Sitting of 4 August 1876

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 1], reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sheriff Courts (Scotland) [96]; Expiring Laws Continuance* [281]; Queen Anne's Bounty* [278].
Committee—Report—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bilbrough, &c.)* [265];Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, &c.)* [266]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bath, &c)* [264]; Prisons* [180–284].
Considered as amended—Elementary Education [277]; Forfeiture Relief* [259].
Third Reading—Pollution of Rivers [276], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—UNION WORKHOUSES.—QUESTION.
MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether considering the great disproportion which prevails between the number of union workhouses at present existing in Ireland and the number of paupers requiring relief therein, Her Majesty's Government have it in contemplation to promote, through the Local Government Board in that Country, the amalgamation of Poor Law Unions, so as to reduce the number of workhouses and the consequent unnecessarily high poor rates now levied upon property in Ireland?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the number of paupers now receiving relief in Irish workhouses is in many
516
cases much below the accommodation provided, and it is possible that a considerable diminution in the expenditure for establishment charges might be effected by the amalgamation of some Poor Law Unions, and a consequent reduction in the number of workhouses. But the average area of Irish Unions is already much larger than that of the English Unions, and in considering any proposal for their amalgamation it would be very necessary to bear in mind not only the economical side of the question, but also the retention of proper facilities for the administration of relief to the sick and destitute poor, and for securing the attendance of Guardians at the meetings of the Boards. The Government do not contemplate the formation of a general scheme for amalgamation of Unions, but the Local Government Board will be prepared to consider on its merits any proposal for the amalgamation of neighbouring Unions which may be brought before them by the Guardians of such Unions.
MR. MACARTNEYgave Notice that he would early next Session move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK—ROTTEN ROW.—QUESTIONS.
MR. REPTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If any steps will be taken to improve Rotten Row during the autumn, as the ride is in a worse state than it has been for some years?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that the officers of the Board of Works have ascertained that the Row is in a very unsatisfactory state. The materials which have been used for the road are rotten and altogether unsuitable. It has been agreed that the road should be put into a perfectly sound and proper state during the autumn.
MR. MELLORasked out of what funds the cost of the repairs would come?
MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that the cost would be paid out of the Vote for the Park.

RAILWAYS—ACCIDENT ON THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY AT BOURTON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDNEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his at-

  517
  tention has been called to another accident which has occurred on the Bristol and Exeter Railway, near the spot where the accident happened to the Flying Dutchman on the 27th of July last; and, whether he has taken any further steps in the matter?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: My attention, Sir, has been called to the accident in question. It happened to a goods train, and no one was seriously injured, but it is important as happening so near the same place. The Company have not yet sent to the Board of Trade the particulars of this second accident. Captain Tyler has, however, been at once directed to examine the whole of the permanent way between Bristol and Exeter, now belonging to the Great Western Railway Company.

  HERTSLET'S MAP OF EUROPE BY TREATY—NON-EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—QUESTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office is prepared to submit to the Treasury the expediency of holding out to Mr. Hertslet some inducement to prepare a work on Treaties respecting Non-European Countries, on the same plan as his recent work, entitled "The Map of Europe by Treaty?"
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, I am sure my hon. Friend asks this Question with the kindest intention towards Mr. Hertslet. The Question raises many delicate considerations with which the Treasury may or may not be concerned. I am not surprised, Sir, that my hon. Friend should think that it is desirable to extend the scope of Mr. Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty. There are Treaties with China and other Asiatic countries. There are, again, other Treaties between European countries and the semi-civilized States of Africa which often give rise to complicated questions. The same may be said for North and South America. Her Majesty's Government will be glad to see the principle of Mr. Hertslet's last work extended; but I am sure my hon. Friend will see that his Question is one upon which it is not desirable that I should make any statement at present.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL
[BILL 277.]
(Viscount Sandon, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Assheton Cross.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL
  FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [3rd August] proposed (on Consideration of the Bill, as amended) to the proposed Amendment 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,)—
    And which Amendment to the proposed Amendment was, to leave out the words "who is," in line 1, in order to insert the words "not being,"—(Sir W. Vernon Harcourt,)—instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words' who is' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he wished to communicate to the House the result of the consideration which the Government had given to the question raised by the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu)—namely, to make it the duty of Boards of Guardians everywhere—even in school board districts—to pay the school fees for the children of parents whom they considered to be incapable of paying them—since the late protracted and somewhat heated opposition to which they were subjected last night. He thought every hon. Member must feel that there had been considerable misapprehension on this subject, and it might to be well that he should recall to their recollection what was the state of the law at the present moment as to the remission and payment of fees. The state of the law was this—In Scotland, according to the Act of 1872, passed by the late Liberal Government, the school boards had nothing whatever to do with either the remission or payment of fees for

    519
    poor children; but it was laid down in Section 69 that—
    "it shall be the duty of the said Parochial Board to pay out of the poor relief fund any reasonable charge for the education of any child whose parent is unable to pay the school fees."
    By Clause 14 of the present Bill, which had nearly passed through the various Forms of the House, and to which the House had given its assent, it was provided that the parent of any child not being resident in the district of a school board—
    "who is unable by reason of poverty to pay the ordinary fee for such child at a public elementary school, or any part of such fee, may apply to the guardians having jurisdiction in the parish in which he resides, and it shall be the duty of such guardians, if satisfied of such inability, to pay the said fee, not exceeding threepence a week."
    So that for Scotland, and all towns in England not under school boards, there was one uniform law—that on account of the compulsion upon parents to send their children to school if they had not sufficient means to pay the school fees, and yet were not out-door paupers—payment for their children out of the rates by the Guardians having been already provided for by the Bill of 1873 of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford—it was the duty of the Guardians to pay a moderate school-fee. What, then, was the state of the law in regard to districts where there were school boards? In all school board districts the school board had the power of either remitting the fees in their own schools or of paying them in schools which did not belong to them. Now, with regard to the action of the Education Department, the position taken up was this. The matter was raised as early as 1871 on the Wednesbury School Board case. The Wednesbury School Board wrote to ask the assent of the Education Department to their 6th bye-law, which provided that they might remit the fees of poor children in their own board schools. They did not, however, provide that they would also pay the fees in any schools which did not belong to them. On the 6th of December, 1871, the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was then Vice President, addressed a letter to the Wednesbury School Board on the subject of these
    520
    bye-laws, in which the following remarks were made by the direction of the right hon. Gentleman:—
    "With respect to Bye-law 6, in which provision is made for the remission of school fees at board schools in cases of poverty, but not for payment of fees at other schools under similar circumstances, my Lords are prepared to allow it. I am, however, directed to point out to you, that in the opinion of my Lords it would not be just to deprive a parent of his right to choose the particular public elementary school to which he will send his child because, while he is compelled by these bye-laws to send his child to school, he is unable from poverty to pay his school fee; but my Lords cannot doubt that the school board will see the justice of making use of the power they possess under Section 25 in favour of any such parent."
    That was the final delivery of the last Government, and the course laid down seemed to him to be a wise course to pursue. Upon this precedent the Department, under both the last and the present Government, had always acted, and had never committed themselves to acknowledging that it was right in a school only to remit fees in their own schools, and not to pay them in others which the poor parent might prefer. The Department, however, in this, as in all other cases, refuted to give an interpretation of an Act, as their interpretation could, of course, have no binding effect. He was informed that it was not quite clear whether the course pursued by the Wednesbury School Board was legal or not, but the view taken by the Education Department of the then Government was that it was contrary to the spirit of the Act that they should only undertake to remit fees and should not at the same time say they would pay them, the position being that it was fully understood that the Act of 1870 was passed distinctly on the basis of the recognition as far as possible of the parental right to the choice of the school for his child. This was obliged to be given up in certain cases where there was only one school, but the Act of 1870 was based on the principle, over and over again stated in the discussions in the House by the Ministers responsible for that measure, that, where there were two, the parent was to have the right of choice. The House would see the justice of this, and it would also feel that in cases of extreme poverty it was bound to be just as careful of parental feeling as it was in the cases of more well-to-do persons. The

    521
    state of the case was this—We respected the feelings of parents generally, but, owing to the action of certain school boards, if parents became very poor we subjected them to the injustice of saying—"We will oblige your children to go to school, but we will not give you the choice of a school." The acknowledgment made by the Educational Department of the then Government was a very valuable and important one, but they did not feel sufficiently clear of their legal position to refuse to pass these bye-laws; and from that time all bye-laws which contained merely a provision for the remission of fees, without any provision for the payment of fees, had been sanctioned under this protest by the Department. A correspondence ensued with the Wednesbury Board, who said they could not accept the suggestion of the Department; and the closing letter of the Department contained this paragraph—
    "No addition to such bye-law was suggested, though my Lords thought it right to call the attention of your board to the power given them, independently of any bye-law, by Section25 of the Elementary Education Act, by which power they will be relieved from the necessity of enforcing penalties against a parent who, though unable from poverty to pay a school fee, prefers that his child attend a public elementary day school selected by himself."
    The Department thought strongly it would be a serious thing to enforce penalties against parents if you did not give them a choice of schools; that was the state of the case now, and it remained uncertain whether a magistrate would agree to convict a poor parent who could not afford to pay the fees at the school he preferred, and who refused, on conscientious grounds—as might likely be the case e.g. among Roman Catholics—to send his child to a secular board school where his fees would be remitted. It was a subject of considerable importance and for cool argument, and certainly the Committee would now see not of a Party character nor one of those matters which, when understood, should create excitement, or of those matters that should provoke a heated discussion of such a nature as that of last evening. He said last night, when the question was first raised, that, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford did not seem prepared to support it—which, of course, implied that hon. Gentlemen opposite also would not do so—
    522
    and as it was so late in the Session, and everybody was so anxious to close the consideration of the Bill, that he thought it better not to accept the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu), saying at the same time it was impossible not to admit it was an important one. In fact, he should have been eating the words of the Department if he had not acknowledged that. [Mr. Lowe: A blot was hit.] Yes, he said it hit a blot in the Bill, and in the Education Act of 1870. It must, however, be remembered that when identically the same proposal had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lancashire on Clause 14 in Committee on the Bill, he had then asked his hon. Friend not to open that important question on the ground of time not allowing fresh matter to be added to the discussions on the Bill, which, even then, had been much protracted so as to endanger its progress; and as no interest was then shown by the House in the matter, the Amendment was withdrawn, on the very same grounds on which he asked the noble Lord yesterday not to press his. After he had used these words an unexpected amount of feeling was shown by hon. Members of experience on both sides of the House, which it was exceedingly difficult to answer by argument. Hon. Members representing Irish constituencies said they felt the grievance to be a very strong one in large towns in England with a considerable Irish population; and there was not a shadow of doubt that the class particularly injured was the poor in the large towns, which included a large proportion of Roman Catholics, to whom it was a serious grievance to be forced indirectly in this way to send their children to board schools, contrary, as he and the Department had always, under both Governments, held, to the principle of the Act of 1870. We must look at things as they really were, and, whether it was before an Orange meeting or any other meeting, he should be prepared to defend the position they had taken up with the most perfect confidence. The people of the country had the strongest sense of justice in these matters; and when a real and genuine case of injustice was made out, one which was not intended by the Act of 1870, as was admitted by the last Government, and the existence of

    523
    which was hardly known until it was urged strongly by hon. Members from Ireland, it was certain they would not allow it to remain. Of course, the position was one of some little difficulty, and they were exceedingly loth to raise unnecessarily questions which would trench on the conscientious feelings of any hon. Gentleman opposite; but he thought on consideration the Nonconformists would see that the proposal did not in any way touch their conscientious scruples, but simply did away with an injury now done to the consciences of poor people. He was sure they would bear him out when he said he had avoided as much as possible things which would be distasteful and disagreeable to them; but this question being raised, it seemed necessary to find some mode of meeting it. The Amendment of the noble Lord was, no doubt, open to considerable objection on the ground that it did seem to throw a sort of slur on school boards, which was, he was sure, not intended; it might, however, be held to imply that school boards largely were neglecting their duties in this matter. The Government had considered the subject with very great care. They were aware that some hon. Members naturally wished to take a division on the principle involved; and after calm consideration, and after the more friendly tone in which the discussion closed that morning, the Government were inclined to recommend a course which he hoped would meet with considerable assent. If the noble Lord would withdraw his clause, they would propose to take the sense of the House by an Amendment of Clause 14. That clause now only provided that the parent of any child, "not being resident in the district of a school board," who was unable from poverty to pay the fee, might apply to the Guardians, who should pay it, if satisfied of his inability to do so; they would propose to omit the words "not being resident in the district of a school board." That would make the clause applicable to the whole country, and so far as the relief of the poor for the purposes of education was concerned, school-board districts would be placed in exactly the same position as the rest of England and of Scotland. They would thus have one uniform law for the whole of England and Scotland; and where the Guar-
    524
    dians were satisfied that the parent was too poor to pay the fees of his child, they would be obliged to pay the necessary fees, and the parent would have the choice of sending his child to any public elementary school. This proposal prevented the idea of any slur on school boards; it raised the question plainly and simply; and he hoped and believed the House would now approach it in a calm and considerate spirit. When hon. Members remembered that the strong appeal which was addressed to the House on the subject by hon. Members from Ireland on behalf of their co-religionists was caused by the action of certain school boards, they would feel that the subject was a grave one, and that the Government were not acting rashly or wrongly in asking them calmly to consider and pass a dispassionate judgment upon it, now that the question had been brought before them.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, his position was different from that of most of his Friends, and he wished it to be understood that what he desired to say he spoke without communication with them.
    MR. SPEAKERcalled the right hon. Gentleman to Order, as he had already spoken on the Amendment before the House—that of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was ready, if it would facilitate discussion, to withdraw his Amendment.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUbelieved that the proposal now made by the Government would effect the object which he and his Friends sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House had in view, and if there was an understanding that upon the withdrawal of his Amendment the House would proceed to a division upon the omission of the words "not being resident in the district of a school board," he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment. He trusted, however, that some assurance would be given by hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench that they would not throw any obstruction in the way, because otherwise the withdrawal of his Amendment would place him in an unfavourable position.
    MR. FAWCETTpointed out that the 25th clause of the Act of 1870 gave a permissive power to school boards, while the present Amendment was obligatory. The result would be that there would be

    525
    a permissive clause in operation in one Act as to school boards, while in another Boards of Guardians would be compelled to pay these rates. Did not the noble Lord the Vice President think that, under these circumstances, it would be a necessary part of his proposal to repeal the 25th clause of the Act of 1870?
    THE O'DONOGHUErecommended the withdrawal of the Amendment, and that the matter should be left in the hands of the Government, in which, in this respect, he had perfect confidence.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the point raised by the hon. Member for Hackney was no doubt important, but he would suggest that it would be more conveniently discussed after the withdrawal of the Amendment, and when the proposal of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council was before the House. They were not asked to agree to the proposal, but simply to allow the withdrawal of the Amendments on the Paper, so as to be in a condition to consider and deal with it.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the Amendment of the Government would leave the law exactly the same as it now existed in Scotland, and he approved of it on that account.
    MR. HOPWOODasked whether the effect of the Amendment and the Government proposal would not be exactly the same, except that the latter would avoid naming the school board in a derogatory manner?
    MR. NEWDEGATEwished to ask who would be the judge of justice in this case? The noble Lord defended his Amendment on the ground of justice; but if no discretion was left either to the school boards or the Guardians he should like to know who was to decide what was justice?
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERproposed to insert after the word "parent" the words "not being a pauper." The clause was not meant to apply to paupers, and he thought, therefore, that this Amendment was necessary. With regard to the clause before us, his position in the matter was different from
    526
    that of several of his hon. Friends. He had always defended the 25th clause, being of opinion that the right should be given to the parent of choosing whatever school he would prefer to send his child to; and he was willing to abide by the exact terms of the letter written in 1871, for which he was responsible, but in which the Marquess of Ripon also agreed. It was to the effect that the Department considered that by the Act of 1870 there was a discretion in school boards, whether they should make a bye-law or not; but that they would be acting in the spirit of the Act of 1870 if they did make a bye-law. He regretted that the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) had mooted the question, and that the Government had last night rather hastily adopted his Amendment, as it must inevitably lead to serious difficulties. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not, however, disown or retract his own views. It had been said that the supporters of the 25th clause were bound to push their views to a logical conclusion and to support the Amendment; but it was not always expedient in administrative and Parliamentary matters to push things to their logical conclusion. If, moreover, the Government had intended to carry out the principle to its logical conclusion, they ought to have put the proposal in the original Bill. Again, this proposal did two things; it not only took from the school board the discretion they now possessed; but it subjected the school board to the authority of the Board of Guardians. He repeated that it would have been better to let the matter alone. The 25th clause of the Act of 1870 was now exciting very little feeling or attention throughout the country, and it was unwise to renew the agitation it had excited by the Amendment of the noble Lord. He now, however, came to the suggestion of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council to omit the words "not being resident in the district of a school board," the effect of which would be to make it the duty of Guardians all over the Kingdom to pay the fees of poor children, but, at the same time, to leave to the school boards the option they now possessed, by leaving the 25th clause unrepealed. Well, having always adopted the principle of the 25th clause, he should feel it his duty to vote for the Motion of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council

    527
    thus putting England in the position now occupied in this respect by Scotland, on condition, however, that if this was done the present clause should be repealed. He could not help saying, al though many of his Friends would not agree with him, that the Bill was a progress in education and would tend to promote it throughout the country, and he trusted the Government would not imperil its passing by persevering in their proposal, without accepting the suggestion that the 25th clause should be repealed.
    MR. PELLsaid, that, much as he regretted all that had occurred last night, he believed that good had come out of it. If his noble Friend's suggestion were adopted, the inquiry as to the position of parents and their ability to pay school fees would be left in the hands of the Guardians, who could, though their officers, carry out that duty much better than the school boards; and if that were agreed to, he could see no objection to the repeal of the 25th clause.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved that he was in a different position from that which his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) occupied, as he had never been a consenting party to a great portion of the legislation of 1870. He was always an opponent of the 25th clause, and would gladly see it repealed; but that which was now proposed by the noble Lord opposite would be an aggravation for it would make universal and compulsory the principle of that clause. What had now taken place showed that hon. Members on that side of the House had not acted unjustifiably in asking for some time for discussing the matter. He felt bound to vote against the proposed Amendment of the noble Lord, which was full of the objections which he felt with respect to the 25th clause.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that the scenes of last evening had one good result, for they showed that the Irish Members, although deserted by the front Opposition bench, had found Friends at the other side of the House. For his part he, as an Irish Roman Catholic, regarded with suspicion any proposal coming from the front Opposition bench. He remembered a memorable night when the late hon. and learned Solicitor General, with elephantine power, came
    528
    down to supported the University Bill of the late Government, and his principal argument in its favour was that it was a Bill disapproved of equally by the Protestants and Roman Catholics. Probably his reason for now opposing the Amendment was that it was one in favour of the pauper Roman Catholic children in England. He hoped that in those places where there were many Irish electors the Division Lists upon the question would be carefully examined, and that on educational questions the front Opposition bench would be divided now and for ever from the Roman Catholic Party.
    MR. RICHARDsaid, he concurred in the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford(Sir William Harcourt). He had himself always objected to the 25th clause, and in 1874 introduced a Bill for the purpose of repealing it, and that measure was supported by the whole of the Liberal Party, except those connected with Ireland. He thought that the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) would not contribute to the peaceable discussion of the question, and hoped that no man in that House would be deterred from recording his vote by the kind of threat which he had held out. He (Mr. Richard) deeply regretted that the Government had accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath, as the effect would be to promote discussions in the country full of bitterness and animosities. He concurred in thinking that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council was an aggravated form of the 25th clause, and he should feel bound to give it every resistance.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Amendment indicated by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was not before the House. The Amendment before it was that of the right hon. Member for Bradford.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid it was very desirable that the Government should at once state what their intentions were in reference to the 25th clause.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the Government had been struck by the very marked feeling of the House with reference to the 25th clause, and thought it their duty to give way to it. If, therefore, his Amendment were accepted, he should

    529
    assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford that the 25th clause be repealed.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, he supported the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, because its object was that every poor child should receive religious teaching in conformity with the religion of his parents. In a rural Board of Guardians of which he was a member no question except that of the poverty of the parents ever arose when the question of educating pauper children arose. The Guardians had simply done the best they could for the education of the children, and had always sent pauper children to the schools which their parents preferred.
    MR. GOSCHENpointed out that the assent which the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council promised to the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford was, in fact, no concession at all. If the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord to be made in the 14th clause was adopted, the 25th clause of the former Act must go as a matter of course. The noble Lord proposed, as a concession, to repeal the 25th clause, which gave optional power to remit or pay fees, and to substitute for it a clause which would render the payment of school fees compulsory upon all Boards of Guardians.
    MR. MELDONthought there would be no necessity to repeal the 25th clause, as, in his view, that provision and the clause in the present Bill would work harmoniously together.
    MR. HOPWOODwas understood to intimate that he did not approve of the Amendment.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYconsidered it desirable that all impediments to children being taught in conformity with the religion of their parents ought to be removed.
    DR. WARDsaid, the true Liberals on this question were the Irish Members and some hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
    VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, as an Amendment, in Clause 14, page 6, lines 10 and 11, the omission of the words, "not being resident in the district of a School Board."
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 10, to leave out the words "not being resident in the district of a School Board."—(Viscount Sandon.)
    MR. RYLANDS: said, he wished, in the first instance, to express his deep regret that Her Majesty's Government had re-opened a question which there was reason to hope was in a fair way of being settled by the consent of different opinions. Unfortunately, too, they had raised the question in a manner not creditable to themselves. Without consideration they had adopted an Amendment to a clause calling up the contention of last night, and by their present proposal they had shown the Amendment to be an untenable one. The course that they (the Opposition) took last night was justified by the event, and had shown that they were perfectly right in urging that there should be more consideration of the matter. They now had to consider what course should be taken in relation to the present Amendment of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council. It appeared to him (Mr. Rylands) that they were now practically brought to face a great difficulty. They had dealt with pauperism, and Parliament had met the difficulty by saying—"We will give a free education to the children of pauper parents, and we will recognize the religion of those children's parents, and allow them to choose their school; and in many districts in the country we propose to give facilities for the payment of the fees of the children of indigent parents." That was the course they had taken, and they had now to determine what should be done in the case of the large towns. Were they to say to poor parents—"Unless you pay the money you cannot afford to pay, and unless you send your children to schools to which you cannot afford to send them, you shall be subject to fine or imprisonment?" For his own part, he was not prepared to be a party to the fining or imprisoning of poor people who could not afford to pay for their children's education. If the authority of the law were brought in, they were bound to make provision in that law that a person who was not in a position to pay should not suffer punishment for his poverty, but some means must be provided by which he should be enabled to fulfil the requirements of the

    531
    law and have his children educated. He (Mr. Rylands) should have been glad if there were no such religious difficulty, and he felt it would have been a great blessing if the religious difficulty had been removed. What position were they now in? Parliament gave pauper children the opportunity of going to the school their parents preferred, and the same opportunity was given to people who were well off; but what was to be done in respect of those persons in that class which was just above pauperism—who were struggling against pauperism? Simply, because they were poor were they to be denied that which was given to paupers and to those who were much better off? Was it to be said to them—"We insist that you shall either send your children to school and pay their school fees out of your miserable resources," or else compel them to send their children to schools which the parents in their own consciences thought they ought not to be sent to? He had always felt as a magistrate that if he had to exercise the compulsory requirements of the Education law—if a parent were willing to send his child to a school of a particular denomination, and it was not open for him to do so—and if he knew that the parent was unable from his poverty to pay, he must say as a magistrate that under those circumstances he would not send a man to prison. He considered that Boards of Guardians were far better judges of who were paupers than a school board could be. It was most unwise in his opinion that school boards should under the 25th clause have that control of the rates. It had a tendency to promote an undue partiality for some particular schools, and there was a temptation to give relief to parents who were not the proper recipients of that relief. Everyone was perfectly well aware that a person would not go to the Board of Guardians unless from sheer necessity, and if he did go an officer would be appointed to investigate the circumstances of the applicant for relief; and he could trust the Board of Guardians so to investigate every application that came before them under this clause, that it would prevent any abuse. When means were provided for giving food to those who were starving, some means should also be found to supply intellectual food. He would not be a party to the
    532
    mockery of saying to people who were quite unable to pay—we insist on you sending your children to school, and yet take no means of providing the fees they could not pay. He recognized in the Amendment no case of concurrent endowment; to that he had strong objection, as indeed he had to all religious endowment. The religious difficulty was the greatest to contend with in the matter of education, but if the leading endowment of religion by the State, in the form of a Church Establishment, were removed, the difficulties in the way of education would be reduced to a minimum. He regretted that he could not go with some of his Friends, but he was only taking the line he had followed throughout these discussions. The Amendment had been suggested by way of a compromise, and he did not feel called upon to refuse it.
    MR. MELLORbegged to compliment the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) on the change which had come over his sentiments after last night's rest. The hon. Member had gone into the Lobby three times against the proposal submitted yesterday, but he now saw his way to accept it in another form. They on that (the Ministerial) side vindicated last night by their votes the position which hon. Gentlemen opposite now took up, and they expressed their determination to remain to an hour however late, if necessary, to do so. Various attempts at compromise had been made on the previous night, but they had all been frustrated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, however, for political purposes, and in order to retain that position which some of them thought they possessed, they turned round and took the popular view, and began to plead for the pauper and the poor.
    MR. NEWDEGATEconsidered that the House were about to pass a clause for the benefit of the Roman Catholic poor of large towns. The clause would make the fees to Roman Catholic schools compulsory, and the effect of that would be that the Educational Votes of this country, like the Educational Fund in Ireland, would become largely contributory to monastic and conventual schools. ["Oh, oh!"] They all knew that the influence of the priests over Roman Catholics was such that many of those parents would make themselves poor for the nonce, in order to obtain

    533
    the favour of their spiritual directors. ["Oh, oh! and No!"] What the House was now doing was giving a forced subsidy to those Roman Catholic schools respecting which an Inspector had lately reported that—
    "he lamented to state that the Roman Catholic schools are now mainly under the tuition and direction of monks and nuns."
    The proposal, in fact, was neither more nor less than concurrent endowment in a very objectionable form. To his thinking, if the State insisted on compulsion, it ought also to provide the schools. That course had been adopted in Germany and the United States, and it was a consistent course. They were, by what they were doing, launching themselves on a course the results of which he was confident they could not see, and from which hereafter they would find it very difficult to withdraw.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, the real question was whether school boards or Boards of Guardians were the most likely to administer the local rates with the greatest economy. That point was discussed in connection with the Scotch Act, and the House had unanimously agreed to give the power now sought to the Boards of Guardians, or, in other words, to the parochial boards in Scotland.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he would vote against the Amendment. As the matter now stood, where there were school boards they had a discretion as to the payment of fees. Where there was no school board, the Board of Guardians were to pay fees; but they had no discretion in the matter except as to whether the parent of the child was able to pay or not. The school board was the higher educational authority, and they had, therefore, a wider discretion in judging in the matter. He was not in favour of withdrawing the discretion now possessed by the higher authority in order to confer a more limited discretion on the inferior authority, the Board of Guardians. He objected to alter a system which had hitherto worked well unless for the most valid reasons. The alteration now proposed had been sprung upon them suddenly, and he was not prepared to vote for it at a moment's notice.
    MR. A. MILLSpointed out that it was not a question as to a higher or lower authority. Indeed, it was not an
    534
    educational matter at all. It was a mere question as to the degree of poverty and the ability of the parent to pay school fees, of which the Board of Guardians must be better judges than the school board.
    MR. GOSCHENremarked that although Guardians might be better judges of the poverty of parents, on the other hand, he submitted that school boards would be the best judges as to the merits of the schools, and their respective worthiness to receive the fees, for they could take those things into their consideration, and that the Guardians had no power to do. It was now proposed that the latter, even in school districts, should, at the option of the parent, pay fees to any school, irrespective altogether of its character, and that was a matter which required to be looked after.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question of whether the money raised from the rates for the purpose of education should be applied to board schools only, or to such schools as the parents approved, was neither with the school boards nor the Boards of Guardians, but with the High Court of Parliament. It was a question of high policy, which ought to be determined on general grounds by Parliament, and not left to be settled by every school board according to the views of particular localities. Accordingly, if the House were going, as he hoped they were, after passing this Amendment, to accept the proposition to repeal the 25th clause of the Act of 1870, they would be relieving the school boards of what he thought was an embarrassing task imposed upon them, and transferring once for all to Parliament the duty of deciding the general principle on which relief should be given. That being done, the House might safely leave the settlement of individual cases to the Boards of Guardians, who had the best means of forming a judgment upon them.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: agreed that the proposal involved a principle which Parliament ought to settle, and that it was an improvement on the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu). Supposing it to be carried, then, as a logical consequence, it would be desirable that the 25th clause of the Act of 1870 should be repealed. At the same time he should

    535
    consider it his duty to vote against the Amendment for several reasons. It was said the Amendment would establish a uniform system for the whole country. The Guardians in Scotland did pay the fees; but the power in the Scotch Bill was very carefully guarded, whereas in this Bill the parent was told he could apply for parochial relief for the education of his child, and yet not be pauperized or degraded by failing to perform his duty to his child. On a former occasion the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had wisely said—"There must be no free education except for those who are in receipt of pauper relief." Surely, if a person was not a pauper, he could find a 1d. or 2d. per week to educate his child. But if he was on such a margin of destitution that he could not do so, then the different religious Bodies who wished his children to be educated would readily find the money for him. This clause, however, would make the giving of this relief compulsory, and very largely extend the principle. He objected to it on the ground that it took the House by surprise. Such an important alteration ought to be most carefully considered by the House. At the very end of the Session, when the country had no expectation of such a proposal, the Government introduced this large change, which he believed would have a most demoralizing and pauperizing influence upon the people in our large towns. Under these circumstances, as on a previous occasion, the hon. Member for Westminster opposed the abolition of the 25th clause at the end of a Session, so he was of opinion that they ought not to decide this question without giving the country time to consider it.
    MR. HAYTERsaid, he would explain the operation of the present law in a London parish as it had been told him by a Poor Law Guardian. The fees were paid by the relieving officer direct to the school managers, and the names of recipients printed on a list corresponding with the lists of other recipients of relief. If the Amendment of the noble Lord were accepted, this plan would be acted upon throughout the country; and it would pauperize the people thus to bring them into contact with Boards of Guardians for school fees. That was a dangerous principle, and he decidedly objected to it.
    MR. E. JENKINSopposed the Amendment, urging that it continued the policy of hostility to school boards which the Government had already evinced, and that what they were asked to do by the clause was to pay money for parents who selected schools where their children would receive the religious education which they wished them to be instructed in. The clause would have the effect of encouraging Ultramontane doctrines—doctrines subversive of the principles upon which the House rested. He was an advocate of religious freedom, and as such he maintained that the Amendment was consistent with all that the Government had done in aid of denominationalism as against free education, but he hoped the time was not far off when the House would be able to reverse their policy.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Roman Catholic Members had a perfect right to their own views on education, but he and his Friends had an equal right to theirs. There was, in fact, an inseparable gulf between them, and whatever threats might be thrown out, and whatever the consequences of the next Election might be, he and those who thought with him would be firm, stanch, and consistent in the principles they advocated. The Government, in their new zeal for centralization, were about to impose this duty upon the Guardians without ascertaining whether they thought it desirable, or giving the Guardians the discretion which had been allowed to school boards. He thought their opinion might at least have been consulted before the Amendment was brought forward. The effect of the clause would be to pauperize the country. He had always objected to the 25th clause of the Education Act on social and economical, far more than religious grounds, and he maintained that it was idle to say that a person who could not afford 2d. or 3d. a-week to educate his child was not a pauper, especially as in the Bill they had declared that it was the duty of parents to educate their children as much as to feed and clothe them. If a man, in consequence of illness or injury from an accident, was unable to work for a few weeks, and obtained medical relief, he was instantaneously declared to be a pauper, and debarred from exercising his rights of citizenship for one year. But by the Bill it was proposed to allow a man to

    537
    obtain relief for the education of his child, and it was provided that he should not thereby become a pauper. Parliament ought at least to be consistent, and to adopt the same principle in both cases; and the reason why they did not he could only conclude was, that there was some unavowed motive at the back of it. Hon. Gentleman opposite, owing to the course they had taken, had acquired fresh allies in the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) and his Friends; but if the hon. Member desired to ascertain whether his enthusiastic feeling of rejoicing at the new alliance were reciprocated, let him next Session move a Resolution to the effect that the denominational system of education which worked so well in England should be extended to Ireland. In that event, he believed the hon. Member would find out that those to whom he had allied himself, while they were in favour of denominationalism in England, would say that in Ireland that system would mean the promotion of Ultramontanism, and that they would tell him that even at the cost of losing the valuable support of the Member for Dundalk they would do as they had done since the establishment of the system of the late Lord Derby—give their support to the precious principle of undenominational education in Ireland. He regretted that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council was not before the House in print, in order that they might consider what Amendments ought to be introduced into it. Of course, the Government, with the aid of their new Irish allies, would overpower the Opposition and carry their Amendment, and they would not be met by any factious opposition. [Ironical Cheers.] He was glad to hear that ironical cheer, but he would remind the House that although he had moved the Adjournment of the House last night it was now acknowledged on all sides, even by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), that the course he had adopted had led to the best results. At least, it had enabled the Government to place before the House what one of their leading Friends considered to be a better proposal. If it were adopted it would still be open to him(Mr. Fawcett) to raise the question whether the power should be optional or compulsory, and, accordingly, he begged to give Notice
    538
    that at the proper time he would move the omission from the Amendment of the words, "it shall be the duty of the Guardians," in order to substitute the word" may" for "shall," so as to leave Boards of Guardians in the same position that school boards now occupied.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that as the House was desirous to go to a division, he would intrude briefly upon their time. For himself, he did not care whence the settlement of that difficult question originated if it only proved satisfactory; and as the hon. Member for Hackney claimed the credit of the satisfactory settlement which he hoped was about to be arrived at, he was quite willing that the hon. Gentleman should have all the credit that was due to him in the matter. The hon. Member also said that it was a strong measure to put this duty upon the Guardians without consulting them. But they had reason to know that the bulk of the Guardians would not object to the duty in question. The 14th clause already applied to about half the Boards of Guardians in the country, and not one word of remonstrance had been received from any one of them, and he thought they would be glad to have the means of putting a check on unnecessary local expenditure. Again, it had been urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the proposed change would demoralize and pauperize the people. But the system had been in operation since 1872 in Scotland, and its operation had been found to be satisfactory. How could it be urged, then, that that which was good for Scotland could be demoralizing and pauperizing in England? Contributions had been made from various quarters to the solution of the question, which had been thoroughly discussed with great advantage, and he trusted the House would feel that they were now in a position to come to a decision on the subject.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that he had so recently come into the House that he felt reluctant to trespass on its time, being of opinion he should best show his respect for the Assembly he was so proud to enter by refraining from addressing it while inexperienced in its Forms and Practice. But the question under consideration was one in which he was so deeply interested, and one in which he had taken so considerable a part personally, that it seemed to him it would

    539
    be hardly honest if he were to remain silent and refrain from stating to the House the opinions which he had formed upon the subject. The noble Lord who had just sat down (Viscount Sandon) said that they were, he hoped, about to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the question. He (Mr. Chamberlain) feared that the House could not be congratulated upon any such result. As far as his practical experience went, the grievance the noble Lord proposed to remedy had been considerably exaggerated, while the effect of the new agitation to be created by the Amendment which was now proposed had been altogether underestimated. Allusion in the course of the debates upon the Bill had frequently been made to the School Board of Birmingham, to which he hoped hon. Members would at least give credit for honesty of purpose and real educational zeal. The facts in connection with that board had been partially stated by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd). The House was aware that at first the majority of the Birmingham School Board had been elected by a minority of the ratepayers by virtue of the cumulative vote, and that majority endeavoured to enforce compulsion before any board schools existed, and, consequently, before there was any choice of schools. Under the circumstances it became necessary to provide for the payment of the fees of the children of poor parents attending denominational schools, but the feeling created against that course was so strong, hundreds of people declaring that they would rather be distrained upon than pay the "new Church rate," that even the denominationalist majority of the board were unwilling to enforce it, and provision was therefore made for payment of fees in these cases by voluntary subscriptions. It was worthy of remark that the tendency of adopting the principle of paying school fees was to increase them in amount and number. It was found that, when poor parents heard of their neighbours having obtained gratuitous payment of school fees, they made application for similar advantages. When a new election of the school board took place the majority was reversed, and having pushed forward the erection of board schools they carefully considered the question, and decided in all cases to remit the payment of
    540
    school fees for poor children in board schools, and in no case to pay the fees of children attending voluntary schools. Since that was decided upon no single complaint of hardship had been made. His experience had led him to the conclusion that the religious difficulty was not a parent's difficulty, and that, in fact, very little would be heard of it if the priests and parsons would stand aside. But whether the difficulty arose from the parents or not, they were told that a real grievance arose from parents being compelled to accept education for their children in schools where no religious instruction was provided. The Birmingham School Board had adopted the principle of complete separation of religious and secular education—which was a very different thing from adopting a system of purely secular education. Mr. Cobden once said there were only two ways in which a national system of education could be enforced with any pretence of fairness. One was to have a religious education, and pay for the religions of all alike, and the other to adopt a secular system. Hon. Members opposite seemed inclined to adopt the former alternative, but Roman Catholics would not be content with the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire's proposal that the Protestant Bible should be read and taught in all schools. For Roman Catholics religious instruction must be given by the priest, or some one authorized by the priesthood; and special provision must also be made for other sects. They had therefore to distinguish in this matter of the rights of conscience. They had to ask themselves, while admitting that they had no right to enforce upon any man religious teaching which he disapproved, whether they were prepared to provide for him the religious teaching which he wanted. He did not think it was infringing the legitimate rights of conscience to decline such an extortionate demand as that. We made members of the Society of Friends pay war taxes, and held the Peculiar People responsible for the death of relatives to whom they had given no medical assistance. These were cases in which the State held it right to put aside the so-called rights of conscience, and they had a similar right to resist the demands of Roman Catholics and other sects that their religion should be paid for at

    541
    the expense of those who did not believe in it. The Birmingham School Board, in adopting a complete separation of the two systems were far from being hostile to religious education. The hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) seemed to have arrived at the conclusion that a secular school was of necessity an infidel school—an opinion which had not always been held by members of the Catholic Church, for he found that at that moment the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in the United States were contending that the schools ought to be made secular, because they considered it an injustice to them that the Protestant Bible should be taught at their expense. The Birmingham Board were only endeavouring to carry out in practice the principles which were laid down for the settlement of the Irish education difficulty; and 10 years ago the Primate of Ireland and half of his Bishops signed a Memorial in favour of secular as against denominational religious teaching in that country. It was said that the Bill was the logical outcome of the Act of 1870. He was not prepared to contest that. The scheme of separate religious instruction was also an outcome of that Act. It was laid down then that there should be a separation of the time between secular and religious education, and at Birmingham they had only carried the thing a step further than that Act by separating the teacher and the cost. The Birmingham plan had the support of the majority of the religious people in Birmingham. It was believed that by throwing religious instruction on voluntary effort they would secure much more satisfactory results. He deprecated the statements of those who said that this plan was to the eternal disgrace of Birmingham, and denied the right of any one to put forward such a charge. There was more religious instruction given to the children of Birmingham, and it was more complete, efficient, satisfactory, and universal, than at any previous period. There were in the Nonconformist Sunday schools above 36,000 children, being almost equal to the whole number in attendance at public elementary schools; and if the Church and other schools were taken into account, it might fairly be estimated that 30 or 40 per cent more children were in receipt of separate religious education than were required to be pro-
    542
    vided for in public elementary schools. A great deal had been said about the right of a parent to have the choice of schools. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite carry that principle to its logical conclusion and apply it to the rural districts, instead of leaving 10,000 or 12,000 country parishes with only Church schools. The right of conscience, he thought, was becoming a geographical expression. In the towns it meant the right of every one to get his religion taught at the expense of every one else, while in the country it was the right of the Church to drive the children into her schools and enforce the payment of a rate more obnoxious than the old church rate, because it was levied not merely for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, but for the teaching of her principles and doctrines. He looked with alarm at the probable effect of the proposed Amendment. It would throw into the election of Boards of Guardians all the discord and confusion that frequently attended school board elections, and would not tend to bring about the perfection of religious instruction that was desired. As a general rule Boards of Guardians refused to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains in workhouses, and he thought it probable that they would use every legal means to avoid contributing towards the cost of educating Catholic children in the Catholic faith. In conclusion, he felt bound to say that the Amendment raised a most important principle—a principle which had agitated this country in past times, and which would agitate it again. He deeply regretted it should have been brought forward at the eleventh hour, and he considered it would justify even a factious opposition on the part of hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House. The clause would lead to future opposition, which, he believed, would be detrimental to the cause of education. He thanked the House for having listened to him so attentively.
    CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that there was one point in the able and temperate speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) which was open to misconstruction. When he said the object of the Amendment was to get districts to pay for the religion of everybody else, he forgot that in Ireland the principal portion of the population was Catholic, and that that country con-

    543
    tributed £3,000,000 to the Revenue in excess of what was spent in Ireland.
    MR. HOPWOODopposed the Amendment. He was no party to any compromise upon the question, and he adhered to his opinion that the proposed Amendment would be a monstrous interpolation in the Bill at that late period. They were told that they should give up their opposition because a compromise had been brought about by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster);but it was really no compromise at all. He saw no practical difference between that which was refused last night, because it was a complete reversal of the settlement of 1870. He contended that their action last night was not factious. They were bound to resist, by every Form of the House, proposals that went to the very root of the existing system of treating board schools and voluntary schools. That system was accepted with the utmost professions of gratitude from hon. Gentlemen opposite to the right hon. Member for Bradford and the then Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) for their concession on the point. The 25th clause gave an option to the school boards to pay for poor children; and now it was proposed to substitute for them a more objectionable body, and to destroy the option which had hitherto existed. He could not approve the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. He would treat with respect everything that came from that right hon. Gentleman except upon this matter. The present proposal had the same vices as that of last night; and the object of the Members opposite in supporting it probably was a desire to protect voluntary schools against board schools. The different religious communities could provide for the school fees of the children which belonged to them, and there would be really no difficulty in the matter. In that respect he fully coincided with what had been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), whose ability he thought, had been so fully shown in a speech which must have been listened to with attention and pleasure by all who heard it. In conclusion, he would warn those who thought that by the clause they had bound down Boards of Guardians hand and foot to pay these fees. They might find themselves mis-
    544
    taken, because the Guardians might take it into their heads to inquire whether the parents were really unable to pay, and that fact made it even more unwise to raise this great stumbling-block again. He felt he was perfectly justified in making one more appeal to the House to vote against the course proposed by the Government.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that it was not he who had offered the compromise, and for his part he thought that it was a most unfortunate thing that the question should have been mooted at all. No ingenuity could have suggested anything more likely to prevent their coming to a speedy and amicable conclusion of these debates. He was sorry, therefore, the question had been mooted; but, once made, he found it impossible, with any degree of consistency with his previous action, not to admit that the proposition as now brought forward by the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon) was a just one. He thought that the change thus produced in the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) entirely justified the action of the Opposition last night. It had given the Government time to think over the matter, and he thought upon the whole that the proposition of the noble Lord was such as in consistency he could not vote against. At the same time, it must be understood he was only speaking his own view, and not for anybody else. It gave him great pain not to vote with his Friends; but his opinion had been formed with great care, and he could not act otherwise. Without going into the whole question, he would say a few words as to what would be the practical effect of the change in reference to the payment of fees by substituting Guardians for school boards. He believed that the effect would be to enormously diminish the amount of fees to be paid, and the Guardians would be better qualified than the school boards to judge of the question of poverty. Hitherto, except in two or three towns, the question had been theoretical rather than practical; but he had not the least doubt that in Manchester and Salford, at any rate, the number of parents who would be relieved by Boards of Guardians would show a diminution of from 50 to 75 per cent. Another practical

    545
    advantage would be that school boards would be relieved from any discussion in the matter, and after a short time the Boards of Guardians would take it as a mere matter of business. In conclusion, he begged to join in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) on the remarkable ability with which he had realized the expectations entertained by many hon. Members of that House.
    MR. STEVENSONdeclared that he was returned at the General Election to oppose the 25th clause; but he could not have anticipated that he should have to give the opposition to an attempt by the Government to amplify the operation of that clause. It was contrary to sound principle that money derived from local rates should be given to schools not under local management. He did not object to the Amendment on account of the money that would have to be paid. He believed it would be less than was paid at present. But it was because it raised a principle of the greatest importance that he felt bound to vote against the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 175: Majority 98.
    MR. FAWCETT,in pursuance of the Notice he had already given, moved to amend the clause in relation to the payment of the fee by the Guardians by omitting the words, "it shall be the duty of," in order to insert words providing that the Guardians might pay it if they thought fit. He desired to make one more effort to minimize the evil of the course taken by the Government by making this proposal not compulsory, but permissive. He called upon the Government to give some cogent reason for a sudden change of policy. When the Bill for repealing the 25th clause of the Act of 1870 was brought forward on that—the Liberal—side of the House, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, then in Opposition and now in office, resisted the proposal, on the ground that the clause had worked admirably, and its permissive power had never been abused. He should, therefore, like to know why they now thought the power should be made compulsory. If his Amendment
    546
    were carried, those districts which had no school boards would be left exactly in the same position as those which had school boards.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 14, to leave out the words "it shall be the duty of."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that one of the strongest arguments in favour of the proposal which was now made by the Government was the importance and convenience of having one uniform system throughout the country. As far as could be ascertained by the testimony of hon. Members from Scotland, the plan of making it necessary to prove poverty to the satisfaction of the Parochial Board, so that they might provide the fees for poor children, had worked admirably well, and it would be unwise not to take note of that success. By the change proposed the payments would be very much reduced, and the Government were most anxious to minimize them. It was a thing most undesirable in itself that the public money should be applied in these payments; but to pay the fees out of public funds in cases of extreme necessity was a necessary corollary of any plan of compulsory education, and the only question was whether the power should be allowed to school boards, or confined to Boards of Guardians. If the Government proposal were carried as it stood it would remove those dissensions which constantly arose as to whether they should pay or not fees in schools not belonging to them, which had not seldom been injurious to the working of the school boards. Parliament would now, once for all, he hoped, take the responsibility itself of settling the matter, so as to remove this fertile source of dissension from school boards. There was no religious question involved, but only the question of poverty, and the Government hoped that this change would diminish the pressure of local expense. He thought the House must feel that the Government could not consent to make it permissive to the Boards of Guardians to pay fees in cases where it was proved the parents could not pay them, as they would thus introduce into the Boards of Guardians the system already at work in the school boards with its concomitant train of dissensions, the very evil so much complained of in the school boards.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had examined the Amendment with the hope that he could agree to it, but he had been unable to do so. He did not see why the obligation should be permissive in the one country and obligatory in the other.
    MR. BRISTOWEsupported the Amendment. If the powers given by the clause were transferred to the Boards of Guardians, due regard ought to be paid to the interests of those who were unable to pay the rates.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 176; Noes 72: Majority 104.
    MR. BRISTOWEproposed the insertion of words to provide that the payment of school fees by Boards of Guardians should be subject to regulations approved from time to time by the Education Department.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 15, after the word "inability," to insert the words "subject to such regulations as they may make from time to time with the approval of the Education Department."—(Mr. Bristowe.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he could not accept the proposal, as he was most anxious that the granting of relief in the form of school fees should be entirely in the hands of the local authorities, who were most competent to judge in these matters, and should have the full responsibility of their actions.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERtook a similar view.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAMSAYproposed in page 6, line 18, to leave out the words—
    "The parent shall not by reason of any such payment made under this section he deprived of any franchise, right, or privilege, or be subject to any disability or disqualification,"
    and said that the omission of those words would assimilate the provisions of the Bill in this respect to the law as it existed in Scotland. It had never been determined that the payment of school fees for a child would impose disability
    548
    of any kind on the parent. He did not believe it would, and the words he proposed to omit were therefore unnecessary.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 18, to leave out the words "The parent shall not by reason of any such payment made under this section be deprived of any franchise, right, or privilege, or be subject to any disability or disqualification."—(Mr. Ramsay.)
    MR. E. JENKINSsupported the Amendment. Unless the words were struck out, the people of Scotland would be subject to disabilities under which the people of England did not labour. It would be a gross injustice if they did not in this respect treat the Englishman in the same way as they treated the Scotchman, and reduce him to the condition of a pauper.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERreminded the House that the Act of 1870 did not disfranchise the parent unless where he was in receipt of parochial relief.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRwould like to see the pauperizing provision taken out of the Scotch Act.
    MR. CHARLEYopposed the Amendment on the ground that it would be unfair to drive members of the independent working class down to the condition of paupers, simply because they had been compelled by misfortune to seek temporary assistance for the education of their children.
    MR. HALLcharacterized the proposal as a monstrous one to compel a man to send his child to school, and then punish him because he was unable to pay the school fees.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that if the working classes were to be deprived not only of the earnings of their children but also of their civil rights, they would curse the day on which the Education Bill was passed.
    MR. RODWELLobserved that the omission of the words then would be a strange inconsistency in the clause as amended by the right hon. Member for Bradford.
    MR. LOWEsupported the Amendment, on the ground that not to pass it would create an invidious distinction between the laws of Scotland and England. Then there was another important point. It was extremely desirable that we should have our law uniform, and our law went on the strict rule of

    549
    discouraging pauperism. But if we said to the poor man—"Though you do nothing for your children we will relieve you from all quasi-penal consequences," the result would be to encourage men to do as little as possible for their children.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERentered his protest against the notion that everything that was good for Scotland would be good for England. He attached very little importance to a uniformity which was something like the uniformity sought by the fox which had lost its tail.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, it should be remembered that we were only following in this respect the provisions of the Act of 1870, and his hon. Friends on both sides would recollect the point was very much discussed, at the time of passing that Act, and that there was great difference of opinion on the subject. Though a great deal might be said in favour of the omission of these words, still disfranchisement was a serious thing. When we were introducing compulsion it would be a very serious matter to introduce also the principle of disfranchisement, and he was of opinion that, notwithstanding what was asserted as to the example of Scotland, though he was very doubtful whether, as a matter of fact, disfranchisement did follow in Scotland the payment of fees by the parochial authorities, they had better leave things in this respect as they were at present.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that temporary assistance, whether in the shape of remission or otherwise, ought not to be a matter of disqualification.
    MR. RAMSAY,in order to save the time of the House, proposed to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. HOPWOODobjected to its being withdrawn.
    MR. FAWCETTwished it to be known that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, after persuading the House to accept his Amendment on the understanding that he was about to establish a uniform system for the whole country, had now turned round and refused to adopt those safeguards which in Scotland prevented abuse of the power to remit fees.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 42: Majority 117.
    And it being after ten minutes before Seven of the clock, further proceeding on Consideration of the Bill was adjourned till this day.
    MR. J. COWENappealed to the Government for merciful consideration, as they had now got education on the brain. Instead of going on with the Bill that evening, it would be better to meet on Saturday.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that, according to the Rules of the House, the debate must stand adjourned until the evening.
    In reply to Mr. GOSCHEN,
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was intended to take the third reading of the Bill to-morrow, and then Supply, with the Votes for Mr. Cave's Mission to Egypt.
    And it being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
    The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

REPORT ON THE FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACTS—THE RESOLUTION.

  QUESTION.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERasked the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant) to postpone to some future occasion his Motion respecting the Report of the Commission upon the working of the Factory and Workshops Acts. If that were done the House might proceed, at once with the further consideration of the Amendments to the Education Bill.
  MR. TENNANTsaid, he could not resist the appeal made by the right hon. Baronet, and would, accordingly, postpone his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, postponed.

  PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to know, Whether Mr. Chancellor of the

  551
  Exchequer could give the House any information as to the Business to be taken up to-morrow and Monday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, the Government proposed to proceed with the third reading of the Education Bill to-morrow, at 12. If that did not occupy too much time they would go into Supply and proceed with the Votes on the Suez Canal and Mr. Cave's Mission. The third Order of the Day would be the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, and if they were unable to get through the Committee of Supply to-morrow the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill would be taken on Monday. Probably the Cruelty to Animals Bill would be taken on Tuesday or Wednesday.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
[BILL 277.]
(Viscount Sandon, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Assheton Cross.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON CONSIDERATION.
  Further proceedings [4th August] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, resumed.
  Clause 14 (Payment of school fees for poor parents).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to propose an addition to the clause. In his opinion it would be better if school boards had not the power to give away public money. The Guardians would have better opportunities than the school boards could have of testing the real inability of parents to pay school fees. He therefore proposed to add at the end of the clause the words—"The 25th section of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, is hereby repealed."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he was glad to accept the Amendment on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. He agreed that the provisions now made in the Bill would introduce greater economy in the relief given to indigent parents by confining such relief to persons who really needed it, and so reduce to a minimum payment out of the rates for supplementing the school fees. That was what those who had studied the educational question were most anxious to
  552
  obtain. It was a matter of very great satisfaction to him that, after their various discussions, they should come to this point, for the Amendment would remove a very unnecessary bone of contention in connection with school boards, and the fear could hardly any longer be entertained that the rates were applied by favour to denominational schools to assist them, and not in cases only of absolute necessity, to enable poor parents to comply with the law, and send their children to the school of their choice.
  MR. CHARLEYthought it would be inconvenient to introduce that repealing clause in the middle of the Bill, and would suggest that the better course would be to place the 25th clause in the schedule among the repealed enactments. In Salford the 25th clause had worked admirably, and he only hoped that the Guardians of Salford would carry out the law as satisfactorily as it had been carried out by the school board of Salford, who had exhibited the greatest tact and delicacy in administering the ratepayers' bounty. He had some regret at the repeal of the 25th clause, but he regretted the way it had been worked in London, where the names and addresses of the parents who had been relieved by the school board were advertised in The Times.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the 25th clause upon his great good fortune in being able to withdraw it. Roman Catholics had great reason to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the consistency and moral courage he had shown upon this question. Irish Roman Catholics had, however, great grievances—those relating to University education and to middle class education.
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  Clause 15 (Establishment, &c., by day industrial schools).
  VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, lines 27 and 28, to leave out "an industrial school in which children are not lodged," in order to insert a better definition of a day industrial school, to which definition he had been greatly helped by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms). It was as follows:—

  553
  "A school in which industrial training, elementary education, and one or more meals a day, but not lodging, are provide for the children."
  The object was to exclude the possibility of making clothing a charge upon, the rates.
  Amendment agreed to; words substituted.
  VISCOUNT SANDON,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 8, at end of clause, to insert as new paragraphs—
  "A Secretary of State may from time to time make, and when made revoke, and vary the forms of orders for sending a child to a day industrial school, and the manner in which children are to be sent to such school.
  "If a Secretary of State is of opinion that, by reason of a change of circumstances or otherwise, a certified day industrial school ceases to be necessary or expedient for the proper training and control of the children of any class of population in the neighbourhood of that school, he may, after due notice, withdraw the certificate of the school, and thereupon such school shall cease to be a certified day industrial school.
  "Provided, That the reasons for withdrawing such certificate shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within one month after notice of the withdrawal is given, if Parliament be then sitting, or if not, within one month after the then next meeting of Parliament,"
  said, the Amendment, which was in accordance with the feeling of both sides of the House, would enable the Secretary of State to keep watch on the growth of these schools; and, as the Government had great hope that after a certain term of years they would have done their work in many places, by civilizing the children in them, and fitting them for better schools, it would strengthen his hands in saying to the benevolent people or local authorities who might have established them, that they were no longer needed for the locality, and that therefore the State would not any longer support them.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that the clause had met with universal condemnation from those gentlemen who took an interest in industrial schools. They entertained three fundamental objections to it—First, they had no security whatever that the parent would make the payment required of him under the clause; secondly, a child by going home of an evening would be deprived of all the benefit he might have obtained from the education given him during the day; and thirdly, the clause, which for the first time intro-
  554
  duced a system of what might be called feeding the population at the expense of the ratepayers and the State, would have a gigantic effect in the way of degrading and demoralizing the poorer classes. If once they began to provide food, the question would next arise whether they ought not also to be clothed at the public expense. Owing also to the migratory character of the population of the large towns, it would be impossible to keep the children in the schools to which they had been committed, or to recover the sums due on their behalf from the parents. He could not see that any of the Amendments proposed in the clause in the least removed these objections, and he must enter his emphatic protest against it.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, he must remind the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) that there was a class of children in London who were not fit subjects for the prison, or the workhouse, or for the existing elementary schools, and who ought to be provided for in some such way as that now proposed. No doubt it would be better to have lodging schools, but how was Parliament to provide the funds necessary to establish institutions of that kind?
  Amendment agreed to; paragraphs inserted.
  Clause 16 (Conditions of contribution to day industrial schools).
  On the Motion of Viscount Sandon, Clause amended, by leaving out in page 8, line 17, "shall conform to the standards," and inserting—
  "To be recommended by the Secretary of State shall provide for the examination of the children according to the standards of proficiency."
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved to add at the end of the preceding Amendment a provision that the amount of the contribution should be dependent in each case on the results of the examination.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, after the word "proficiency," at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "and shall provide that the amount of the contribution shall be dependent upon the results of such examination."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Secretary of State already had power

  555
  to vary the amount of the contribution according to the Standard in which the child passed; and, that being so, it was undesirable to draw a hard-and-fast line.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRobserved that he quite concurred in the Secretary of State having a discretion in the matter; but he still thought that unless the Amendment were agreed to, they would fall into the same error in the industrial schools of the future as they had done in those of the past.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted;" put, and negatived.
  Clause 18 (Supplemental provisions as to certificates of proficiency and previous attendance at school).
  On the Motion of Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Clause amended, in page 9, line 13, at end, by adding—
  "All regulations made by the Education Department under this section shall be laid before Parliament in the same manner as minutes of the Education Department."
  Clause 19 (Certificates of birth for purposes of Act).
  On the Motion of Viscount SANDON, Clause amended, in page 9, line 20, after "fee," by inserting "not exceeding one shilling as the Local Government Board from time to time fix."
  Clause 25 (Dissolution of school board under certain circumstances).
  VISCOUNT SANDONmoved as an Amendment, in page 11, line 30, to leave out "three," and insert "six." The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had in Committee on the Bill proposed that the time should be within three months of the election of the Board; and the Government had kept the limit open for re-consideration or the Report. He now proposed that six months before the date of the election should be substituted for three months as the maximum limit—an arrangement which would be more convenient.
  Amendment ageeed to; word substituted.
  Clause 28 (Provisions as to school attendance committee and appointment of local committee).
  MR. EARPproposed an Amendment providing that no member of any local committee appointed under the Act should sit as a member of the court of summary jurisdiction in any proceeding
  556
  instituted at the instance of such local committee.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 13, line 11, after the word "Act," to insert the words "nor shall any member of such local committee sit as a member of the court of summary jurisdiction in any proceeding instituted at the instance of such local committee."—(Mr. Earp.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOThoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SANDONobjected to the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.

  [BILL 276.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  MR. DILLWYN,in moving that the Bill be read a third time on that day month, said, he thought it ought not to be passed at that time of the Session, for it was not at all like the measure originally brought in by the Government. He thought the Bill as introduced, though not a very strong one, would have done some good. Since then, however, material modifications had been introduced, the effect being that the manufacturing interests, who at first opposed it, were now in favour of the Bill. He complained of the insertion, without adequate Notice, of the 16th clause, by which a manufacturer might continue to pollute a river for three years, if he had received a certificate from the Local Government Board, without being subject to interdict or injunction. He protested against such a clause as perfectly monstrous. He should have been glad if the Bill had been re-committed with a view to the withdrawal of that clause, for the Bill on the whole was a good one; but, as the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would not consent to that suggestion, he was obliged to

  557
  oppose the third reading. He therefore moved the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now'stand part of the Question."
  MR. ANDERSONsupported the Bill. He was surprised at the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Swansea in protesting against what he called Lobby legislation, and then stating that he had himself privately endeavoured to make arrangements with a Member of the Government as to the form of the Bill. The measure was not such a dreadful one after all, for the clause to which his hon. Friend referred only enabled a manufacturer who had procured a certificate from the Local Government Board to carry on his works for three years free from injunction and interdict, but still as much as ever exposed to an action for damages. In other words, the clause only took away the extreme remedy of stopping the works and driving the people out of employment. The idea was that, much as they desired the purity of the river, they considered that the welfare of the great manufacturing interests, by which the people lived, ought not to be lost sight of, and was of greater national importance than even the purifying of the streams.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Bill certainly had not been prominently before the House, but it was discussed on the second reading and in Committee. As soon as it passed through Committee it was reprinted for the information of those hon. Members who had placed Amendments on the Paper. He denied that the clause had been inserted in the Bill without adequate Notice. On the contrary, full Notice had been given of it, and it had been accepted by the House. The House was tolerably full when this clause was added to the Bill, and it had the support of several hon. Gentlemen of authority and eminence in the House. It was to the effect that procedure by way of injunction should not be had recourse to during the existence of one of these certificates, but they were not to be granted for more than three years, and only where works of purification were actually in operation; while any person aggrieved might
  558
  appeal to the governing authorities to cancel the certificate. He looked upon that as a reasonable proposal, and if it were desirable that the language of it should be reviewed, there could scarcely, he contended, be a better tribunal for the purpose than the House of Lords. The clause had been carefully drawn, and did not seem to him to be likely to produce any mischief.
  SIR HENRY JAMES,adverting to the fact that the Bill had been on a former occasion, by a slip of the tongue, described by right hon. Gentleman as a measure for the better pollution of rivers, suggested that the description was prophetic of its real character as it now stood, for yielding had gone so far that in order to secure the passing of the measure, the Government had conceded so much that it had become the manufacturers' Bill instead of the Bill originally introduced by the Government. If the design was to carry the Bill now, and to follow it up with another next year, the better way would be to throw the Bill out at once. The opposition to the Bill chiefly arose from manufacturers, who set their own private interests up in opposition to those of the general public. Their interests should not stand in the way of the purity of rivers. The streams were poisoned by the refuse of the manufacturing ingredients discharged into them. By the absence of proper means of prevention, the pollution of rivers that ought for sanitary purposes to be pure, was allowed to go on, and he held that it was a dangerous principle to give an Inspector power to prevent the local authorities from putting a stop to a nuisance. The purity of their water must be an object of great anxiety to every hon. Member of that House.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the House had listened to the very able speech made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which might have been more appropriately made in Committee. He was inclined to think from his speech that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not read the Bill, or, at all events, that he had not understood it. If he had, he would scarcely have spoken of it in the terms which he had used. There were three great questions in connection with river pollution. First, there was the question of the introduction into rivers of solid matter. Secondly, the pollution of rivers not only by solid

  559
  matter, but by sewage; and, thirdly, there was a pollution by manufactories, and on this last point especially they had to consider existing interests. For dealing with these evils various Bills had at different times been introduced. All of them had failed, because they attempted too much; and his right hon. Friend, in view of that fact, had wisely confined his measure within certain limits. The hon. and learned Gentleman's description of it, however, was not quite accurate, as he himself would see if he condescended to study its provisions. No one who visited the North of England could fail to notice that the rivers there were gradually becoming choked up with the solid refuse thrown into them, and the injury thus caused to the people living on their banks was incalculable. In the neighbourhood of some of the large towns in his own county the expense incurred in dredging these rivers was enormous. Now, if the hon. and learned Member had made himself acquainted with the clauses relating to that part of the subject, he would have seen that they embodied most important provisions, and that the remedy was absolute and complete. The Bill also dealt completely with that great source of the pollution of rivers arising from sewage; and if there were nothing else in the measure but the means of preventing that great cause of injury to the public health, and also to the cattle feeding on the banks of rivers, it would be well worth the House's while to pass it. With regard to the pollution produced through manufactories, it was a great step to stop, as the Bill would do, the further pollution of rivers by manufactories to be hereafter established. With respect to that part of the evil created by existing manufactories, and as to which they had to deal with vested interests, they must proceed in these matters by degrees, and he believed that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had gone as far as the late Government or any other Government could, or as the public would allow him to go.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it might be true that the Bill went as far as public opinion would sanction at that period of the Session; but it should be remembered that they had as yet had no discussion on that important measure except at the small hours of the morning, and that if it became law it would have been settled by arrangements made in the Lobby.
  560
  The House could not now pass a Bill such as they would wish to pass, and an imperfect measure like the present one would not really facilitate the further work of legislation which would have to be done on that subject. He would not recommend the House to divide, but he would remind the Government that they could not claim to have done all that was necessary for the prevention of the pollution of rivers. The Bill was a paltry and hesitating one, and was passed at the end of the Session as a shift to enable the Government to say that they had carried a measure on the subject.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, the speech they had just heard was a difficult one to understand. They had now a Bill which, it was admitted, would do a great deal of good, and yet the argument seemed to be this, that if they could not now deal with the whole matter it would be better not to touch it. That, however, was not the ordinary rule that human beings adopted. The Bill was founded upon this proposition that we should go as far as we could in the right direction. The Bill would have ample field for action in Wales, which, though a very beautiful country, had no fish in its polluted streams. He thought the Bill, as far as it went, was one which should be passed, and that they ought not to wait until more could be done. Well, then, his right hon. and excellent Friend (Mr. Goschen) said it was too late in the Session to pass this Bill. If that was a reason for not passing the Bill, he was afraid they would have very few Bills passed. There was an opportunity now of setting things right and of giving the people pure water to drink, which he hoped would not be lost.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that during the summer and autumn of last year he was engaged in investigating the sewage question. He then found that the rivers of the North of England were polluted to an enormous extent by solid matter put into them and by sewage. This Bill would effectually meet those two points. The pollution of rivers by manufactories with dye was not one quarter so bad as the pollution by sewage. This was by far the most practical, the most simple, and most straightforward measure that had been proposed on the subject. If anything remained to be done further in that direction this Bill would have laid a good foundation for further progress.
  MR. MONKsaid, he would much rather that the Bill had been recommitted, for the purpose of striking out the objectionable clauses, than that it should be rejected. He thought it was most unfair that common law rights should be taken away as they were by one clause in the Bill, but he hoped the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would not press his Amendment for its rejection.
  MR. HICKsaid, the interests of the manufacturers in the rivers were very great, but a great deal might be done to purify the rivers without detriment to the manufacturers. The Bill, though it did not go far enough, would to a certain extent satisfy, not only the manufacturers, but the riparian owners, and it would go a long way towards the suppression of an intolerable nuisance in Lancashire, where, as in his own case, they had been obliged to keep all the windows of the house closed in order to keep out the unwholesome stench of the river Kibble.
  MR. YEAMANsaid, this was a Bill in the right direction. He hoped it would be read a third time.
  MR. BIRLEYsupported the Bill, though he was not altogether satisfied with it. He thought the manufacturers had a right to a certain degree of consideration.
  MR. STEVENSONthought it would be a hard thing if after manufacturers had gone to a great expense to get a certificate it should not stand them in good stead.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, the House seemed to be in favour of passing the Bill, and he would not, therefore, give it the trouble to divide.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[BILL 96.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained the nature of the Sheriff
  562
  Courts, pointing out that they were important, bringing, as they did, the administration of justice to the doors of the less wealthy classes, who could not go to the Superior Courts. He did not intend to proceed with the clauses extending the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts to real property, which he would take up next year. The Bill before the House, therefore, simply aimed at reforming the procedure of those Courts, and applied the improvement effected in the Court of Session to the Sheriff Courts. [The right hon. and learned Gentleman read a communication from the attorneys in Glasgow, expressing approval of the Bill, and showing the character of the measure.] It was important, he said, in the interests of Scotland, that the Bill should pass, and, if desirable, be amended in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. ANDERSON,in moving, as an Amendment, that it was inexpedient to legislate on this matter without extending the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts, said, he must remind the House of the circumstances under which a Bill similar to this was brought in last Session by the Lord Advocate. He himself had then a Bill before the House for extending the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts to questions of heritable right, and he had been induced to withdraw that Bill on the pledge of the Lord Advocate to carry that reform in a Government Bill. The Lord Advocate had failed to carry his Bill last year, and the present Bill was its successor. The hon. and learned Lord now proposed to carry his Bill only after striking out the jurisdiction extension clauses, and when all that remained was some clauses to amend procedure, probably very good in themselves, but certainly not the main object of the Bill. The Sheriff Courts had an unlimited authority respecting personal property, but could not interfere with real property) and the effect of that was that great injustice was done to certain suitors by cases being unnecessarily taken to Edinburgh by the wealthy suitor and to the prejudice of the poorer. He objected to that part of the Bill relating to the extension of jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts being struck out of the Bill for

  563
  the present Session. They might have the Lord Advocate's pledge that he would embody the provisions with regard to jurisdiction in a Bill next Session, but they could not depend on the Lord Advocate's pledges. They had had two years' experience of them, and they had found that they were not to be relied upon. He did not for a moment mean that the learned Lord was unwilling to redeem his pledges, or made them without the fullest intention of redeeming them; but he seemed to have no weight with the Government. The Government did not allow him any weight or say at all, and it seemed as if Scotland would not get any legislation unless Scotch Members adopted the principle which had been so successfully adopted by the Irish Members—form a Home Rule party, and begin to agitate and unite, and give the Government all sorts of trouble and factious opposition. When the Scotch Members did that, no doubt they would be a little better attended to. He was willing to withdraw his opposition to the second reading of the Bill if the Home Secretary would give Scotch Members a pledge to see that the Lord Advocate next Session brought in a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts with a Government pledge to do their best to pass it. If he did not receive that pledge, he should divide the House, although he was sure to be defeated, and he should continue his opposition to all the future stages of the measure.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to legislate on this matter without extending the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts,"—(Mr. Anderson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was no fault of the Lord Advocate that he had been obliged to drop the question of jurisdiction. It was only from extreme pressure that the Bill had been curtailed, but that portion had been retained which was the most important, and which was very much needed. As to the extension of jurisdiction he admitted that time was required for con-
  564
  sideration. He was therefore in favour of the postponement. The other parts of the Bill were generally approved of in Scotland, and he hoped the second reading would be taken pro formâ. He had consulted with the Lord Advocate, and he would undertake that the right hon. and learned Lord should bring in a Bill next Session dealing with this question of jurisdiction, and pass it through if possible.
  MR. FARLEY LEITHsaid, there was a general concurrence of opinion in favour of the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts being extended, and he would refer in proof to the Petitions which had been presented from Scotland in favour of it. They amounted to 46 in number, and among the Petitioners were the principal Chambers of Commerce, and only three Petitions were presented against it. These were by solicitors and writers of the signet. But the general community were in favour of that principle. He complained of the manner in which Scotch Business had been treated during the whole of the Session, because it had created general displeasure both amongst the Members of that House and in Scotland.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, there was no one he knew of in Scotland who would object to the Sheriff Courts having the same power respecting real property as the County Courts had in England. He should like to see a discreet Bill brought in next Session to extend the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts in Scotland to the same extent as the County Courts in England.
  MR. RAMSAYrejoiced that there was a prospect of the improvement in the administration of the law in the Sheriff Courts, Scotland.
  MR. ANDRESONsaid, he was satisfied with the pledges given by the Government, and would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. FARLEY LEITHsaid, he had a Motion on the paper to the effect that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months, but he would not bring it forward.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

FORFEITURE RELIEF BILL.— [BILL 259.]
(Mr. Marten, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Gregory.)
FORFEITURE RELIEF BILL.— [BILL 259.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Tralee Savings Bank* (202).
Second Reading—Juries Procedure (Ireland) (196); Poor Law Rating (Ireland) (197); Exhausted Parish Lands* (186).
Report—Winter Assizes* (200).

JURIES PROCEDURE (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lard President).
JURIES PROCEDURE (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 196.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a measure of the greatest importance to Ireland, which had already passed through the other House. It was based on the recommendations from a Select Committee of the House of Commons that sat in 1874 to inquire into the jury system in Ireland, and its object was to give effect to such of those recommendations as had not been embodied in a previous measure, which was passed through both Houses of Parliament at an earlier period of the present Session. The noble Duke concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord President.)
  LORD O'HAGAN: I desire to offer my best support to the measure introduced by the noble Duke. It is a supplement to the Bill which I carried through your Lordships' House in 1870. I have therefore felt much interest in it, and I have considered its provisions. It fairly fulfils the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons, and will be of signal advantage to the public. The Act of 1870 has been the subject of much hostile criticism and some unscrupulous assaults. It has been attacked as to its principle and as to its details, especially as to the amount of the jurors' qualification. Now, on that matter I may say a word. The Bill of 1870, as introduced into this House, was framed with a desire to make the rating qualification, although only a very rude and insufficient measure of intelligence, as high as might be consistent with the supply of a sufficiency of jurors. After long consideration it was passed unanimously by your Lordships; but, when it went to the House of Commons the qualification was reduced, and the Bill must have been lost if the reduction had of been accepted here, so that, if injury arose in that regard, and it became necessary to make such an alteration as has now been effected, the fault was not with the action of this House or of the author of the measure. As to the principle of the Act, I congratulate the Government on the firmness with which it has been maintained in its full integrity. I never dreamt that the measure was perfect or hoped that it would work perfectly at once. I knew that the English jury system, although coeval with the Constitution, accordant with the genius of the people, and cherished by them as one of their proudest national possessions, is still admitted by them to need great improvement, and that year after year Parliament has been endeavouring to improve it. The experiment in Ireland was novel as it was difficult. The Act of 1870 wrought, in a sense, a social revolution. It opened the jury box to classes who had for generations been jealously precluded from any interference with the Courts of Justice. It took away the mischievous discretion with which official persons had been accustomed, sometimes honestly, sometimes capriciously, and sometimes corruptly, to manipulate the panels at their good pleasure, and put an end, for ever, to
  498
  the notorious packing which so often made trial by jury a scandal and a farce. A change so great could not be accomplished without exciting susceptibilities, arousing prejudices and alarming vested interests, and, accordingly, there was an outcry, loud and long—an outcry, official and political—which found a pretence of justification in the conduct of jurors for the first time called to discharge one of the highest, as it is one of the most difficult, functions of a free citizen, and in some instances necessarily committing errors and absurdities from which even the training of centuries does not enable their brethren of England always to escape. Of these absurdities and errors the most was made. Ridicule, abuse, exaggeration, were employed without measure or mercy, and the real effort was to reverse the principle of the law. All this has failed. The Government have done well and bravely in refusing to touch that principle or permit the licence of the sheriff again to bring justice into suspicion and contempt. They have amended the Act by raising the qualification and adopting administrative changes which experience has shown to be desirable, and which all reasonable people approve; and, with the help of this measure, there is every reason to hope that the Act of 1870 will work efficiently and satisfactorily. I need not particularly refer to the provisions which have been clearly summarized by my noble Friend; but I specially approve those by which I trust jurors of station and wealth in Ireland will be compelled to do the duties which, in spite of repeated remonstrance and rebuke from the bench, they have too much abandoned to their humbler colleagues. This is a great public evil and the redress of it will go far to rectify any shortcomings of the present action of the law; of which I had hoped that one of the results would be the harmonious combination of men of various classes in the discharge of a great public trust—of equal interest to them all—with beneficial consequences to the order of society and the administration of justice. I trust your Lordships will give a second reading to this Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committed of the Whole House on Monday next.

POOR LAW RATING (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
POOR LAW RATING (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 197.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, there had been for some time in Ireland considerable difference of opinion on the Poor Law rating as to its chargeability. Some persons held that the proper mode of rating was by a general Union rate, while others were equally confident that the rating should be on the electoral division. A Committee on the subject sat in the other House of Parliament, and the Members of it were so evenly balanced in opinion that the Report was, he believed, only passed by the easting vote of the Chairman. This Bill, of which he now moved the second reading, might be considered as a compromise between the two extreme opinions upon the subject, and it made the chargeability of a pauper to the electoral division dependent on a residence of four years instead of two, and that there should be a six instead of a twelve months' notice.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  LORD EMLYexpressed an opinion that the Bill would work exceedingly well.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

INDIAN GOVERNMENT.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  EARL GRANVILLE (on behalf of Viscount HALIFAX)moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Despatch from the Government of India, 72 Public, of 24th December 1874;Copies of any dissents to the despatches of the Secretary of State of 31st May 1876, recorded by Members of the Council of India.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that if, after having carefully considered the Correspondence relating to the Indian Tariff Act of 1875, which was already in their Lordships' hands, he had felt there had been any serious diver-
  500
  gence of views between his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India and himself, he should have been reluctant to trouble them on the subject, and should at all events have abstained from making any observations upon it until the Papers for which his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had just moved, which were simply a continuation of those to which he had referred, had been produced, and until the House had the advantage of the presence of Ms noble Friend (Lord Lawrence), whose speedy restoration to health they all looked forward to with satisfaction, as well as of his noble Friends (Viscount Halifax and the Duke of Argyll), both of whom had for many years filled the office of Secretary of State for India. As, however, he hoped and believed that no material difference of opinion existed between the noble Marquess opposite and himself; and, as he would studiously avoid touching on any topic likely to lead to controversy, while he was anxious to place a very important question upon a more satisfactory footing than that upon which it at present stood, he hoped the House would not think he was wrong in making the few remarks which he was about to address to it. Their Lordships would recollect that in November last certain instructions were addressed by the Secretary of State to the Government of India relative to the removal of the Customs duty of 5 per cent upon cotton manufactured goods imported into that country. That despatch, which was dated the 11th November, 1875, contained also some observations as to the manner in which the Indian Tariff Act of 1875 had been passed, and it moreover gave to the Government of India certain instructions with respect to the manner in which communications should pass between the Government of India and the Secretary of State upon the subject of contemplated legislation for India. It had been laid on the Table of the House, and had given rise to a discussion in the early part of the Session. Since that time further Papers had been placed in their Lordships' hands, and it was on those Papers he desired to make some observations. They contained the replies of the Government of India, dated the 25th of February and the 17th of March, to the despatch of the Secretary of State of the 11th of November, and two answers from the Secretary of State to those replies, dated the 31st of May. As to

  501
  the observations which were made by the noble Marquess with respect to the manner in which the Indian Tariff Act of 1875 had been passed, he desired not to say a single word, as the whole matter was fully discussed in the official despatches from the Government of India which had been laid on the Table. The question, so far as he (the Earl of Northbrook) wished to call attention to it, in connection with the instructions of Her Majesty's Government, stood as follows:—The Government of India, in considering whether it was possible for them to propose to the Indian Legislature a measure which would give up a very large and productive source of revenue—amounting to something like £800,000 per annum—were obliged to take into account the position of the finances of India, and upon the best consideration which they could give at that time—which was in February last—to the matter, they felt it would be impossible for them to sacrifice so large an item of revenue while there was a large increase of charge impending in consequence of the depreciation of the value of silver which then existed—a depreciation which had since, he need hardly remind their Lordships, become much more serious than it then was. The Government of India, under those circumstances, replied to the Secretary of State, that it would be impossible, in their opinion, in the condition of the finances of India at the time, to remit the duties to which he referred; and when, he might add, they deliberated on the despatch from the Secretary of State of the 11th of November, it was not quite clear to them whether it was intended or not that new taxes of some description should be imposed to meet the deficiency which would be created by the removal of the Customs duty on cotton manufactures. Upon that subject they entertained a very strong opinion, and he could not express it more clearly than it had been expressed in a passage in the despatch from the Government of India of the 25th of February last—
  "We feel it to be our duty to represent to your Lordship that we deprecate in the strongest manner the imposition of any new direct tax or excise in order to abolish the import duty on cotton manufactures. No measure is, in our opinion, more certain to create irritation, if not serious discontent, in India than the introduction of such new taxes in order to remove that duty."
  502
  The question of the removal of the duty was now reserved for future consideration, as the Secretary of State had expressed his concurrence with the Government of India in the opinion that the condition of the finances precluded the possibility of making any remissions of taxation; and with regard to the imposition of new taxes the noble Marquess wrote on the 31st of May—
  "Highly as Her Majesty's Government estimate the importance of this measure, they did not contemplate the attainment of it by now taxation; and I concur with your Government in thinking that such a measure would be inexpedient."
  He (the Earl of Northbrook) was satisfied that this statement would be received in India with the greatest satisfaction. As the removal of the duty on cotton manufactures was now owing to the condition of the finances of India, to use the words of the noble Marquess, "not a subject of immediate interest," he would only assure their Lordships that there was no desire whatever on the part of those who had now for many years administered Her Majesty's Indian Empire to protect any branch of industry by Customs duties. All that the Government had had to do from time to time was so to administer the finances and so to adjust taxation as to enable the monies necessary to carry on the Government to be raised in the least objectionable manner, and with due regard to the interests and feelings, and he might say, also, to the prejudices in some respects, of the Natives of that country. With regard, then, to the first subject discussed in the Correspondence, he had only to express his satisfaction with the substance of the reply of the noble Marquess to the despatch of the Government of India, and to say that he thought the noble Marquess had exercised a wise discretion in not pressing the removal of the Customs duty upon cotton manufactures on the Government of India, and in declaring decisively that it was not his intention to instruct the Government of India to consider the imposition of new taxes for the purpose. As to the second subject dealt with in the Correspondence—namely, the manner in which the business relating to legislation should be transacted between the Government of India and the Secretary of State—he would frankly explain to their Lordships that on the receipt of

  503
  the instructions contained in the noble Marquess's despatch of March, 1874, by the Government of India, they felt apprehension that greater interference by the Secretary of State in matters of detail was contemplated than had heretofore been the case. Those apprehensions were, to a considerable extent, removed by the correspondence which subsequently ensued, but they were renewed by the receipt of the despatch from the Secretary of State of the 11th November, 1875. The Government of India interpreted that despatch as showing that the Secretary of State was not satisfied with the practice which had heretofore prevailed, and that he had an inclination and disposition to interfere more in detail with legislative measures, and especially those relating to finance, than had heretofore been the practice. They therefore thought it their duty to express their views upon the subject. Nothing could be further from his mind, and nothing could be further from the minds of the Members of his Council in India than the idea of setting up for the Government of India any species of independence from Her Majesty's Government. The Government of India were bound to obey the orders of Her Majesty's Government. All the Government of India had ever maintained was that it was wise, politic, in accordance with precedent; and with the spirit of the Government of India Act of 1858, that all ordinary transactions of business should be left to the Government of India, and it would be prejudicial to the interests of India and even to that proper control which should be exercised by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Crown over Indian legislation if he should constantly interpose his authority previous to the action of the Legislative Council of India in respect to, and during the progress of, the Bills which were proposed in India. The Government of India, in their despatch of the 25th of February last, wrote thus—
  "The practice has hitherto been invariably observed of holding the Government of India to be primarily responsible for the finances of India, with full discretion, subject to disallowance if disapproved, to pass such financial measures as may be necessary from time to time. We apprehend that a change in this practice would be attended by a division of this responsibility in respect to the administration of the finances, by delay, and by other serious inconveniences; and we submit that the rules should be so interpreted as to exempt measures affecting finance and customs which have hitherto
  504
  been dealt with on the responsibility of the Government of India from the rule that requires legislative measures to be referred to the Secretary of State before they are introduced, and that it may be understood that the present practice of leaving in all ordinary cases the initiation of other legislative measures to the Government of India will not be disturbed."
  He was glad to find that there was no really serious difference between the views of the noble Marquess and himself on that subject—at any rate, there was no difference in substance—for the noble Marquess in his despatch of the 31st of May stated that in requesting the Government of India to communicate to him full information with respect to financial and other measures, Her Majesty's Government did not intend to imply any want of confidence in the Government of India, or "to withdraw from them the initiative, which, as a general rule, had been left to them." Of course the supreme power must always rest with Her Majesty's Government as representing the Crown, and Her Majesty's Advisers must say how their power should be exercised, but the acceptance of that principle in no way injured his contention that in ordinary cases great latitude should be allowed in matters of detail, that the initiative ought generally to be left to the Indian Government, and that only in matters of the first importance ought the Secretary of State to interfere. He believed, therefore, that in respect of this most important subject there was in substance no serious divergence of views between the Government of India and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of Statewas entitled to have full information on every matter brought under the consideration of the Government of India, and that information, he was satisfied, had always been supplied. If there had been any omission in that respect, it was a mere matter of accident in the transaction of business. He could answer for it that there had never been the slightest desire on the part of the Indian Government to withhold information from the Secretary of State. There was one more subject—certainly one of the greatest importance—raised in these despatches. It appeared from that despatch from the Secretary of State of the 11th of November, 1875, that in future every legislative measure, however urgently required it might be, was to be communicated by telegraph to the Secretary of State, and suffi-

  505
  cient time allowed him to consider whether it should be proceeded with or not. To that arrangement the Government of India entertained the strongest objection. They pointed out that the instructions they had received, if they were to have any practical effect, meant that the Secretary of State was not satisfied to rely upon the opinion of the Governor General in Council on the question whether a measure could or could not be delayed "without serious public evil," but desired to form his own opinion for the guidance of the Government of India. In such circumstances legislation must be intimately connected with the prompt executive action of the Government. A question of urgency was one which of all questions required most imperatively that it should be decided at once and by those on the spot. Yet this rule would take the responsibility of deciding out of the hands of the Government of India and place it in those of the Secretary of State. The questions whether action was or was not urgently required, and what form it should take, would have to be discussed and determined through the medium of telegraph messages, in which the views on either side must necessarily be imperfectly expressed; delay, which from the nature of the case implied embarrassment, if not danger, must occur; and the conduct of business, which might be of the greatest gravity, would be subjected to the risk of misunderstandings which were inseparable from such a mode of proceeding.
  "It is our duty," we added, "to represent to Her Majesty's Government that the withdrawal from the Governor General in Council of the power of prompt action on the most important occasions that can arise will, in our opinion, seriously weaken the authority and hamper the action of the executive Government in India."
  For himself, he might say he could conceive of no more unsatisfactory manner of settling important business than by telegraph. He had on more than one occasion seen difficulties arise, owing to the curtness of the language necessarily used in telegraphic despatches, which difficulties he was satisfied would have been altogether avoided, or, at all events, would have been very speedily solved, if the parties had been face to face. On this point he was happy to say the Secretary of State had given an entirely satisfactory explanation. The noble Marquess stated, in his despatch of
  506
  the 31st of May, that he did not mean to withdraw the power of action from the Governor General; that he fully admitted that "in cases really urgent the delay involved in obtaining the sanction of a superior authority might be most dangerous;" and that the words of his despatch were intended to leave the Governor General as free as he has ever been at any former time to act, and to act at once in any way which a public emergency may seem to him to demand," provided only he informed the Secretary of State of his proceedings. Of course, as he had already observed, it was necessary and right that the Secretary of State should be informed of what was done in India, and he was perfectly satisfied with the condition in which this matter had been left by the Correspondence. There was nothing in the Correspondence with which he need trouble their Lordships further. He had studiously refrained from entering into any matter of controversy. If he had referred to the issues raised in the despatches, it had been for the purpose of showing that the principles which the Government of India deemed to be of the highest importance had, as he conceived, in substance been recognized by the noble Marquess in his replies, and he believed that any misunderstanding which had existed on the subject had mainly been caused by the difficulty of communicating fully on a matter that was exceedingly complicated in the midst of arduous business of different kinds, and that if he had had the advantage of the free and frank communications with the noble Marquess which were not withheld from him on his return to England, it would have averted the appearance of any serious divergence of opinion between the Government of India and the Home Government. All through the Correspondence the Government of India had asked for no new liberty of action, but wished to adhere to the old lines upon which the business of the Indian Empire had heretofore been transacted. If the noble Marquess agreed with the interpretation which he put on that Correspondence—that, although he thought for certain reasons it was desirable to obtain more information, there was no desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to change the principles on which the Government of India had been conducted—then, whatever divergence of opinion

  507
  there might have been at the time, the result would be, so far from any interference with the good government of India, that the relations between Her Majesty's Government, as represented by the Secretary of State, and the Government of India would be strengthened and consolidated. He was obliged to their Lordships for listening so long to him on a matter somewhat difficult to explain, and it had been a great gratification to him to be able to express his satisfaction at the general substance of the views expressed in the last despatches of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, I think it is very satisfactory that we should have heard from my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Northbrook) so clear and ample a statement of his views on this important matter, because it would be a great misfortune if questions of this magnitude in relation to the government by this country of her most important dependency were regarded either as Party questions or as matters principally concerning the individual reputation of particular statesmen. These matters are really of great importance, and I think my noble Friend has done a public service in giving the weight of his authority to doctrines which he conceives to be right doctrines, and to which, as I understood his statement of them, I entirely accede. In the first place, the most important misunderstanding in this Correspondence is that to which my noble Friend has alluded last—namely, with respect to telegraphic communication. I do not think that either he or the Government of India have stated in too strong language the danger that would result if in important emergencies, when delay is a serious evil, they were forced to consult with any distant authority before taking such measures, either executive or legislative, as those emergencies might seem to demand. To every officer, high or low, in India, the discretion must be delegated in moments of urgency of doing what is needed by the public interest, and that discretion must à fortiori be conceded to the highest officer of all—the Governor General. I do not think the terms of my original despatch contained in them any instruction of so pernicious a character as was understood to be conveyed in them by the
  508
  Government of India; but as the same apprehension was felt by noble. Lords who had previously been Secretaries of State, and was expressed with some vehemence in the earlier part of the Session, I am bound to assume that my despatches were wanting in that quality which my noble Friend tells us is characteristic of Indian Papers—that is to say, they were not sufficiently voluminous; and that if I had explained things at greater length considerable controversy would have been avoided. It was the same with respect to the Indian Tariff. I thought that I had in my despatch stated with sufficient distinctness that the Customs reform which we desired to establish, and to which we attached very great importance, would have to be accomplished out of such margin as the surplus revenue might yield, and was not by any means intended to involve any increase of taxation. That that was my view long before any of these discussions arose, I may prove by mentioning that I stated it with great emphasis—as I felt myself bound to do—to a deputation of Manchester merchants, and I agree with my noble Friend that the difficulties incident to such a measure in India are so great, and they are accompanied, especially in the case of income tax, with such disadvantages connected with the necessity of employing Native agency, that it is only in a very serious emergency that we should wish to suggest or to authorize any new taxation of that kind. I think the apprehensions of the Government of India were not based on anything to be found in my despatch. But I am inclined to think they agree with the view of the interpretation of my despatch which seems to me the natural one, for they say that they themselves inferred from it on the whole that we did not intend to increase taxation. It is true that the policy which we then invited the Government of India to pursue in that way has for the moment become impossible. In November of last year the exchange on silver was 1s. 9½d. It has fallen to something like 1s. 6½d., although I think matters have a little mended lately. That fall involves a loss to the Government of India in the mere bringing home of the money which the Home Government spends of a sum of not less than £2,000,000 a-year. It is needless to say that that loss makes the giving up (out of a surplus) of the

  509
  £800,000 involved in the change which we indicated a much more difficult matter than it was while that £2,000,000 a-year were looked upon as safe in the Exchequer. We do not, however, attach less importance than we formerly did to the remission of this duty. We believe it will be of great benefit to the consumers in India, and to those industries to which the protective character of the duty offers a delusive and injurious shelter, and that it will also stimulate that commercial prosperity upon which so much not only of the welfare of the inhabitants, but of the future strength of the Indian revenue must be held to depend. We, therefore, do not, as I have said, attach less importance than we formerly did to the remission of this tax; but we feel strongly that the finances of India are in a critical condition, and that until the present sources of danger are removed or seriously mitigated it would not be safe to consider any extensive remission of taxation. But these are matters of comparatively small moment if you consider them by the side of the large Constitutional question of the relations of the Government of England to the Government of India round which a great portion of the controversy turns. And in that respect, too, I think our intentions were misunderstood by the Government of India, and, to a great extent, by noble Lords opposite in an earlier part of the Session. The position of the Government of India towards the Government of England appears to be exceedingly plain. It is impossible to recognize in the Government of India the slightest claim to independence. Nay, more, you cannot recognize in them that sort of qualified independence which we concede to the responsible Governments and the elected Parliaments of Canada and Australia. If any such concession were to be made, it would be necessary to give to the Government of India a perfectly new structure, which would be wholly unsuited to the present circumstances of the country, and which the necessities of our position in India would absolutely preclude. Therefore, the supremacy of the Home Government must be maintained intact, in language perfectly unqualified, as far as any question of right or claim is concerned. But the matter is different when you come to questions of prudence and of policy. It is then quite
  510
  clear that, as to matters of detail, the affairs of a distant and an alien nation, which cannot be studied by those who are not familiar with the circumstances and the peculiarities of the country, cannot be conducted by orders from a distance. Questions involving great principles should be dealt with by the Home Government, but it is impossible that they can safely undertake to manage matters of detail. In all matters of detail a discretion must, to a very large extent, be left to those on the spot, and as a rule the initiative in all questions of government—that is to say, the duty of making the first proposals on which the Home Government are afterwards to judge is wisely left to them also. Her Majesty's Government have never for a moment suggested that any change in these traditional principles should be made; but what they have required is that they should be informed of those measures, in order that they might be the judges whether the questions raised involved matters of principle or only matters of detail, and whether they were or were not of such a character as required the interference of the Home Government. It was on this ground that Her Majesty's Government required that information, not only upon all executive, but also upon all legislative proposals should be submitted to them before they were carried into effect. We required that that should be done, not for the purpose of constant and petty interferences, not for the purpose of taking the Government of India out of the hands of those to whom it has been committed, and who are upon the spot, but for the purpose of enabling us to judge whether or not we ought to interpose. And the cause of the misunderstanding that arose was this—it was thought that because we desired to have the means of knowing whether we ought to interfere, it was our intention constantly to interfere. We, however, entertained no intention of the kind, our only object being that we at home should be enlightened by a full knowledge of the circumstances of each case and of the designs which the Government of India entertained. It must be remembered that a fuller knowledge of this kind has become necessary as the communications between England and India become more rapid. The telegraph wire does not exist for us

  511
  alone. Constant communications of what is passing in India reach others than those who sit in the India Office. There are frequent attempts to obtain the suspension or the reversal of acts done out in India, and it is a very frequent practice to endeavour to apply to the Home Government political pressure in order to put a stop to proceedings to which parties in India may object. It is impossible that Her Majesty's Government can deal properly with such suggestions and proposals or can exercise duly their duty at once of supervising and of supporting the Government of India unless they are furnished with full information upon all subjects upon which that Government is engaged: and therefore the increase in the rapidity and the ease of communication between this country and India, makes it all the more necessary that the information which we sought should be given to us. The Government of India, in a recent despatch, requested especially that matters concerning financial questions should be excepted from these orders. In reply to that request I have to say that as far as we are personally concerned, we should be very glad to make the exception asked for, because the subject is one which we naturally have not any particular desire to deal with. We have, however, to consider the fact that the British Parliament takes a very great interest in Indian finances, for which we are responsible; that we have to answer Questions, to meet Motions, to refute erroneous views, and to give the information which may be required with regard to those matters, and that, therefore, it is impossible to except the domain of finance especially from the list of subjects upon which we require information. In conclusion, I would say, that in order to explain my view of the relations that exist between the English and Indian Governments, those relations are not unlike those that are maintained between the Home Government and a General commanding in the field. In the latter case any constant interference in the details of movement would be accompanied by those failures which history has associated with the name of the Aulic Council. But, on the other hand, it must be for the Government at home to determine all great questions of policy; they must say what is to be the object of the campaign, and
  512
  when it shall begin and finish, and the end that it is desired to obtain. And in order that the Home Government may exercise their judgment in these points, it is necessary that they should have the fullest information given to them. That is precisely the position between the Government of India and the Government at home. I do not believe that when once those relations are fully understood any difficulty will be found in working under them. There may be feelings on both sides which it may be necessary to repress, but as long as there is full confidence between the two Governments their respective functions can be kept distinct and their respective duties can be reconciled. I am far from deprecating any such Parliamentary criticism as has been offered upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. On the contrary, the discretion committed to the Government of England with regard to India is so great that it is requisite they should be watched and followed by Parliamentary criticism; and the more these questions are discussed, the more clearly and plainly will come out the sound principles upon which the double Government of India is carried on. It was because I felt that these matters were the subject of some doubt and controversy, and that mistaken ideas prevailed with regard to the important functions of the Government of India, that I laid the Papers on the Table of the House, in order that the attention of Parliament should be invited to the question. It is, therefore, a source of great satisfaction to me that my noble Friend opposite, who of all men has had the best opportunity of judging of these questions, has arrived at conclusions which do not in any material or substantial sense differ from those embodied in the despatches, and that he agrees with me in thinking that whatever acerbity may have characterized some parts of the controversy that arose, the settlement of a common ground of principle is well worth the risk of giving rise to such incidents of controversy. I shall have no objection in laying the additional Papers required on the Table of the House.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA:After what has been said by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, and the noble Earl (the Earl of North-

  513
  brook), who have spoken on this question, I have but a few words to add. It is very satisfactory that the Correspondence which is the subject of this discussion has now been laid before your Lordships. In a country so vast and important as India, in which great events take place almost without a moment's warning, it is of the utmost consequence that the authority of the Governor General in Council should not be impaired; at the same time, no one is more sensible than I am of the necessity of the general control of the Secretary of State and the Home Government, especially as an authority to which appeal may be made in case of differences of opinion within the Council of the Governor General. The Secretary of State should, doubtless, be supplied with the fullest information, and it is due to the noble Earl who has recently relinquished the Government of India (the Earl of Northbrook), to say that all the demi-official correspondence of which I had any cognizance showed the greatest desire to give full information, and to avoid, if possible, any collision of opinion. But if the Governor General is hampered and trammeled by too many leading-strings, it is impossible that he can have confidence to act with the necessary decision and prompitude in the emergencies which are constantly liable to arise. I have, therefore, heard with much pleasure the assurance of the noble Marquess that it is not his intention to depart materially from the manner in which business has heretofore been conducted between the Secretary of State and the Government of India. This assurance will be received in India with the greatest satisfaction.
  Motion agreed to.
  Then, an Address for Copy of reply to despatch from the Government of India, 72 Public, 24th December, 1874, being moved by the Marquess of Salisbury, the same was agreed to.

EDUCATION—SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ABERDAREasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether he has the means of making a Return to this House of the number of Schools in England and Wales in which instruction is given to children above thirteen years
  514
  of age; and, if he has not such means, whether he will take any measure to supply such deficiency? The noble Lord said, there had been exhaustive inquiry into the Universities, public schools, and elementary schools, followed by legislative action, but there had been no inquiry into the state of the schools—except the endowed schools throughout the country—which occupied a position between the elementary and higher class schools, and he believed that on inquiry it would be found that large districts were insufficiently supplied with the means of obtaining such education. He knew it would be impossible for the noble Duke, however well disposed, to furnish the same amount of information on this subject which would be supplied through the medium of a Royal Commission. At the same time, valuable information might be obtained through the large body of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors who were employed by the Department, and the country might in this way get to know the number of these schools, the number of children attending them, and the class of education given there.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that if the noble Lord confined his Question to the number of elementary schools under inspection, there would be no difficulty in furnishing the information. Indeed, he could give it at once. The number of elementary schools under inspection was 15,921, and there were in them 92,251 children who were above 13 years of age, making 3·36 per cent of the scholars on the register of the aided schools. If, however, the reference was not merely to schools under inspection, but to schools of all classes, he had not the means of obtaining the information sought for, and doubted whether the expenditure of time, labour, and money necessary to procure such information would justify the Government in attempting to procure it. If, too, an inquiry were instituted, it was doubtful whether the Return would be even approximately accurate, for the Inspectors were not likely to be able to obtain these particulars. Even now it was difficult to get the work done in the Department, for this work increased day by day with the increase in the number of elementary schools and of the scholars attending there; and the work was likely to become greater if the

  515
  Bill now before the other House were passed. Moreover, the information asked for would be necessarily imperfect, because there must be a number of schools into the condition of which no one would have a right to inquire, and as to which the persons conducting them might be unwilling to give information. Under all the circumstances, he must answer the second part of the noble Lord's Question in the negative.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.