body would have to purchase up the great Gas Companies, and it would have to purchase also an additional property, which the Government by this Bill were seeking to make provision for.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not-Contents 21: Majority 13.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 3aaccordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NORTH AMERICA—EXTRADITION.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE RESUMED.
  Adjourned debate on the Motion of Earl GRANVILLE—"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for further Correspondence respecting Extradition," resumed (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to express my great obligation to your Lordships for your indulgence in permitting me to-night to resume the discussion of this question. I shall endeavour to show my gratitude by compressing, as far as the importance of the subject will permit, the remarks I have to make. I think I shall make my observations more distinct if I remind your Lordships at the outset that there are connected with this subject two questions which are perfectly separable the one from the other. The first is whether upon the subject of Extradition there ought to be a new Treaty made between this country and the United States, and what should be the character of that Treaty; and the other is whether Her Majesty's Government, in executing the Treaty which exists and the powers which they possess, have properly interpreted their duty. The importance of keeping these two questions distinct was, I think, clearly manifested during the debate the other night. The noble Earl who introduced the Motion (Earl Granville) stated very fairly that he did not propose to enter into the question of a negotiation for a new Treaty, but he would confine himself entirely to what had already occurred; but your Lord ships will recollect that a noble Earl who is not now present (Earl Grey), in addressing himself to the subject, scarcely bestowed a word upon the conduct of the Government in reference to what has already passed, but, with great point and ability, addressed himself to the general question as to what, according to his judgment, ought to be the character of the Extradition arrangements between two such countries as Great Britain and the United States. Upon
  372
  one of these questions I do not propose to say more than a single word. The subject of the arrangements to be made for the future is one which may now be taken to be under negotiation. Her Majesty's Government have informed the Government of the United States that they are prepared to enter upon that negotiation without any bias and without any prejudice arising from the correspondence which has passed between, the two Governments. I am perfectly willing to confess there are many points in respect of which the arrangements between the two countries may be improved; and I think I shall have the assent of all your Lordships when I say this was a question upon which the interests of Great Britain and of the United States are not only not antagonistic, but are absolutely identical. Have heard some calculations made as to the relative advantages which an Extradition Treaty bestowed upon the two countries; but I cannot see any difference whatever between the advantages to one country and to the other. I have seen it stated that you ought to take into account and compare the probable number of criminals which each country will have to demand back from the other. If we were able to ascertain that there were two countries, one of which would require the surrender of 10 and the other the surrender of 100 criminals, still I should maintain that the interests of the two countries were entirely identical. Of course it is the interest of a country to obtain the surrender of a criminal, and to put him on trial for the offence which he has committed; but I maintain that it is equally the interest of the country of which that criminal, if he be a criminal, has made an asylum to get rid of his presence. The country in which he has taken refuge is in this position—it cannot try him for the offence he has committed abroad, because it has been committed out of its jurisdiction, and it cannot have his presence without danger of the recurrence of the crime in consequence of which he has been obliged to take refuge.
  Having stated that, I now come to what really is the grave question raised by the noble Earl—I mean the course which the Government has taken in the late negotiations with the United States. It is extremely important to bear in mind, in a matter of this kind, what the

  373
  position of the Government is. Primâ facie every person who takes refuge in this country, who makes this country an asylum, has a right to remain in it, and cannot be removed from it. But the Government of this country is made by the Legislature the depositary or trustees of certain powers, by the exercise of which that individual may be handed over to the country from which he has originally come. It is the duty of the Government to construe those powers accurately, and to execute them up to the letter of their power, and the Government have no authority to go one jot beyond the power which the Legislature has entrusted to them. What the powers are which are entrusted to the Government must, of course, be determined by looking at the nature of the authority which the Government has received, and it is upon the construction of that authority that the difference in the present instance has arisen. Let me remind your Lordships what are the two constructions which have been placed on the powers given to the Government of this country with reference to the extradition of persons alleged to be criminals. The construction which was placed by the noble Earl (Earl Granville) upon the power of the Government is this—the noble Earl, adopting the argument of the Government of the United States, contends that there are certain crimes for any one of which the Government of the United States may require the surrender of a criminal who is within this country. The noble Earl says the person must be accused of the crime, and evidence must be given which would justify his committal in this country; and if such evidence be given he is to be handed over to the United States; but once he is handed over to the United States the noble Earl contends it is in the power of the United States and the Courts of that country, provided they go through the form of trying him in the first instance for the offence for which he is surrendered, to try him afterwards for any offence greater or smaller which may be alleged against him. That is the construction which the noble Earl puts upon the duty and the authority of the Government of this country. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government put this construction on their authority—they say they are ready to entertain the demand for the extradition of any person
  374
  alleged to have committed any of the offences mentioned in the Treaty; they are ready to hear evidence of the criminality of the person; and if the evidence amounts to that which would justify a magistrate in committing that person for trial in this country, he is to be handed over to the Government and the Courts of the United States; but he is to be handed over to be tried for that offence only, and if acquitted of that offence he is not to be tried for any other offence he may have committed. That is the issue between us. It appears to me a very simple one, and I think I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships—not by any legal arguments, but by the application of common sense to the construction of common words, that the construction which Her Majesty's Government have placed on their duty is the true and correct construction. My Lords, before I come to the Treaty which exists between this country and the United States I desire to make a few observations. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) said the other night with great accuracy that the extradition of criminals or alleged criminals was founded upon the comity of nations. Extradition is not an obligation created by Treaty. It has been regulated and moulded by certain countries through the medium of Treaties, but properly speaking it is founded upon the comity of nations, upon principles higher and broader than ever can be laid down in any Treaty. My Lords, it so happens that Great Britain and the United States have been rather lagging behind on the matter of Extradition. Extradition was known for years before any Treaty existed between this country and the United States; and when a Treaty came to be made between this country and the United States it was made in order to supplement the power of the Executive Government, and not for the purpose of introducing any greater laxity into the general principle of Extradition. Now, my Lords, what are the rules laid down with regard to Extradition in those countries where it has prevailed much longer than in this country and the United States? Nay, what is the cardinal rule on the subject of Extradition? I have consulted the great jurists who have written on this subject on the Continent, and I will now lay before your Lordships what has been said by one of

  375
  them who wrote not very far distant from the time when the Treaty was made between this country and the United States. I take the treatise of Fælix on Private International Law, in which an entire chapter is devoted to the subject of Extradition. The author enumerates all the Treaties which at the time he wrote existed between the different countries on the Continent; but he lays down as higher and older than any of the provisions in any of those Treaties certain general rules which he says are implied in the whole question of Extradition, and which govern it in all countries at all times. And this is one of his general rules—
  "The person who is surrendered cannot be prosecuted or condemned except for the crime in respect to which his extradition has been obtained."
  My Lords, is there any doubt about the meaning of those words? The rule is not that he must be tried first for the crime on which he has been surrendered, and that then he may be tried for any other, but that he must be tried for the crime on which he has been surrendered, and for that crime only. And, my Lords, what is the practice observed in France? The Minister of Justice, in a circular dated the 15th of April, 1841, lays down the following rules on the subject of Extradition:—
  "The extradition declares the offence which leads to it, and this offence alone ought to be inquired into. So that if during the prosecution for the crime which has led to the extradition there should arise the evidence of a new crime, a new demand of extradition ought to be made."
  But, my Lords, that is not all. In a book with which some of your Lordships are well acquainted, Dalloy's Jurisprudence I find a remarkable case in point which occurred between France and Geneva. A man of the name of Dermenon had been surrendered for trial for fraudulent bankruptcy. He was acquitted on that charge; but there was another against him for which he had not been surrendered. Then this is what I find—
  "The Procureur-Général to the Royal Court of Dijon asks whether he must be brought before the Tribunal of Correctional Police of that city or sent back to Geneva to be placed at the disposal of the Government which has surrendered him. The Keeper of the Seals thinks
  376
  that the later alternative should be adopted. The letter written by the Minister of the Interior to the Prefect of the Côte ďOr to inform him of his decision runs thus:—'It is only as accused of the crime of fraudulent bankruptcy that Dermenon has been delivered up to France by the Canton of Geneva. He is now purged of that charge by the decree of acquittal. Dermenon is therefore in the same position as if only a misdemeanour had been laid to his charge. It is clear that in that case his extradition could not have been obtained. It follows that we cannot take advantage of his having been given up to the French authorities upon a different ground to try him for acts which have not and could never have been the grounds of his extradition. The Minister of Justice has consequently directed the Procureur-Général to place Dermenon at your disposal, and I hasten, for my part, to request you to have him conducted immediately to the frontier, where he should be placed once more in the hands of the Genevese authorities.' "
  That is pretty strong as to the principle on which France proceeded—a principle which forms the foundation of Extradition and does not depend on the mere wording of any Treaty whatever. But is France alone in this matter? I turn to a jurist of Holland, Kluit, who has written a very interesting treatise on the Surrender of Fugitives, in which he says—
  "Is it lawful to punish the fugitive for any other crime than that for which he has been surrendered? The request for the surrender of a criminal is generally accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which it is made. The State in which he has taken refuge ought not to surrender him until those grounds have been made clear to it; in other words, it should ascertain whether the crime committed is of a character to justify his surrender. In truth, the criminal by his flight to another State becomes (although but for a time) the subject of the supreme power of that State, and immediately enjoys the protection and guardianship of that State. From that guardianship he cannot be forcibly taken except under a special agreement, the terms of which, we presume, certainly do not extend further than to those very grounds on which the surrender was demanded and granted. Therefore, if a State were to demand the extradition of a fugitive for a given crime, and then, letting the charge of this crime drop, were to bring him to trial and inflict punishment on him for some other crime committed by him, the mutual confidence existing between the two nations would be seriously impaired by an extradition demanded in so dishonest and underhand a manner. The surrendering State could not, indeed, though rightly maintaining that it had suffered an injury, at once do anything to prevent the perpetration of this fraud—for it would be absurd to fly at once to arms—yet it appears that it could fairly demand, through the medium of its Ministers representing it in the country of the other State, that the injury should be repaired

  377
  —as, for example, by sending back the surrendered criminal; and in such, a case it will be quite fair that all extradition shall be consistently refused to the offending State for the future, so that no handle may be given to unjust
  Persecutions.…And even if it be not fraud, but only carelessness, that leads to a State, after demanding and obtaining the surrender of a criminal, to bring him to trial on some other charge than that for which he was surrendered, such a proceeding should not on that account bypassed over. The surrendering State gave up the criminal on consideration of the grounds stated, not of any different grounds. It may be alleged that it was a fair presumption and argument to say that the surrendering State would have been likely to surrender with much greater willingness a man accused of more crimes than one than a man accused of one only. But, on the other hand, it is a fair observation to make that that State might have declined to grant the surrender had it known that the other State would bring the criminal to trial on such a charge. Because it surrendered a man accused of incendiarism or murder, it must not be presumed that it would be equally willing to surrender one for political reasons, for persecution on account of religion, or for any trivial infringement of the law."
  Finally, I turn to a German writer, Heffter, who states—
  "The individual whose extradition has been granted cannot be prosecuted or tried for any crime except that for which the extradition has been obtained. To act in any other way, and to cause him to be tried for other crimes or misdemeanours, would be to violate the mutual principle of asylum and the silent clause contained by implication in every extradition."
  Now, my Lords, I think these authorities—and they might be multiplied—will satisfy your Lordships that apart altogether from the wording of Treaties, there is a silent and implied condition in Extradition that the crime for which the surrender of a man is: asked must be specified, and that it is for that crime alone that he must be tried. I am absolutely unaware of any authority who has ever written the other way. So much for the general principle. Until I hear the contrary, I think I am entitled to ask your Lordships to hold with me, that it is the general principle of Extradition that a man is to be tried only for the offence for which he is surrendered.
  I now come to the Treaty of 1842 and to the British Act of Parliament which gave effect to it. I take the Treaty first. What does it provide? It embraces certain offences—namely, murder, assaults and attempts to murder, forgery, the uttering of forged paper, piracy, robbery, and arson. It takes those
  378
  seven offences, and authorizes a demand and a surrender by way of Extradition of any person who is accused of one of these offences provided—I speak, of course, with regard to this country—the evidence given amounts to that which, according to British law, would justify a person's being committed in this country for trial. I ask what is the reason why seven offences out of the whole catalogue of crime are singled out, and why, also, there is this provision made—that the evidence given must be such would show a primâ facie criminality according to British law? What is the theory which would explain why this provision was made in the Treaty? I listened with some anxiety to hear whether the noble Earl had any theory on this point. I have heard two theories—one suggested by the noble Earl and the other suggested elsewhere. I have seen it said that the reason why the Treaty provides that this evidence of criminality according to British law is to be given is merely to guard against arbitrary arrests. But that is no answer at all, because it does not explain the reason why seven crimes are singled out. If the only object was to guard against arbitrary arrest, it would be sufficient to say that a man may be surrendered for any crime whatever, provided there is primâ facie evidence according to British law. But the suggestion of the noble Earl is that those seven offences only are taken because the object was not to invoke that cumbrous administrative machinery of the two countries and put it in motion for anything except large and considerable crimes? But I ask him are these seven the only large and considerable crimes? What does the noble Earl say to embezzlement, or to obtaining money under false pretences, or to manslaughter, or to rape, or to abduction—and I might name many others? None of these are mentioned in the Treaty—no provision whatever is made for them; and therefore, they being as considerable as the crimes that are mentioned, it cannot be that the object was to avoid the trouble of putting this cumbrous machinery in motion for insignificant offences. Now, I venture to give my explanation. The reason why the Treaty was framed in this way is a very simple one. It is that these seven offences are agreed upon between the two countries as the delicta majora, about which there

  379
  could be no dispute, no controversy, as to whether they trench on political considerations or not. They are singled out and taken, as the only crimes for which Extradition is to be permitted; and evidence is to be given which shall show that the particular crime had been primâ facie committed according to British law in order that this country when it surrenders a person who is alleged to be a criminal may know beforehand what is the crime, and the only crime, for which he is to be tried, and what is the character of that state of facts which is said to lead up to and indicate that it has been committed. And the moment that you pass from the offences named in the Treaty, and the evidence in support of those offences, and say that afterwards the person surrendered may be tried for any other offence, you absolutely reduce to silence the whole of the provisions in the Treaty. For what is the object of specifying one offence, and being made the judge of the evidence with regard to it, if after his trial for it—which may be a more formality and result in an acquittal, and show that he ought never to have been accused of that offence at all—he may be tried in the country to which he is surrendered for any other offence they may please to lay at his door? I may here quote one of the highest authorities in dealing with the subject—namely, the President of the United States. President Tyler communicated his Treaty by the Message to Congress. In a Message to the Senate he gave this explanation of the character of the Treaty. He said—
  "The Article on the subject in the proposed Treaty is carefully confined to such offences as all mankind agree to regard as heinous, and destructive of the security of life and property. In this careful and specific enumeration of crimes the object has been to exclude all political offences or criminal charges arising from wars or intestine commotions. Treason, misprision of treason, libels, desertion from military service, and other offences of similar character are excluded."
  What is the use of excluding them if, after a surrender for any one of the offences named, the person may be tried for these other offences? Here is the Message of the President of the United States explaining the Treaty that was entered into, and explaining it in a sense which at once sweeps away the whole of the theory that a person can be tried for anything except what are called the
  380
  crimes specifically enumerated—because if he could be tried for any one of the other offences the guarantee and safeguard on which President Tyler relied would be entirely removed.
  So much for the Treaty. As far as this country is concerned, it does not rest merely on the Treaty. I find that Lord Ashburton, who negotiated the Treaty, on the 9th of August, 1842, wrote to MR. Webster and told him—what all your Lordships know—that, although the negotiators had agreed to this Treaty, it could have no force against this country, except by the authority of Parliament, and therefore that the authority of Parliament must be obtained. Therefore, whatever terms the Parliament of this country imposed in the Act by which they gave their assent to the Treaty became part of the Treaty and govern its execution. What does the Act of Parliament which was to give it vitality, and which was passed in 1843 say? Your Lordships will observe that the form was this—that Parliament had to give to the Executive of this country power, which otherwise the Executive would not possess, of handing over the persons who were surrendered. No Secretary of State could issue a warrant or arrest any person in this country to be handed over to the United States, except by the authority of Parliament, and therefore Parliament had to ratify the Treaty and give authority for this particular act to be done. What is the language in which Parliament gave this authority? This is the third section of the Act, and it does not require a lawyer to construe it. It says, upon the certificate of the justice of the peace that the supposed offender has been committed to gaol—
  "It shall be lawful for one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State. by warrant under his hand and seal to order the person so committed to be delivered to such person or persons as shall be authorized in the name of the United States to receive the person so committed to be delivered to such person or persons as shall be authorized in the name of the said United States to receive the person so committed, and to convey such person to the territories of the said United States"—
  What for?—to be tried for all offences whatsoever? No, but—
  "to be tried for the crime of which such person shall be so accused." [6 & 7 Vict. c. 76. s. 3.]
  That is the authority which Parliament

  381
  has given to the Secretary of State. Parliament has given no authority to the Secretary of State to hand over any man within the asylum of this country to be tried for all offences whatsoever. The authority, and the only authority, given to Her Majesty's Government is, after evidence given showing a primâ facie case of criminality as regards the particular offence, that of handing over a person to the United States to be tried for the crime of which such person shall be so accused. It is sometimes said that lawyers are given to special pleading. I am sorry to observe that the special pleading on this subject has not come from lawyers. I have seen it stated—and the argument of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) the other night requires him to maintain this proposition—that because there are no negative words, saying that he is not to be tried for any other offence, therefore he may be tried for any other offence. I should like to know, in regard to documents passing between man and man within this country, what would be thought of an argument like that? Suppose anyone of your Lordships handed over a sum of money to a trustee and told him it was handed to him that he might invest it in a particular security—Consols. If the trustee said—"You told me I was to invest the money in Consols, but you did not say I was to invest it in nothing else. If I have invested the money in Consols, I can then invest it in any other securities I please." What, I ask, would be thought of that doctrine? The words here are clear. The person is surrendered by the Act of Parliament to be tried for the offence of which he is accused, and so far as he is concerned, our duty is to protest against his being tried for any other offence. But, my Lords, I may go further, and refer to the circumstances under which the Act of 1843 was passed. The Act was not passed through Parliament in silence; it was fully debated in both Houses at the time. Those were the times when the Members of the great Liberal Party were peculiarly sensitive about the liberties of those who had received the hospitality of this country; and they were careful that no power was given or should be exercised which might unduly endanger those liberties. I have read the most striking speech of Lord Macaulay on the subject, which is contained in the Reports of
  382
  the proceedings of the other House of Parliament, and also that which was delivered by Lord Aberdeen in this House, both of which were directed against the criticisms to which the measure had been subjected. [See 3 Hansard, lxxi. 564.] At that time slavery was an institution of the United States, and great apprehension was felt here that persons might be surrendered here for offences mentioned in the Treaty, and be subsequently tried in America for offences connected with their status as slaves and those who were defending the Treaty in both Houses of Parliament took one by one the offences for which persons were to be surrendered, and asserted that none of them would allow any person to be put on his trial for an offence committed as a slave. But, my Lords, if Lord Aberdeen in this House, and Sir Robert Peel in the other, had adopted the construction placed upon the Treaty by the noble Earl they would have said—"It is no use embarrassing yourselves about the effect of the particular offences named in the Treaty, because we candidly tell you that if once a man is surrendered under the Treaty, he can be tried for any offence whatever, whether arising out of his status as a slave or not." My Lords, had any Minister made such a statement as that in either House of Parliament in 1843 do your Lordships suppose that this Treaty would ever have received the assent of Parliament? But there is another matter which is of considerable importance in considering this case. The other night the noble Earl objected to any reference being made to the American Act of Congress passed in 1848, stating that the Americans themselves were the proper judges of the construction to be put upon their own Act. That view might perhaps be open to criticism, inasmuch as the Act of Congress is practically a transcript of the English Act, and may fairly be taken to have the same meaning. I will not, however, enter into any debateable ground upon this question which I can avoid, and therefore I will pass over the point as to what construction should be placed upon the Act of Congress. I must, however, refer to an American document which becomes of the utmost importance when we are construing the meaning to be placed upon the Treaty. I will ask your Lordships to allow me to read the warrant under which the United States

  383
  surrender a prisoner to us. It is to be found in pages 69 and 70 of the Papers which have been laid before the House. This is the document which accompanies the prisoner when we receive him from the United States, and it contains the instructions which tell us what we are to do with him. The document is a very important one, and seems to my mind to be almost conclusive of the case. It is as follows:—
  "Now, therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 5272 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, these presents are to require the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of New York, or any other public officer or person having charge or custody of the aforesaid James Bowen, alias William Miller, to surrender and deliver him up to Adam Bligh, a constable of the united counties of Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry, Canada, who has been authorized, in the name and on behalf of the British Government, by Her Majesty's Minister at this capital to receive him, or to any other person or persons who may in like manner be authorized, in the name or on behalf of the said Government to receive the said James Bowen, alias William Miller, to be tried for the crime of which he is accused."—[N. A. No 1 (1876), No. 153.]
  Therefore we have on the one hand the British Parliament authorizing the Secretary of State "to hand over the person to be surrendered from this country to be tried in the United States for the crime for which he is accused, "and we have on the other the Government of the United States issuing their warrant for the handing over to the officer authorized by Her Majesty to receive him in the United States a prisoner "to be tried for the crime of which he is accused. "Both countries, therefore, use the same words, which can only fairly admit of one interpretation. So much, therefore, for the general principles which regulate the system of Extradition and for the documents which pass between the two countries, and which constitute the means by which it is carried into effect. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) referred to a great many cases which have occurred since 1842, and said that he had got the evidence of public men and the evidence of witnesses which would show that the meaning which had always been placed upon the Treaty was different from that for which we contend. I can very shortly indeed put your Lordships in possession of all that appears to me to be material with regard to the cases that have occurred. By far the greater num-
  384
  ber of the cases cited by the noble Earl I put aside altogether as irrelevant. In that class of cases to which I refer, the prisoners who had been surrendered on one charge and who were being tried upon another themselves attempted to raise the defence that they could not be tried for an offence different from that for which they had been surrendered. Such cases certainly have no application whatever to the present question, because nothing can be more clear than that a prisoner himself has no right to raise such a defence. Even in Prance where, as I have shown your Lordships, the law and the practice of Extradition goes far beyond that which prevails in this country and in the United States, a prisoner is not permitted to set up such a defence, for the clear reason that he is within the jurisdiction of the Court which has the authority to try him for the offence of which he is charged, and that whether he ought to be tried, for an offence other than that for which he has been surrendered is a matter of diplomacy between the two countries, and not of question between the prisoner and the Court before which he is being tried. That circumstance, therefore, disposes of by far the larger number of cases referred to by the noble Earl and by MR. Fish. The cases really in point are only three in number. One is that of Heilbronn, which if the Government of this country had ever known and had approved what was done, it would not have been very creditable to this country. I will tell your Lordships what happened in that case. Heilbronn was a man who was brought up in New York under a proceeding of Extradition for the purpose of being sent home to this country in order to be tried here. He was charged in New York with robbery, and he grounded his defence upon the circumstance that the facts proved disclosed not robbery, but embezzlement, which was not an offence for which he could be surrendered under the Treaty. The Commissioner before whom the case was heard decided that the offence of which he was charged was robbery, and the man was surrendered and was sent over to this country for trial—and I may mention that the prosecution was conducted not by the Crown, but privately. When he was tried here this actually occurred—the Judge at once said that the facts showed that the

  385
  offence committed was embezzlement, and not robbery, and the man was tried and sentenced for the former offence, for which he ought not to have been surrendered under the terms of the Treaty. That would not have been very creditable to the Government if they had ever heard of it; but the Government never did hear of it. It was never brought under their notice at the time of the prosecution, or until it was mentioned in the Committee of the other House in 1868. That was the case of Heilbronn. The other two cases were the cases of Burley and Caldwell. As to these cases it appears that the Law Officers of the day were consulted; and no person can speak with greater respect than I do of the Law Officers at these two particular dates. But I am bound to say that I should have liked to see the reasons assigned by the Law Officers for the opinions said to have been given by them, and I should have liked to know whether the attention of the Law Officers was called to the principles of Extradition to which I have referred, as well as to the other documents I have mentioned. Even if I were unable to agree with what appears to have been the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, if the result had been communicated to the American Government, and they had been told, "These are the principles upon which the British Government acted" I could understand the argument ad hominem now urged on behalf of the American Government—that this country should not depart from the solemn determination then arrived at. But, so far from that being the case, the American Government were never informed of the views said to have been entertained by the Law Officers of the Crown; and moreover, in the outset of the late Correspondence with the American Government those two cases were not referred to at all. The case of Burley was a singular one. It occurred in 1865. Burley had been surrendered to the United States from Canada on a charge of robbery. His friends in this country apprehended that he was going to be tried for piracy, and they appealed to the Foreign Office, asking that Her Majesty's Government would so far exert their good offices on his behalf as to secure "that he may not be tried on any other charge than that on which the claim was made for his Extradition." The Foreign Office thereupon answered the appeal, which
  386
  was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow (MR. Dalglish), who was told that "Lord Russell had addressed to Her Majesty's Chargé ďAffaires at Washington such instructions as the case admits of." Now, observe what were the instructions sent to our Chargé ďAffaires, and what was the communication made by him to the American Minister. These are the instructions sent to MR. Burnley, then our Chargé ďAffaires—
  "I have to state to you that, having considered this application in communication with the proper Law Advisers of the Crown, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that if the United States Government, having obtained the extradition of Burley on the charge of robbery, do not put him on his trial upon this charge, but upon another—namely, piracy (which, if it had been made before the Canadian authorities they might have held not sufficiently established to warrant his extradition), this would be a breach of good faith against which Her Majesty's Government might justly remonstrate. If, however, the United States Government does bonâ fide put Burley on his trial for the offence in respect to which he was given up, it seems to Her Majesty's Government that it would be difficult to question the right of that Government to put him upon his trial for piracy also, or any other offence which he may be accused of having committed within their territory, whether such an offence was or was not a ground of extradition or even within the Treaty."—[North America, No. 3 (1876), p. 20.]
  This is a large view, and one with which I cannot concur. But now let us see what was the communication to MR. Seward, founded upon this despatch. MR. Burnley wrote to MR. Seward—
  "Her Majesty's Government having considered this application, are of opinion that if the United States Government, having obtained the extradition on the charge of robbery, do not put him on his trial upon this charge, but upon another—namely, piracy, which, if it had been made before the Canadian authorities, they might have held not sufficiently established to warrant his extradition, this would be a breach of good faith, against which Her Majesty's Government might justly remonstrate. Her Majesty's Government are, therefore, willing, should the grounds upon which Burley is to be tried take the above turn, to comply so far with the application of MR. Burley, senior, as to instruct me to protest against any attempt to change the ground of accusation upon which Burley was surrendered in pursuance of the Treaty."—[Ibid. p. 22.]
  Now, if I had been MR. Seward, receiving this despatch, without knowing what was behind, I should have said—"This is an expostulation with me against allowing a man to be tried for any offence but that on which he was

  387
  surrendered." MR. Seward, in fact, did so understand it, and thus replied—
  "The Honourable the Attorney General informs me that it is his purpose to bring the offender to trial in the Courts of the States of Ohio and Michigan for the crimes committed by him against the municipal laws of those States—namely, robbery and assault, with intent to commit murder. He was delivered up by the Canadian authorities upon a requisition which was based upon charges of those crimes, and also upon a charge of piracy."
  This, I believe, was a mistake—
  "which is triable, not by State Courts, but by the Courts of the United States. I am not prepared to admit the principle claimed in the Protest of Her Majesty's Government, that the offender could not legally be tried for the crime of piracy under the circumstances of the case."
  MR. Seward thus shows that he considers it a protest against the principle of trying a prisoner for any other crime than that upon which he has been surrendered—
  "Nevertheless, the question raised upon it has become an abstraction, as it is at present the purpose of the Government to bring him to trial for the crimes against municipal law only."—[North America, No. 3 (1876), p. 22.]
  These are the crimes upon which MR. Seward says Burley was surrendered; and therefore, says MR. Seward, I do not admit your protest, which I believe to be a protest against trying a man for any different crime from that for which he has been surrendered; but the point is now an abstraction, for we do not mean to do so. That is the case of Burley. The case of Caldwell is a lesson to us as to the caution which should be exercised by the Government in these matters. Caldwell was handed over from Canada to the United States in 1871, and was surrendered for forgery. He appealed to the Canadian Government, and through them to the Home Government, upon this ground—that he was going to be tried for a different offence—namely, bribing an officer of Customs. Now, it is quite true that in 1871—I do not know for what reason—possibly because there were then many other matters in controversy with the United States, and it was not thought desirable to add to the number—there is a despatch from the Colonial Office stating that there does not seem to be any ground for interference. Lord Kimberley adds—
  "Her Majesty's Government are further advised that there is nothing in the Convention which would preclude the indictment of the
  388
  petitioner in the United States for an additional offence which is not enumerated in the Convention, so long as such proceedings were not substituted for proceedings against him on the charge by reason of which he was surrendered."—[North America, No. 4 (1876), p. 7.]
  What happened? The case is cited in a book which MR. Fish says is of great authority—"Clark on Extradition"—and, as I say, is a lesson to us of the results of laxity in these matters. Caldwell never was tried for the offence for which he was surrendered, and he was tried for the offence of bribing an officer of Customs. My Lords, I think that the less said about the case of Caldwell the better. This disposes of all the cases which it is necessary to notice.
  My Lords, I now come to what the noble Earl (Earl Granville) calls the declarations made by public men upon this subject. I heard what was said in the House of Commons in 1866 by my noble Friend the then Secretary for Foreign Affairs, being myself at that time Attorney General; and I only mention the fact now for the purpose of showing that in 1866, and after the case of Burley had occurred, whatever the construction put upon it, a distinct and clear declaration was made in the face of the country in the other House of Parliament of what the Foreign Office conceived to be the position of the Extradition question as regards the trial for criminal offences. The noble Earl says the words used on that occasion were words used in the heat of debate. Nothing can be more inaccurate. There was no heat of debate. What occurred was this—A Bill was passing through the other House on the subject of Extradition. It was earnestly criticized, and an Amendment was moved requiring that, before any person was given up, the country to which he was surrendered should be asked for an assurance that he should not been tried for any other offence except that for which he was surrendered. My noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) objected to that Amendment. We said to the House of Commons—"In the first place, if it is included in the Treaty, it is not necessary to take a pledge from the other country on the subject; and in the second place, as we understand the law, this country wouid have a right to complain of any other country which, after a prisoner had been surrendered, should try that prisoner for any offence other than that

  389
  for which he was surrendered." This is what my noble Friend said, as the head of the Foreign Office at that time, and speaking in his position as Secretary of State—
  "As for the proposal that the French Government should be required to enter into an undertaking that they would not try any person for any offence other than that for which he had been given up, he thought that that would be a very feeble protection indeed: for, assuming for the sake of argument that the French could act in the manner suggested—and he really begged pardon for assuming it, even for that purpose——he could only say that a Power which could act in such a manner would not be bound by an undertaking of the kind proposed."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiv. 2114.]
  What I said as Attorney General was that—
  "With respect to the latter part of the hon. Member's Amendment, which required that the person should not be tried for any offence but that for which he had been given up, we should certainly have a well-founded complaint against any country that demanded a man to be given up for one offence and then proceeded to try and punish him for another."—[Ibid. 2122.]
  So much, my Lords, for the declaration which was made in the face of the Parliament of this country, and acted upon in 1866 in the other House of Parliament, where the Amendment was withdrawn in consequence of that declaration. The Papers with regard to Burley and Caldwell were not exhibited to Parliament, but this was a declaration made in the face of Parliament, and about which there could be no mistake. The opinion of the late Sir Thomas Henry, whose loss we all deplore, was clear that the course taken by Her Majesty's Government was the course required by the practice and by the documents in the case. The next authority the noble Earl (Earl Granville) refers to is MR. Mullens, who is described by MR. Fish as the Solicitor General for England. That, of course, is a mistake; but at all events MR. Mullens is a most respectable solicitor. And what is his opinion as to the propriety of trying prisoners for offences other than those for which they were given up? Sir Robert Collier asked him this question—
  "Supposing a man is given up, is it your opinion that he should not be triable for any quite different offence, or that he should only be tried for that offence, and then sent back again, at all events, and not put upon his trial for any other?"
  MR. Mullens replied—
  "I think he should only be triable for the offence named in the Extradition warrant, or for
  390
  any other offence named in the Treaty arising out of the same facts."
  That is a very different thing from what is contended for now. Sir Robert Collier next: asked—
  "Assuming this case, that a man has committed murder in this country and afterwards larceny and escapes to France, and that he is sent over here and tried for larceny; and assuming that he is acquitted on that charge, are we to let him go, or are we to try him for murder, as we have him here?"
  MR. Mullens answered—
  "I think we should not let him go, but we should get the consent of the Government which gave him up before we tried him for murder."
  Who is the next authority appealed to by the noble Earl? Lord Hammond—of whom I desire to speak with the greatest respect and who was then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs—came to be examined on the matter, and he appears to have given evidence which was very far indeed from being in favour of the view taken by the noble Earl. Indeed, his evidence was very remarkable. He was asked on the first day of his examination whether he had any recollection of the demands made in respect to trials for different crimes, and he said—
  "I cannot remember any. There was a case, but I do not think that it was a case of murder, connected with the Canadian troubles. A man fled to Canada, and the question was whether the man should be given up; and the further question then arose whether, if he was given up, he should be triable for any other offence. I think that it was ruled that if he was bonâ fide tried for the crime for which he was given up he might be tried for another offence afterwards."
  Then he was: asked—
  "Have you any record or minute of the particulars of this case you are now alluding to?"
  He replied—
  "I should think that probably the Law Officers' opinion was taken upon it, but that could not be given to the Committee."
  The witness added that he would see whether he could get any particulars of that case. On the second day of his examination MR. Hammond said the case was that of Burley, and he described, just as I have done this evening, how that case arose. He was: asked—
  "Do you mention this case to show that a man can possibly be tried for another offence than that for which he was given up?—I think

  391
  the questions led to that point. But does this case decide the point either one way or the other?—No; only that we admit in this country that if a man is bonâ fide tried for the offence for which he was given up, there is nothing to prevent his being subsequently tried for another offence, either antecedently committed or not. Did we make any demand upon the American Government after we had learnt that the man had been acquitted upon the first charge?—The man was not actually acquitted, because the jury disagreed and he was held over for trial another time. Then we never made any further inquiry about him?—No."
  MR. Hammond also said it would be very troublesome, if, supposing a man were given up under an Extradition Treaty, we were to instruct our Minister at the Court of the country to which he was given up to keep his eye upon the case and to ascertain what became of the man. And then came this remarkable answer, which I suppose expresses Lord Hammond's own opinion on the subject. After remarking that there is nothing in our Treaties to prevent a man being given up even for political offences, he said—
  "In dealing with foreign nations, we can only go by our Treaty relations. If you ask me what is my own feeling on the subject, I should say it would be a great breach of faith and morality on the part of a foreign Government if, after having tried a man for the offence for which he was given up and having failed in convicting him of that offence, they should then put him upon his trial for a political offence, knowing well that if we had been aware that there was a political offence in the background we should never have given him up."
  Let me, now, substitute for "political offence" any offence which is not the subject of extradition. Would not a foreign Government know perfectly well that if we had been asked to give up a man for another offence we should not have done so, and does not Lord Hammond's reasoning, therefore, apply just as much to such an offence as it does to a political offence?
  I have, I trust, satisfied your Lord ships that on the general principles of Extradition and on the wording of our Treaty, of the Act of Parliament of 1843 and of the American warrant the course laid down for the Government was a clear and distinct one, and that we could not have taken any other course. And now let me say a few words about political offences. In the Treaty with the United States of America there is not a word about political offences. If the noble Earl's construction be the right one, and if a person handed over can be tried for any other offence
  392
  besides that for which, he was handed over, there is nothing in the Treaty which prevents his being tried for a political offence. I heard with great interest and some surprise the argument of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) on this subject the other night. The noble Earl was very bold indeed. He said people in this country are far too thin-skinned in regard to political offences—that political offences were very serious things, and that the men who committed them ought to be given up just like other offenders. Further, the noble Earl said that if this were not the view of the people of this country, they ought to be taught not to regard political offences as they do now. I know the boldness of the noble Earl, and I am sure that if any one is competent to instruct public opinion on this subject it is himself. But I do not wish him to be successful, and I should be very much surprised if he were successful. I believe the people of England have perfectly made up their mind on this subject. I believe they will not consent to deliver up persons for political offences. Whatever may be the form of Treaty or Act of Parliament, they will take care that no persons are delivered up for political offences. But if the construction contended for by the United States and by the noble Earl be correct, we have no security whatever against the surrender of political offenders under this Treaty. If it is in the power of another country, after trying a prisoner for the offence for which he was surrendered, to try him for another offence, that other offence might involve political considerations. There are two principles which are perfectly clear. The first is, that no man shall be surrendered for a political offence; the other is, that this country itself shall be the judge whether an offence is political or not. Even inside of our own country differences of opinion on that point constantly arise, and some persons think an offence is political which others do not regard as such. This is, at all events, a point which we will not leave to the judgment of another country—we must judge of it ourselves, and we cannot do so unless we know what is the offence or what are the offences for which the surrendered criminal is to be tried. My Lords, what security did the Minister of the United States wish for in this matter? MR. Fish says that he never desired to have a criminal

  393
  surrendered for a political offence; but in the very same despatch in which he says so he tells us that as to all offences against the law of the States, as distinguished from Federal offences, the Government of the United States—with which observe alone we have the power of communicating—is powerless. They cannot control the prosecution in such cases; they cannot order it be suspended—nay, more, if a man be convicted the President of the United States cannot pardon him. The security of which MR. Fish speaks is, therefore, no security at all. But I would appeal from MR. Fish to President Tyler, who says, in effect—"Here is the Article in the Treaty; scan it over. In the careful enumeration of crimes which you see there the object has been to exclude all political offences."
  I wish, in the next place, my Lords, to say a word as to a misapprehension which has arisen with respect to the Act of 1870. I have not up to this moment said a word about that Act; but I must now venture to correct what fell from the noble Earl who brought forward this subject on that point. The noble Earl said that we at first relied upon the Act of 1870, and that then we gave it up. But we have not given it up; and I wish it to be distinctly understood, so far as the Government are concerned, that we are disposed to agree entirely with the view of the United States Government, that an Act of Parliament passed in this country in 1870 cannot alter the terms of a Treaty made in 1842. But the Act might, whether by oversight or not, have imposed shackles and impediments on the Executive of a country in dealing with a prisoner whose surrender was demanded. Whether it has that effect or not it is difficult to say, because that depends upon the construction of a clause which I am bound to tell your Lordships honestly, after the best consideration I could give it, is absolutely and utterly unintelligible to my mind. I may add that upon the only occasion when it came under the notice of one of our Courts of Law—the Court of Queen's Bench—all the Judges of that Court said they thought it was very doubtful what the Act meant, and recommended that it should on the earliest possible occasion be set right by the Legislature. It imposes in its present shape upon any Government a very great difficulty; because if a Government were to hand over a
  394
  prisoner without taking those assurances which the Act requires, he might, for all I know, obtain his Habeas Corpus and be set at liberty. That is the purpose for which we referred to the Act of 1870. It is quite immaterial as regards the broader and higher ground of what our obligations are under the document of 1842.
  I will now say a word as to the policy of raising this question, as the Government have felt themselves obliged to raise it at the present time. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) said the other night that if we had let things go on, the great probability was that Lawrence would never have been tried for any other offence than that for which he was surrendered, and that we ought to have waited for some other occasion when if it were attempted to try a prisoner for a different offence we might have objected to the adoption of such a course. Well, it was, no doubt, open to the Government to act in that way; but I think I can show your Lordships that we were entirely justified in acting as we have done. Lawrence was in the United States handed over on a charge of forgery. There was an indictment found against him for some offence—I think against the Revenue Laws—which was not the subject of Extradition. There was, therefore, a distinct and clear announcement on the part of the United States that it was intended to proceed against Lawrence for the two offences. Now, we were able to say that although we could not agree with the Government of the United States in the construction which they put upon the Treaty, we believed them to be perfectly sincere in contending that that was the view which they had always entertained, and that although we differed from them, we were not prepared to make any serious demand upon them with regard to Lawrence. But how, my Lords, would the matter stand on another occasion? Suppose we had gone on surrendering prisoner after prisoner to the United States, and that on some other occasion—perhaps with regard to some offence which excited more interest in this country—the United States had pursued the same course, and proposed to try a criminal for a different offence from that for which he had been surrendered. Suppose the demand then made which has been made now; the United States Government would turn round and say to us—

  395
  "You knew perfectly well what our view of the Treaty was. We told you months ago, and with full notice you have gone on surrendering prisoners; we had, therefore, a right to assume that you were satisfied with the attitude which we had taken in the matter." Now, my Lords, if there be one course more than another which would be likely to land us in complications and embarrassments it would be to leave open a sore of that kind to be dealt with on some future occasion in the case of some criminal with regard to whom a greater amount of public interest might have been aroused. I should very much deprecate the discussion of a question of this importance with reference to the merits or demerits of any particular person whose surrender might be asked for by the United States. The noble Earl spoke the other night of those men as murderers, robbers, and rogues—and for all I know they may be what he describes them to be, although the tenderness of our law assumes that a person is innocent until he is proved to be guilty. But be that as it may, I can conceive nothing more dangerous than to bring down a great and important principle to the level of the merits or demerits of the individual in whose case that principle is brought in question. That is not the way in which we act in this country with regard to our criminal law, on the great principles of which and on the cardinal rules of evidence we all depend for our lives and liberties. If in a particular case we were to overstrain or overthrow those great principles and those rules, the evil which we would have done would be sure to come back upon us in some great political prosecution, or some trial of a man against whom an unjust and violent prejudice happened to have arisen in the public mind. So it is with regard to this question of Extradition. There are some words which fell on the subject from a great master of history which are the words not only of a historian, but of a philosopher, and which I should like to read to your Lordships. He says—
  "We are ever too ready, when it is the redress of our own injuries that is in question, to strain and compromise those general laws to which we have all to look for protection in the time of our adversity; and thus, when the day of trial comes, we find those laws no longer in existence.''
  These are words of warning which I think we should do well to lay to our
  396
  hearts at a time when there is little political excitement. I have now laid before your Lordships as concisely as I could the principles on which the Government has acted; and I maintain that the obligations under which we acted not only justify the conduct which has been pursued, but rendered any other course of conduct absolutely impossible.
  LORD SELBORNE: My Lords, there are some points about which there will be universal agreement, and one is that it is our duty to discuss this question with the most perfect dispassionateness, with the greatest possible desire to be fair and candid, and certainly with the remembrance that no triumph of mere ingenious argument, even though it might be successful for a time, could compensate for the mischief that might be done by the possible unsoundness of that argument. Your Lordships must have observed that my noble Friend who introduced this subject (Earl Granville) was careful to do so in a tone or manner which could not possibly bear the construction of a Party attack or indicate a desire to magnify the errors—if errors there were—of Her Majesty's Government. I desire to imitate my noble Friend in that respect; and at the outset I have to make three acknowledgments to Her Majesty's Government, and so far to place the correctness or incorrectness of the course they have pursued beyond the possible limits of a Party attack. First, it is undoubtedly true, as has been stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that when this question came incidentally under discussion in the other House in 1866, both the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), then and now Foreign Secretary, and my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack expressed views, the full effect of which, as now explained by them, may possibly not have been obvious to all who heard them, but views entirely consistent with the arguments on which they now rely, and, I have no doubt whatever, intended by them at that time in a sense substantially the same with the opinions they I now express. Whether they are right or wrong in the view they take of the obligations of this country under the Treaty of 1842, no one is fairly entitled to call in question the consistency of their present I and former opinions, or to deny that they were justified, whatever might be the

  397
  different views taken by others, in acting upon the opinions which they expressed in 1866. The next point to be borne in mind in favour of the Government is this—although undoubtedly the Act of 1870 could not alter the provisions of the Treaty, which it professed to respect and keep alive, and must, I think, be supposed to have intended to do so; on the other hand, so far as the future policy of this country is concerned, the Act of 1870 did, in substance—as to the precise extent there is something to be said—point out to those who might afterwards have the negotiation of any Extradition Treaties on behalf of this country a line of policy in accordance with that now followed by Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, they were not only justified, but—so far as general policy is concerned, so far as any action intended to be independent of the Treaty of 1842 is concerned—they were more than justified in acting upon the views and principles which Parliament had laid down as the general rule for the future. The third concession I desire to make to Her Majesty's Government—and it is really very important with reference to the position of this country—is that the Treaty of 1842 being terminable by either party at will and without notice, no question of a breach of international faith could fairly be raised, even if Her Majesty's Government were wrong in the construction which they put upon that Treaty, when they gave notice of what their construction was, in what sense they understood their obligation, and that they should not act upon the Treaty in any other sense. In form, no doubt, that was not a declaration of their choice and will to put an end to the Treaty; but, having the power to do so without previous notice, it is manifest that an intimation of that sort was to all intents and purposes equivalent to a conditional declaration of an intention to put an end to it if there were continued difference of opinion as to its construction. In that state of things, I think no question of good faith as between nation and nation can be involved in the course Her Majesty's Government have taken, even if they have been wrong in the view they have taken of their obligation. I must now take exception to two expressions used by my noble and learned Friend. He spoke more than once of my noble Friend (Earl Granville) having adopted the argument of the United States. It
  398
  may be that the view we take is the same with that which has been taken by the United States; but I protest against it being said that we adopt the arguments of the United States. The arguments are our own, the interpretation that of two Governments to which my noble Friend has belonged, and that for which I myself am responsible as the principal Law Adviser of the Crown in 1865. It is our own view, our own interpretation, which we are justifying, and not the argument of the United States, and I venture to think we do not go too far in asserting that, until the accession to office of the present Administration, it was the view of the British Government. We may have been wrong, but believe ourselves to have been right; and, having acted bonâ fide when former Governments took steps founded on our view, we had no option but to defend our own course, our own action, and our own opinions, although they happened to be the same as those of the United States. The other expression of my noble and learned Friend, to which I take exception, was that in which he stated it to be our construction of the Treaty, that the country to which extradition was made was at liberty to try for any other offence, provided it "goes through the form" of trying for the first offence. My noble and learned Friend will excuse me saying that this was a piece of rhetoric hardly characterized by his usual candour, because throughout the Papers which express the views formerly taken by our Government and throughout the arguments, it has always been said there must be a bonâ fide trial upon the charge on which the man was delivered up; that being the test of the bona fides of the requisition; because, if he were not tried at all for the offence for which he was asked to be surrendered, it might be strong evidence that there was an indirect purpose in asking for the surrender on particular grounds. Therefore a bonâ fide trial for that particular offence has always been regarded on our side as involved naturally in the demand for extradition. I will now follow my noble and learned Friend in his arguments. I confess it was with some surprise that I beard him endeavour to lay the foundation for everything which was to follow—not in the terms of the Treaty between the two Powers, but in some vague notion of à priori comity leading

  399
  to a law of Extradition independent of Treaty, and importing silent clauses and expressions of jurists, on which, he laid much stress. These arguments do not seem to have been thought good enough to be worth producing in the Correspondence laid on the Table; and the able despatch in which the arguments of Her Majesty's Government are summed up, so far from parading the opinions of jurists and text-writers, disputes the propriety of introducing them. But if the argument developed from those writers had any really legitimate bearing on the question, it is not conceivable that my noble and learned Friend or the Law Advisers of the Crown would not have discovered the passages he has just quoted in time for them to do duty not merely in your Lordships' House, but in the important Correspondence with the United States Government. My Lords, I confess that for my part I have not been persuaded by my noble and learned Friend's able speech to accept the views of those writers as in any degree affording a solution of this question. There is no such thing—certainly there never has been such a thing recognized in or by this country—as an à priori international obligation to grant extradition at all. That depends with us entirely on Treaties. The terms of those Treaties must contain in themselves the whole measure of the obligation as between country and country. I am fully aware that even in the United States there have been great writers—at least as great as any of those quoted by my noble and learned Friend—who have advocated the doctrine that there is a certain à priori right to demand extradition. But my noble and learned Friend did not refer to them, because he would not find in them anything in support of the view that it is an implied condition of extradition that a man should be tried only for the crime on which he has been surrendered. The real truth is, all the writers to whom my noble and learned Friend referred do but generalize from the laws of their own countries or particular Treaties of their own or other countries which they collect in their books. That is more especially the case of Fælix with regard to France. Now, as to the law of France, my noble and learned Friend stated very truly that in 1841 the Minister of Justice laid it down as a rule that a man was not to be tried for any offence but
  400
  that on which he was given up, and he referred in illustration of that principle to a case which occurred between France and Geneva. But what is the bearing of all that on the question now before us, except that another great and civilized country has taken the same view, not of law, but of policy, which was taken by the British Parliament in the year 1870? In France extradition depends, not on law, but entirely on the absolute despotic action of the Government. The Executive Government of France in 1841 laid down for its own guidance and the guidance of its Executive officers the same rule which was afterwards laid down by the Legislature of this country in the Act of 1870. How that bears upon our engagement of 1842 with the United States passes my comprehension. I will not, therefore, detain your Lordships long on that point. Not only, my Lords, does the Executive Government in France possess absolute power with respect to extradition, but the Court de Cassation in 1867, at the instance of M. Baroche, the then Minister of Justice, decided that the French Courts had nothing to do with the rule laid down in the Circular referred to; and I believe the Minister of Justice in that year did actually cause a man to be tried for an offence other than that on which he had been surrendered, and established his right to do so before the Court de Cassation. I ought to apologize to your Lordships for having said even so much as this on the subject of the law and practice of France; because the question is not as to the law and practice of France, but as to the Treaty between this country and the United States. My noble and learned Friend said he did not know of any authority who expressed views different from those entertained by Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, we have a writer of very great learning who has collected a body of International Law with perhaps more fulness than most others—a writer, I believe, to whom foreign jurists look with considerable respect—I mean Sir Robert Phillimore. I do not think my noble and learned Friend would find it laid down in Sir Robert Phillimore's book as a principle of International Law with respect to Extradition, that a man should not be tried for any offence but that on which he has been surrendered, though. I believe he would

  401
  find it to be there stated as a recognized principle of international usage that an extradited person should not be tried for a political offence. Now I come to what governs the whole matter—namely, the Treaty of 1842. My noble and learned Friend asked, if a man could be tried for any other offence than that on which he had been surrendered, why were certain crimes specified in the Treaty, and a provision laid down that there should be primâ facie evidence according to British law that he was guilty of one of them? My noble and learned Friend noticed that that list of offences did not include embezzlement, manslaughter, rape, and abduction, and he challenged us to say why there should be that selection. He thought it was not a sufficient reason to say that this was done to provide against arbitrary arrests, and then he went on to state his own view. Well, my answer is, that the specification of offences is made because it is not consistent with the principle of Extradition that a person should be given up, except for a crime which has a common character in both countries. For that reason the practice has been to specify offences as to which the jurisprudence of both countries is understood to agree, and as to the meaning of which, therefore, there should be no ambiguity. It is perfectly true that the specification of offences does not go as far as it might do; but it goes as far as, at the time of negotiating the Treaty between the two parties, it was thought necessary or convenient to go, in the direction of ascertaining what are the graver offences which have a common designation and a common meaning under the laws of both countries. Then my noble and learned Friend went on to ask, why does the Treaty require primâ facie evidence in the first instance, according to English law, as to the guilt of the man in respect to the crime for which his surrender is asked? Plainly because the crime is specified—because the same principles in both countries apply to it, though each country may have its own particular method of dealing with it. That provision as to primâ facie evidence cannot mean that British law is to govern for any other purpose than for that of determining the sufficiency of the case for giving up the man to American justice. When he gets to America he must, of course, be tried, not by British, but by American law, and
  402
  according to American rules of evidence, and if found guilty must undergo the punishment which American law provides. The sole purpose of applying the test of British law in this country is that before we give the man up we should have primâ facie evidence that he is guilty of one of the crimes specified in the Treaty of Extradition. We give him up, then, because we have confidence in the justice of the country which claims him; and if the conditions on which we give him up are fulfilled, I am utterly at a loss to understand why he should not afterwards be tried for any offence whatever—other than political—for which American law can try him. Let us look at the abstract question from the common sense point of view:—and it is very material to do so when we are asked to interpolate what my noble and learned Friend calls "a silent clause," not expressed, as is admitted, in the Treaty. Of course if the à priori reason were so plain, so manifest, that no two sensible persons could differ about it, then I could understand the argument as to interpolating a silent clause. But that is not the case. I hope that many of your Lordships now present heard the speech made by the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas when this question was last before the House. Putting political offences aside, he appeared to me to show, in the most convincing manner, how contrary to the true spirit of international justice it would be to fetter the demands of that justice by requiring that a man should be tried only for the precise offence for which he was given up. If you really place confidence in the justice of the country with which you make the Treaty, what possible interest can the country which delivers a man up have in sheltering him from trial and punishment for any crime that he has committed? Have you any engagement with him to shelter him in that way? Certainly not. Your only engagement is that which you have with the country with which you have made the Treaty. Are you to assume that he will be fairly tried for the crime for which you have surrendered him, but that he would not be fairly tried for any other? Surely not. The mode of examining, the mode of trial, the law of evidence, and the consequences of the crime may differ entirely in the two countries; yet he is sent to be tried according to the law of the country to which he is given up, not ac-

  403
  cording to ours. But it is said that if he is acquitted the inference then is that if the facts which come out in evidence had been brought before the magistrate of the country which surrenders him he would not have been surrendered, and the country to which he is sent would avail themselves of their own wrong if they tried him for another offence. That, however, is an argument which puts aside the substance in dealing with the form of the matter. Take the case of murder and manslaughter. Murder is the greater, manslaughter the less offence. I rather think that by our present law, even if the indictment brought against a man is for murder alone, he may be found guilty of manslaughter upon the very same evidence, because the latter offence is less than the former, and the jury may take a merciful view of the facts. Can it be said that this country has an interest in protecting a man who has been delivered up for murder from being convicted for manslaughter, when under a more merciful view of the evidence adduced to convict him of murder the offence may be reduced to the lower crime? Surely if the man is handed over by us on sufficient grounds we have no interest in fettering the action of justice. Take the case of extradition crimes only. Supposing a man is accused in America of all the seven offences mentioned in the Treaty, would you actually impose on the United States the burden of sending over to England all the voluminous proofs of every one of the various offences of which it might be necessary to accuse him? And all this not because it is supposed that they have some sinister end in view, or a desire to do that particular man some wrong, but because you say it is our right that he shall not be convicted of any offence other than that as to which we have seen the evidence. If the case of political offenders were put out of sight, surely it would be conducive to the interests and the objects sought by all Extradition Treaties that where sufficient evidence is produced to justify the surrender of a criminal, he should be tried in the country to which he goes upon any criminal charge that might be brought against him. That view is, I hold, at all events not so manifestly wrong or unreasonable that you should introduce a silent condition which is not expressed in this particular Treaty,
  404
  for the purpose of excluding it. The Treaty is as far as anything in the world can be from implying any such thing. It says, the two countries agree that on mutual requisitions made by them or their Ministers they will respectively deliver up to justice all persons who, being charged with any one of the specified offences committed in the jurisdiction of the other, shall seek an asylum in the territories of the other. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary held that the person surrendered was only lent to the foreign Government for the purposes of that surrender, to be tried for the particular offence. The persons who negotiated the Treaty of 1842 and the Minister who introduced the Act of 1843 were utterly ignorant of that theory. Nay, more, a contrary theory was distinctly expressed and recognized in the debates on that occasion, although the only question that was then seriously discussed was the bearing of the Treaty on the subject of slavery. With your Lordships' permission, I will trouble you with a few extracts from the debates in the House of Commons when the Act of 1843 was under discussion. Referring to the case of a slave who had come within our jurisdiction, MR. Vernon Smith said—
  "Supposing he was really guilty of some crime, was he, when taken back, to be treated as a slave or a freeman? The conditions of trial were very different, and so were the punishments of slaves and freemen. In the case likewise of a slave committed by a magistrate unjustly (and he supposed magistrates in the Colonies were not wiser than anywhere else), and afterwards acquitted, what became of him? All the vindictive feelings of the owner might be exasperated against him on account of his flight, and he might be inclined to wreak his vengeance upon him when thus restored to his possession."—[3 Hansard, lxxi. 564.]
  Was that met by the Attorney General of that day by the argument that the man was only lent to the United States to be tried for the particular crime for which he had been given up, and that if he was acquitted there was an implied condition that he should have an opportunity of returning to our jurisdiction? Sir Frederick Pollock, the Attorney General, then answered—
  "We had nothing whatever to do with the circumstances of the person delivered up being a slave or a freeman. We should deliver him up as a criminal…All that we insist upon is that before any man shall be delivered up to the Americans he shall be charged with one of the crimes mentioned in the Treaty. If that

  405
  were done we did not care whether the man had been a slave or not…The magistrates would have to deal with a man charged with having committed an offence in a foreign State, and his status in that State had nothing to do with the case. That was a point to be settled on the man's return to America."—[Ibid. 566.]
  Lord Macaulay was not satisfied with that answer. He thought it made matters worse, and he would rather give up the Bill; and he: asked—
  "Suppose the man was acquitted in America, what was to be done with him then? Was he to remain a slave in the hands of a master incensed by the attempt to run away? Would the slave's life in such a case be safe, even after his acquittal?"—[Ibid. 571.]
  The late Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley, replied to that thus—
  "No doubt it was possible that persons, whether guilty or not, if sent back to a country where slavery prevailed, might be returned to a state of slavery."—[Ibid. 577.]
  That was the language of the Lord Stanley of that day, and there was no man in this country who was more opposed to slavery, or who would have been more ready to take any proper steps to rescue a man from slavery than he was. I have referred to these passages to show that the idea that a man was only lent to the foreign State, to be tried for the offence for which he was surrendered under the Treaty of Extradition, wasn't then entertained by the British Government. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack laid great stress on the words, which are undoubtedly found in the Act of 1843, though not in the Treaty, to the effect that a man should be surrendered "to be tried for the crime of which he was accused." The noble and learned Lord insisted, that this affirmative implied the negation of everything else: and he endeavoured to fortify that conclusion by several illustrations;—such as, that a man cannot be tried in one county under a warrant directed to another county, and that trust funds cannot be invested in one security when it is directed that they shall be invested in another. Illustrations of that kind have no application whatever to the present question. It is true that a man cannot be tried in one county under a warrant directed to another county; but that does not prohibit a second warrant directed to another county from being issued by any competent authority: and it is not because trust funds are directed to be invested in a particular
  406
  class of security that a subsequent order may not be made directing them to be invested in other securities. The authority of the English Act of Parliament, of course, goes no further than the particular purpose expressed in it; and that authority is spent and exhausted, when the man has passed beyond British jurisdiction. Another authority, that of the State into whose jurisdiction he passes, then comes in; and, unless that State has agreed by Treaty to make a particular and limited use of that authority, it cannot be bound by any negative inferences from the terms of an English statute; which, indeed, are inferences not drawn by the Courts of the United States from the exactly similar terms of their own Act of Congress. There is, therefore, no analogy at all between those cases and the point now at issue. What can such cases have to do with the power of a country to whose justice a man has been surrendered to try him for any offence he may have committed according to their own law? I therefore demur entirely to the proposition that because an English Act of Parliament and an American Act of Congress state that a man is to be delivered up to be tried for a particular offence, therefore he cannot be tried for any other. To show that in trying him for any other offence a breach of faith under the terms of the Treaty would be committed, we must do something more than put forward words contained in the English Act of Parliament. In my opinion, we ought to treat with some respect the construction which has been put, not only on their own Act of Congress, but also upon the Treaty, by the American Courts of Justice. In the United States, Treaties confirmed by the Senate are law, without any Act of Congress, and are proper subjects of judicial interpretation. The words to which the noble and learned Lord refers have been the subject of judicial interpretation in the American Courts, as appears from the Papers; and these Courts, having before them the terms of the British and American Acts, of the Treaty, and of the warrants, have held that the language used in them does not bear the construction the noble and learned Lord seeks to put upon it: and the same view has also been taken by the Canadian Courts. But the matter does not stand there; because if these words

  407
  in the Act of 1843 have the force and the importance which the noble and learned Lord attributes to them, how is it that they were omitted in the Act, otherwise similar, which was passed to carry into effect the Extradition Treaty with Denmark in 1856? The next step brings us to a matter to which the noble and learned Lord made no reference whatever, but the importance of which was pointed out by the noble Lord near me (Lord Hammond). I refer to the terms of the Convention made with France in 1853. Those terms showed that there was then no objection whatever on the part of the British Government to a man being tried for any Extradition crime other than that for which he had been surrendered, after he might have been tried and acquitted of the offence for which he had been delivered up. The words of the 7th section of the Convention are—
  "No accused or convicted person who may be surrendered shall, in any case, be proceeded against or punished on account of any political offence committed prior to his being surrendered, nor for any offence or crime not described in the present Convention, which he may have committed previously to being surrendered."—[Hertslet, ix., 281.]
  On which MR. Clark, in his book on Extradition, observes—
  "It will be observed that under this Convention a person who has been surrendered could have been tried for other offences than that for which his rendition had been granted, provided that such offences were not political and were within the list of crimes contained in the Convention."
  It will be remembered that at that period Parliament was very jealous of any concession on this subject being made to France—a circumstance which made it very difficult to arrive at any agreement on the question of Extradition. The Convention failed, but on other grounds than the terms of the section which I have just read to your Lordships, and I merely refer to them to show what was the understanding of the British Government on the point at that time. I now come to the case of Burley, in which the British Government had every possible motive for raising in favour of the prisoner the point now taken by the noble and learned Lord. At this distance of time I am not committing any indiscretion instating to your Lordships the views which were then held by the
  408
  British Government with reference to that case. Burley was a commissioned officer of the Confederate States, who, with assistance from sympathizers in the British Provinces, manned a vessel to carry on warlike operations on the Lakes: and he made an attack, involving the capture of goods and danger to life, on Johnson's Island, a part of the United States, to which the war had not, up to that time, penetrated. For these Acts, he was charged in Canada under the Extradition Treaty with robbery and with assault with intent to commit murder. The Canadian Judges held that they were bound to surrender him on the charge of robbery. The Home Government, however, did not approve the decision of the Canadian Judges, considering the evidence to prove that the acts done were political and belligerent, and not civil offences. They thought that the man ought not to have been surrendered; and, moreover, they were afraid that he would be treated as a political offender. They, therefore, would have been most anxious to raise the point that the man could only be tried for the offence for which he had been surrendered, had they felt that the terms of the Treaty would have enabled them to do so. It was my duty as one of the Law Officers of the Crown to advise the Government on the matter; both I and my Colleagues were satisfied that the Treaty would not bear the interpretation the noble and learned Lord now desires to put upon it, and we came to the conclusion, that the Government could not interfere in the matter, if Burley was bonâ fide put on his trial for the crime of robbery, for which he had been surrendered. The Secretary of State acted accordingly. I do not mean my noble Friend (Viscount Cardwell), who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, and who does not seem to me, from the Papers, to have had occasion to form or express an official opinion of his own on that point; but the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. And the fact is, that Burley was tried, not only for the crime of robbery, for which alone he had been surrendered, but also for that of assault with intent to commit murder, as to which the Canadian magistrates had thought the evidence insufficient to justify his surrender on that ground. This case, therefore, was beyond all doubt an instance in which the British Government directly acted upon

  409
  an interpretation of the Treaty directly the contrary to that of the noble and learned Lord. My noble and learned Friend says that in 1866 his opinion had been stated in Parliament. True; but in 1868, before the Committee of the House of Commons, evidence was given as to the view which the Foreign Office then took, and upon which it had acted, and this evidence was laid before Parliament and published to the world. The result of the Committee's deliberation was strongly against the view now taken by Her Majesty's Government. The Committee did not say—"We find the existing Treaty, in accordance with the view of all civilized nations, has a tacit clause which provides that a man when surrendered shall only be tried for the offence on which he has been surrendered;" but they proposed that in future Treaties there should be an express agreement to that effect. This is strong evidence that the Committee did not think it was already provided for in all the Treaties. It is clear, too, that this understanding was not then confined to the Foreign Office; for MR. Mullens, to whom Sir Thomas Henry referred as the solicitor who knew most upon the subject, also gave evidence of the existing understanding. MR. Stuart Mill asked this question:—
  "As I understand it, the Treaty with America will not prevent a man from being tried for another offence?"
  And the answer of MR. Mullens was—
  "It will not. There in no stipulation that he shall not be tried for any other offence."
  It is clear that, according to the whole evidence, no such obligation was then supposed to exist, without being expressed; and accordingly the Committee recommended that it should be expressed in all future engagements. The third Clause of the Act of 1870, therefore, provides that future arrangements for extradition to any foreign State shall not be capable of becoming law by virtue of Orders in Council—I will read the words, to which sufficient attention has hardly been given—
  "Unless provision is made by the law of that State or by arrangement that the fugitive criminal shall not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of returning to Her Majesty's dominions, be detained or tried in that foreign State for any offence committed prior to his surrender other than the extradition crime
  410
  proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded."
  And the corresponding Clause 19, expressing the obligation which we took upon ourselves, is in these words—
  "Where, in pursuance of any arrangement with a foreign State, any person accused or convicted of any crime which, if committed in England, would be one of the crimes described in the first schedule to this Act, is surrendered by that foreign State, such person shall not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of returning to such foreign State, be triable or tried for any offence committed prior to the surrender in any part of Her Majesty's dominions, other than such of the said crimes as may be proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded."
  It appears highly probable that, even in this country, a man might now be tried under an Extradition Treaty negotiated since 1870 for a different crime from that upon which he had been given up, provided it was one of the crimes enumerated in the Act of 1870, and provided it was proved by the facts on which the surrender was grounded. For example: the same evidence of facts might prove both robbery and murder—if so, though the criminal had been demanded for the robbery only, he might be tried also for the murder, or vice versâ. A further and material part of the case is contained in the last section of the Act of 1870, which provides that—
  "This Act, with the exception of anything contained in it which is inconsistent with the Treaties referred to in the repealed Acts"—that is, the American, the French, and the Danish Treaties—"shall apply for the purpose of the execution of those Treaties."
  Now, the Legislature must have meant something by this clause. "Inconsistent with the existing Treaties?" But, according to the argument of my noble and learned Friend, there was nothing in the Act inconsistent with any of the existing Treaties. Why, then, was this clause inserted? According to our view, they were new conditions; and to apply them, retrospectively, to the existing Treaties, would have been inconsistent with those Treaties. But, if these conditions were really in the existing Treaties, then the exception introduced into the Act was perfectly idle and useless. This appears to be strong evidence that Parliament knew it was laying down a new law and was imposing new conditions for the future. It knew that these conditions could not be imported into existing Treaties; it did not

  411
  wish that those Treaties should be put an end to; but it provided new machinery, which was capable of being applied, and which it intended to be applied, for the purpose of executing those Treaties; and, in point of fact, there has never been the smallest difficulty in applying, for the purpose of the surrender of criminals under the Treaty of 1842, the judicial machinery of the Act of 1870. It is rather singular that my noble and learned Friend should have taken no notice of the Note in MR. E. Clark's book on Bouvier's Case. MR. Clark is a lawyer of considerable experience, who has been engaged in several of these Extradition cases, and in his book is collected the whole history of Extradition. His Note is as follows:—
  "It is curious that this point has not yet been raised in any case under the American Treaty. It is quite clear that neither that Treaty nor the law of the United States contains the provision required by the Extradition Act, 1870. The question is a very important one, and deserves to be fully argued. Nor can the case of Bouvier be accepted as conclusive, even with regard to France. The point may be raised again upon more satisfactory affidavits as to the law of France than were before the Court in that case."
  To MR. Clark, therefore, it seemed clear that this was a new rule in the Act of 1870, and that no such condition was expressed, or implied, in the existing Treaties. Those who advised the Government in a different sense from that of the argument of my noble and learned Friend were certainly justified in that advice upon every principle applicable to the construction of written instruments; and but for the political argument as to political offenders, I should say with confidence that the common sense of the matter is also entirely against the view of the noble and learned Lord. But I admit there is a good deal to be said in favour of the argument as it bears on the case of political offenders. I admit, fully and freely, that the rule which is laid down in the Act of 1870 is the only one which provides absolute security against the possible case of a man, surrendered for an extradition crime, being afterwards tried for a political offence. This may or may not be a sufficient reason for adhering to the policy of the Act of 1870. It may or may not be a sufficient reason for doing that which the Legislature was not prepared to urge upon the Government in
  412
  1870—namely, put an end to the American, French, and Danish Treaties. But it cannot have the effect of interpolating into those Treaties, by reason of that ulterior consequence, conditions which are not there. Nor, indeed, as far as the understanding of the two countries, between which the present question has arisen, is concerned, was it necessary to do so; because the United States admit as fully as we do, not that there is in the terms of the Treaty an implied exception as regards political offenders, but that by the understanding, common to them and ourselves, and to most, if not all, other civilized nations, such offenders ought not to be put upon their trial for a political, after extradition for a civil, offence. I must say that if ever there was a nation which was entitled to confidence in this respect, it is the United States. I do not know of anything much nobler than the conduct of the United States towards the citizens with whom they had been in deadly conflict, after the suppression of the Civil War. Men whom in their disputes with us they branded over and over again as pirates and everything else that was bad, were, on coming into their own power, recognized as political offenders, who had simply tried by force of arms to alter the constitution of their country. There never was an instance of equal leniency under such circumstances. Moreover, that leniency does not stand alone. The facts relating to the case of Burley strongly tend to justify confidence in the United States on this subject. He was put upon his trial for robbery, and also for assault with intent to commit murder; and the facts on which he had been surrendered being proved, the Judge in the United States pointed out that the complexion of the case was really political, and he summed up decidedly for an acquittal. It is true the jury did not agree upon their verdict, but the man had the benefit of the doubt, and was not convicted. I think he was put on his trial a second time, but the result was the same. It was impossible to eliminate the political element from the case, and consequently he was not convicted. I would here remind your Lordships of the remark which Lord Aberdeen made in 1843. He said—
  "The great security was the provision that this part of the Treaty should continue in force only till one or other of the two Governments

  413
  signified its intention to terminate it, so that, whenever inconveniences arose, either Government was at liberty to put an end to that part of the Treaty without being under the necessity of giving any notice beforehand."—[3 Hansard, lxxi. 564.]
  It is plain that Lord Aberdeen would have followed the course which the noble Earl opposite was first disposed to take, until another view, which he at last accepted, was pressed upon him by another Department of the Government. I myself very much agree with a passage which I find in a letter from MR. Fish, under date the 22nd of May, 1876, in these Papers. MR. Fish says—
  "The rights of society and the duties of the State in the punishment of criminals should not be narrowed and unduly restricted, upon the vague suggestions or fear that, at some time, some political criminal may be placed in jeopardy. The duty of Government to protect its own citizens and punish crime is equally a duty with that of affording hospitality and shelter to political offenders from abroad. The Government of the United States sees no reason why either should be sacrificed to the other, any more than why all criminals should escape, for fear some political offender may suffer."—[N.A. No. 2 (1876) p. 6.]
  Again, I find in a letter written by the late Sir Thomas Henry on the 4th of January last the following passage, which also appears to me to have an important practical bearing on this point:—
  "After an experience of upwards of 30 years, I can say that I have never known a single instance in which there was any occasion to consider whether there was anything of a political character in the offence charged; and I therefore think there is no cause for the least alarm upon that ground. Extradition Treaties are in the nature of Mercantile Treaties, and are intended to afford protection chiefly against dishonest clerks and fraudulent bankrupts."—[N.A. No. 1 (1876) p. 45.]
  The present question has reference to no other nations which have Extradition Treaties with us, but only to the United States. They are perfectly willing to enter into the strictest engagements to try no man for a political offence who is surrendered under the Treaty; and I think it would be greatly to be deplored if negotiations which had so nearly reached a practical end before this difference between the two countries arose should now be made more difficult in their further progress. Her Majesty's Government have, on account of that difference, taken a course which is, in my view, equivalent to a notice to put an end to the Treaty of
  414
  1842; and the question now is, what modification is possible of its terms. Any conceivable modification would be better than that there should be a permanent cessation of a Treaty so important to both countries and to the administration of justice.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five oclock.