Sitting of 8 August 1876

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Standing Orders Revision [No. 404].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Corrupt Practices at Elections* [291].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*.
Committee—Report—Suez Canal (Shares) [189]; War Department and Post Office (Remuneration, &c.)* [206]; Appellate Jurisdiction [111]; Sheriff Courts (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [289]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Artizans and Labourers Dwellings) (re-comm.)* [287]; Parochial Records* [283]; Companies Acts (1862 and 1867) Amendment* [211]; Legal Practitioners* [43].
Considered as amended—Crossed Cheques* [267]; Queen Anne's Bounty* [278].
Considered as amended —Third Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bilbrough, &c.)* [265], and passed.
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, &c.)* [261]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bath, &c.)* [264].

SPECIAL WIRES.—QUESTION.
MR. M. BROOKSasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that the special telegraph wire from London to Dublin, rented by Government to the Dublin "Freeman's Journal," a leading Irish Liberal newspaper, is one which goes round by Liverpool, and is subject to interruption and delay, of which frequent complaint has been made; whether another newspaper in the same city has a "direct" special wire from London viâ Holy head, which is not liable to such interruptions; whether any difference is made in the rental of these two wires; and, whether it is his intention to take means to secure equality of Government telegraphic facilities for all newspapers in the same district?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: In reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that it is a fact that the special wire rented by The Freeman's Journal goes by way of Liverpool, and I am sorry to say that complaints have been made as to interruption and delay. It is also a fact that The Irish Times has a direct special wire from London to Dublin. Both wires are viâ Holyhead, and the rental of both wires is the same. The Irish Times rented its wire at the
816
period of the transfer of the telegraphs to the State in 1870, and The Freeman's Journal only rented its wire since February 1872. It would be obviously unfair to deprive The Irish Times of the wire which it has had since 1870, and at present a direct wire cannot be spared for The Freeman's Journal. In fact, the hon. Gentleman will see that it is rather a case of first come first served.
MR. M. BROOKS: As to the amount of rent?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: I have said that the rent is the same in both cases.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. M. BROOKSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the "Freeman's Journal," a leading newspaper of Ireland, is the only one of the five daily papers in Dublin to which Government advertisements are not sent; whether it is the only one of the five Dublin daily papers professing Liberal and Home Rule principles; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the official list of the Irish newspapers to which Government advertisements were sent when Her Majesty's Ministers entered office, with a statement of the changes which have since been made, and the reasons for each such change?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I think this Question would have been more properly addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury than to myself; but, as a matter of fact, I believe that The Freeman's Journal does not receive all the Government advertisements. It is really no part of my business to inform the hon. Member whether that journal is or is not the only daily paper in Dublin professing Liberal or Home Rule principles; though I did not know up to this time that those political epithets were synonymous. The terms of the hon. Member's Question seem to imply an idea that Government advertisements are to be regarded in the light of a subsidy to the Press, and that The Freeman's Journal ought not to be deprived of its participation in that advantage by the peculiar and apparently unpopular principles which it professes; but Government advertisements are inserted in news-

817
papers in order to make those persons who may be likely to supply the Government wants acquainted with them. The different Departments advertise their wants in those papers which they think possess the most general circulation, not so much amongst the public at large as amongst the class by which their wants are likely to be supplied. I have no such official list as that alluded to in the last part of the Question; but I know that many newspapers in Ireland opposed to the present Government in political opinion receive advertisements from one Department or another of the Government. For instance, some advertisements sent out from the Chief Secretary's Office are inserted in The Freeman's Journal, and I have no doubt that the Secretary to the Treasury would be prepared to consider any arguments which the hon. Member may adduce with the view of showing that it would be for the public advantage that more advertisements should be inserted in that newspaper than now appear there.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONVICT CHRISTOS BAUMBOS.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering that the only evidence against the Greek, Christos Baumbos (now under sentence of death), was the evidence of those who had killed his companions, rightly or wrongly, and considering there are grave doubts entertained by many persons as to the guilt of the condemned man, and considering also that one jury had refused to find him guilty, it is his intention to recommend to the Crown any alteration of the sentence?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I cannot admit the accuracy of the statements contained in the hon. Member's Question, either as to the evidence against the condemned man, or as to the doubts said to be entertained as to his guilt. I believe one jury refused to find him guilty of murder because a single juryman, being adverse to capital punishment, stood out for a verdict of manslaughter. No memorial has been presented on the convict's behalf, nor has the Judge who tried the case made any recommendation to the Government with
818
regard to it. It is my duty to add, that I am not aware of any circumstances that would justify me in advising the Lord Lieutenant to interfere with the sentence of the law.

NAVY—THE NAVAL RESERVE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he intends this autumn to place as many of the seamen of the Naval Reserve as he can collect on board coast defence or other ironclad ships, for the purpose of being exercised in sea-going manœuvres in place of the present harbour and skeleton drill; and, further, to inquire how many torpedo boats, if any, he intends placing at the principal seaports of the United Kingdom for the purpose of instructing the men of the Coast Guard, Naval Reserve, and Coast Volunteers in the art of working them?
  MR. HUNT,in reply, said, he had no power of placing Naval Reserve men on board sea-going ships, unless they volunteered for such service. It was not his intention to invite them this autumn so to volunteer, because the iron-clad ships in the Reserve had already been out for their annual cruise, and had completed it. With regard to the second Question, the defence of the commercial harbours was in the hands, not of the naval, but of the military authorities, and all the Admiralty had to do was to apply for the Votes necessary to enable them then to lay down torpedoes.

  NAVY—RETIRED NAVAL COMMANDERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What conclusion he had arrived at respecting the Petition presented to the Admiralty by a large number of Commanders who have retired since the year 1870, praying that a step in rank may be granted to them, the privilege having already been conceded to Captains by Order in Council, 1870?
  MR. HUNT: I have obtained an Order in Council to enable me to give effect to the prayer of the memorialists, and their names will appear in to-night's Gazette.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—VACCINATION ACTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has received a statement from Mr. and Mrs. Fry of Andover to the effect that their infant child died from the direct effects of vaccination on April 25th, after five weeks of dreadful suffering, the child having been previously healthy and free from any constitutional taint; whether he has received a report on this case from the Local Government Board Inspector; and, if so, whether it is the fact that in conducting his investigation, the Inspector did not visit the parents of the deceased child, nor examine the child from which the lymph was taken, and which is alleged to have ''had a running sore in its arm, of a most offensive nature, for nine weeks;" and, whether in fact his report was founded merely on the cause of death as entered in the register?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, he had heard from Mr. and Mrs. Pry, but not until after Notice of the hon. Gentleman's Question had been given, and they in reply to an inquiry stated that they believed their child died from the direct effects of vaccination. They did not, however, give any particulars. This was one of four cases which had been brought under his notice by a letter from Mr. Pearce, of Andover, dated 6th of May last; and by his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) directions a medical Inspector was sent down to make inquiry into the four cases reported to him. This was on the 25th of May. The general result of that inquiry had already been stated by him, in reply to a Question put to him by another hon. Gentleman—namely, that the cause of death was not in any of those cases attributable to vaccination. In reply to the second Question put to him by the hon. Gentleman, the Inspector, he might state, informed him that he did not, when making his inquiries, call upon Mr. and Mrs. Pry, because, as he had been informed, their child had then been one month dead, and because he had previously an opportunity of seeing the same child on the 7th of April, when he was making his usual tour of inspection. At that time the child appeared to him to be in excellent health, and the vaccination had been performed about 18 days. In reply
  820
  to the third Question of the hon. Member, the Inspector informed him that he had not seen the cause of death on the register, but he understood from the medical attendant of the child that it died of bronchitis.

  TREATY OF VIENNA, 1815—THE POLISH LANGUAGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to recent proceedings for the suppression of the use of the Polish language in the Civil and Criminal Courts of the Grand Duchy of Posen, contrary to the 2nd and 118th Articles of the Treaty of Vienna? To explain the Question, he said that Article 1 of the Treaty provided that "Polish subjects of Russia, Austria, and Prussia shall have such national institutions as are judged in accordance with the polity of each of three Powers." Article 2 recognized Posen as united to Prussia. Article 118 incorporated and confirmed a separate Treaty of the 3rd of May. By that Treaty Russia and Prussia assured such institutions to the Polish subjects of each as shall preserve their nationality; and the Proclamation of Frederick William III., dated Vienna, 15th May, 1815, declared to the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy, parted from that of Warsaw, and incorporated with the Kingdom of Prussia, that their language should be used concurrently with German in all public acts.
  MR. BOURKE: I do not know exactly to what my hon. Friend alludes, but conjecture that he refers to a debate which occurred in the Prussian Parliament in June last on the subject of the Official Language Bill. This debate called forth strong speeches from the Polish Deputies, and a résuméof the debate was sent to Her Majesty's Government in the usual way; but I fail to see in what way the 2nd and 118th Articles of the Treaty of Vienna affect the question, because the 2nd Article merely defines the limits of the Grand Duchy of Posen, and the 118th Article merely enumerates and confirms the various other Treaties which were made in 1815, and are declared part of the arrangements of the Congress. Neither of these Articles makes any allusion to the Polish language. It is true that

  821
  by a Proclamation issued by the King of Prussia on the 15th of May, 1815, the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Posen were assured that their language would, be used conjointly with the German in all public Acts; but the Proclamation was no part or parcel of the Treaty.

INDIA—THE KIRWEE BOOTY.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SHUTEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is intended to refer the unadjusted prize claims of Sir George Whitlock's force as regards the Kirwee Booty to the High Court of Admiralty; and, whether more prompt steps cannot be taken to settle these claims?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, it was not intended to refer any question relating to the Kirwee booty to the High Court of Admiralty, or to reverse any decision that had already been arrived at; but the Secretary of State for India had communicated to the Indian Government his opinion that the account should be wound up, and any assets that remained distributed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  PLUMSTEAD AND WORMHOLT COMMONS.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKErose to move, as an Amendment, that—
  "The action of the War Office with reference to Plumstead Common, in the county of Kent, and Wormholt Common, in the manor of Fulham, is such as to imperil the use of those open spaces for recreation by the people of the metropolis."
  The hon. Baronet began by quoting as a precedent for the discussion even of general grievances on the Appropriation Bill, that of 7th August, 1875, when the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr.
  822
  Mitchell Henry) had asked for the release of the Fenian prisoners. The grievance that he (Sir Charles Dilke) had to put before the House was of an urgent nature, and he had exhausted all other means of obtaining discussion upon it since it had been placed in his hands by his constituents—the jury of the Court Leet of the manor of Fulham. Moreover, this was a case properly to be discussed upon the Appropriation Bill, inasmuch as it concerned money Votes in the Estimates, for the War Office called on the nation to pay annual rent to the commoners of Fulham and to the Lord of Plumstead. The hon. Baronet then went on:—I confess I think that I have so strong a case that the Home Secretary, after all his declarations of this Session, ought to help me against the War Office. I say 'War Office,' and not 'Secretary of State for War,' because some of the steps taken in this matter were taken by the late Government, and have only been continued and extended by the Government now in office. It may be remembered that in 1874 I asked the Secretary of State for War, whether steps were being taken by the War Office of a nature calculated to limit the use of Wormholt Common, or Wormwood Scrubbs, by the commoners or by the public. He replied that the common in question had long been used by the troops for drill.
  "In order to secure the property it had been purchased, subject to the rights of the commoners. Negotiations were now going on with the commoners for the purpose of buying out their rights and giving them adequate compensation. There was no necessity at present to put in force the provisions of the Defence Act; but, if the commoners vexatiously interfered with the use of the place for drilling troops, it might be necessary to put those provisions in operation. As to the common being lost to the public, the object of the purchase was to keep it open."—[3 Hansard, ccxviii. 230.]
  With regard to this last remark, why, if the War Office want to keep the common open, should they buy up and extinguish all rights in it except their own? Why not have these rights existing? Why convert the common into freehold property? With regard, too, to an earlier portion of the answer, what is this 'vexatious interference' which is expected from the commoners? Their position has been all along a very intelligible one. They have begged only to be let alone. I may add that I

  823
  was astounded at the admission of the Secretary of State that the putting in force of the Defence Act against the commoners of the manor of Fulham had been contemplated for one instant. The Defence Act is purely an Act for the defence of the Realm against the King's enemies. The Preamble recites the finding of the Fortifications Commissioners in favour of the building of fresh forts. It cannot be for a moment contended by any man who reads it that Parliament meant the War Office to compulsorily acquire under the Defence Act lands for the drilling of troops. Yet the War Office has threatened, and still threatens, to take this monstrous step. The War Office purchased for the sum of £28,000, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, their rights, as lords of the manor, over 140 acres of the common. Now, the lord of the manor of Fulham never had the right to break ground, and being prohibited from digging gravel, I venture to assert that the lord's rights were not worth purchasing, not worth one single penny. The sum of £28,000, paid for these rights by the War Office, has been thrown away! Not only thrown away! Worse than thrown away! The effect of a payment of this kind is to greatly raise the price of lords' rights in the case of all commons in the neighbourhood of London, and to force the Metropolitan Board, as representing the ratepayers of London, to pay unfair prices for the lords' rights in the case of all commons that they may wish, in the interest of the metropolis, to acquire. Wormholt Common is leased by the commoners to the War Office as a drill ground. It has long been much so used, without its use by the commoners' cattle and by the public being prevented. I really do not know why the Crown wants to acquire the freehold. The War Office, two years ago, offered a low price to the commoners for their rights. Now, the commoners do not want to sell at all, but if they are made to sell they want to get a proper price. This they ask, as I shall presently explain, not in their own interest, but in that of the poor. The present revenue from the common is between £400 and £500 a-year. Part of this is received from the War Office, under the lease to which I have just made allusion, £100 a-year comes from various Volunteer corps, £150 a-year is
  824
  derived from the grazing rights, but this sum is not a real rent, and does not in the least represent the value of the rights, but something more like one-tenth only of the value. The grazing is a privilege of the commoners, and the sums received are only intended to check abuse and regulate the use of the privilege. If the grazing were to be let by the commoners to outsiders, not having rights of common, a vastly greater rent would be received. The commoners think that they have not only been harshly dealt with as to terms, but also as to the language in which the offers of the War Office have been made. After my Motion was placed upon the Paper the commoners were offered the sum of £10,000, and told that 'they need not expect one penny more,' as though their object was to extort money from the Crown. The commoners, I am entitled from my interviews with them to state, do not want the money. Their anxious wish is to be let alone in the exercise of their undoubted rights, and to spend their income in the future as they spend it now, not upon themselves, but upon the poor. But I look at this question not from the point of view of the commoners so much as from that of the metropolitan public. Pay the commoners what you will; I contend that you have acted most unwisely in paying £28,000 for the worthless rights of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and I would ask who advised the payment of that sum? Moreover, I ask, also, why do you wish to acquire the freehold at all, and what security have we that the common will not be built on. Your word? Yes; but how about your successors in 10 or 20 years? Nothing but the promise of a special Act of Parliament will suffice. Again, I hear that the commoners, frightened by your threats of putting the Defence Act in force, are withdrawing their opposition to a sale, taking less than their rights are worth. Who suffers? Not the commoners, but the Waste Lands Almshouse! Not the commoners, but the poor! I cannot see how the Alms-house, at present supported out of the revenues of the common, is to be kept alive. I have a list of the tenants of that Almshouse, from which I find that they are persons of exceedingly advanced age; indeed, there are 11 of them over 80, who, as far as I can see, will be

  825
  turned into the streets if the commoners' rights are extinguished in this way. I come now to the equally shameful action of the War Office in the case of the east end common of Plumstead. This common and Bostall Heath contain together about 160 acres. Up to 1859, though troops were drilled there, the common was largely used for the purpose of recreation by the inhabitants of Woolwich, and used also by the commoners of the manor in the exercise of their rights of common. In 1859, Queen's College, Oxford, to which the manor belongs, began a high-handed course of action, with the view to crush the freeholders and build upon the common. In 1866 a suit was instituted in Chancery, at great cost, praying that the College might be restrained from inclosing. This suit was heard in 1870, when judgment was given against the College. That judgment was appealed against, and was confirmed by the Lord Chancellor in 1871. On this latter occasion the Lord Chancellor concluded his decision with the following memorable words:—
  "The inquiry has been occasioned by a highhanded assertion on the part of the College, who seem simply to have said to those who have been exercising their rights for 200 years, 'You will be in a difficulty to prove that you have exercised them, so we will put you to that proof by taking possession of your property.' Now, that is what it really is when you come to an in closure done against those who have so long exercised the right to which I am thankful to be able to afford a legal origin."
  After this happy decision we really thought that our money had not been spent in vain. Nothing took place until the end of 1873, when it was proposed to prepare a scheme for the management of the common in the interest of the inhabitants of the metropolis. It was then suddenly discovered that there was a lease, just made, from Queen's College to the War Office. We were forced to abandon our scheme. But what is the value of this lease? Who advised it? Queen's College could lease only what it had. What rights has it to lease to the War Office that can be worth to the War Office between £300 and £400 a-year rent? On the other hand, what of the poor commoners? What compensation have they received for their rights established at great cost in the suit? What of the unfortunate public? The common
  826
  was always used for military drill, but since 1873 it has been cut to pieces and the turf entirely destroyed by artillery. It is now a very fair copy of the African Sahara. Had Queen's College the right as against the commoners to cut the turf to pieces by the use of artillery? Why, an injunction would have stopped such a course at once if it had been tried. But last week, when an injunction against the War Office was applied for, the Judge said—"Even if the Crown could commit a trespass, a subject could not sue for it." Is that Star Chamber doctrine still good law? May the artillery come and knock my private garden to pieces, and I be without the ordinary remedies of law? The whole of the advantages gained by the freeholders of the manor at a very heavy cost by the Chancery suit have been lost by the action of the War Office. Now, two years ago I asked the Secretary of State for War under what title the artillery cut to pieces the common. He replied that—
  "The artillery enjoyed the same right to practice on Plumstead Common which had been enjoyed since 1745."—[3 Hansard, ccxxi. 1145.]
  Now, I venture to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. If he rests his right on prescription, why does he pay between £300 and £400 a-year to Queen's College for a lease? If he rests it on the lease of 1873, why did he talk to me about ' the same right which had been enjoyed since 1745?' He might as well have said 'since the flood.' If it is a Parliamentary expression—no more disingenuous answer was ever made. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman himself of the offence. It was a clerk who wrote the reply for him, of course. I remember—it was before I was in the House, but I have read of it—when a Secretary of State for War rose in his place to give an answer to a Question about an escort. He read from the clerk's paper in his hand—'The escort consisted of 20 rank and file;' 'that is,' he added, 'of 40 men.' No doubt it is better for Ministers to avoid the errors and to say what they are told to say by clerks; but, in this case, the reply which I received was not a proper one. I am told that, since my Motion has been placed upon the Paper, the War Office has proposed a compromise. I shall be glad to hear

  827
  what the details of the compromise may be. In that which I have heard talked of, the cloven foot again appears. It is suggested that the War Office should give up half the common, but acquire, by means of the Defence Act, the whole of the rights over the rest. This is a fatal policy which we cannot possibly allow in the case of any common, without taking steps to test the right of the War Office to put the Defence Act in force for purposes of this kind. I can only warn the Secretary of State that in acquiring any property of the kind he should acquire it by a special Act of Parliament, rather than by straining the Defence Act to include cases which it never was meant to meet.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the action of the War Office with reference to Plum stead Common, in the county of Kent, and Wormholt Common, in the manor of Fulham, is such as to imperil the use of those open spaces for recreation by the people of the metropolis,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BOORDwished to say a very few words in support of the Amendment. He complimented the hon. Baronet on the very lucid statement he had laid before the House, and also on the ingenious method he had chosen to escape from an embarrassing situation. He had succeeded in showing that the late Government were greatly to blame in this matter, and to make their fault appear less he had attempted to throw a still greater responsibility on the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. However that might be, the fact remained that by. Lord Chancellor Hatherley's decision it was evident that there were commoners, and that those commoners had, and exercised, rights of the usual description. But how were they situated now? It was impossible for them to use their rights in consequence of the action of the War Department. The condition of the common had been correctly described by the hon. Baronet as that of a desert. But behind the commoners there was a still more important body—the public—which was represented in that locality chiefly by the operatives
  828
  employed in the Royal Arsenal. He (Mr. Boord) would not contend for one moment that the public as such had any clearly defined legal right of user of the common; but the desirability of preserving open spaces for public recreation being universally admitted, it was convenient to regard the rights of the commoners as a means to that end. An arrangement had been proposed by an able member of the Woolwich Local Board (Mr. Lloyd), and he trusted that it would receive due consideration at the hands of the Secretary of State for War. He would not occupy the time of the House by following the hon. Baronet through the details of his argument, but would simply appeal to his right hon. Friend to consider this matter fairly, and see if some arrangement could not be made whereby those who toiled in the arsenal might have the opportunity for the recreation they so much needed.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the hon. Member for Chelsea had taken a somewhat unusual course upon this question, because he had asked the House to come to a conclusion on the subject without placing any documentary evidence before them, and his Motion, if passed, would practically be a Vote of Censure not only on the present, but also on the past Government. He believed, however, that the hon. Baronet did not intend to press his Motion to a division, and that his real object was merely to elicit information on the subject, which he should be very happy to give him. The hon. Baronet had said that he (Mr. Hardy) had given a disingenuous answer when he spoke of the common having been used by the Artillery since the year 1740. Well, in reply to that, he could only say that he did not think that the Crown was bound any more than a private individual to disclose the nature of its title, especially at a time when other persons were seeking to set its rights aside, and that in this respect it was entitled to an equal protection of the law with a private owner. He would only make a few remarks as to the course taken with respect to these commons. With regard to Plumstead Common the facts stood thus:—Since 1740 the Crown had, without leave or licence from any person, used the common for practising the evolutions of artillery. His predecessor in office (Lord Cardwell) thought,

  829
  however, it would be better to become possessed of the rights of the lords of the manor, so as to relieve himself from any opposition on their part. He (Mr. Hardy) quite admitted that the commoners also had rights over the common, and he would go further, and concede that the population of Greenwich had acquired certain rights of recreation in regard to it which ought to be respected. Negotiations, however, were now going on which he trusted would result in a satisfactory solution for all parties of the difficulty that had arisen; but he did not think that it would be prudent or desirable to state the stage those negotiations had reached to the House at the present moment. With respect to the rights of the Crown, the Master of the Rolls had most emphatically said it was impossible to get an injunction against the Crown, because it was itself the Fountain of Justice. No doubt the surface of the common was cut up to a greater extent by the heavy artillery, which required 8 or 12 horses to each gun, than it had been by the light artillery of former years; but that was a matter that could not be helped. It was in 1873 that his predecessor had obtained- a lease, and certainly up to that time no complaint had been made by the commoners as to the use of the common. But since then not only private individuals, but the local board of Woolwich, had been anxious to come to some terms with the Government. He desired that facilities should be given for the recreation of the people; but holding the office he did he had also to look to the military requirements of the country, and he was not prepared to give up the rights which the Government had exercised unless it could be shown that he was entirely in the wrong. He declined to go into the question of the negotiations that were going on. He did not at all despair of making arrangements which would be satisfactory at once to the locality and to the Government. The Defence Act had not been put into operation with regard either to Plum-stead Common or Wormwood Scrubbs; and if any question arose as to the force of that statute it would have to be determined, not by that House, but by the ordinary Courts of Law. With regard to Wormwood Scrubbs, Lord Cardwell had purchased the rights of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as lords of the
  830
  common, for the Crown, which he had paid for out of the £3,500,000 voted by Parliament under the Localization Act. If an invasion of this country ever occurred Wormwood Scrubbs might become of great importance for the erection of fortifications, and his predecessor had purchased the freehold of 54½ acres of land adjoining the Scrubbs at a cost of £24,600, in order to secure a large space for the exercise of the Cavalry, and which might ultimately be thrown open for public recreation. There was no intention to interfere with the rights of the commoners or of the public over the Scrubbs, and indeed the former received a rent from the Government for the use that was made of it, which circumstance was a sufficient proof that no confiscation of their rights was intended. He wished to point out, however, that some scheme with regard to these open spaces should be adopted which would render the public use of them more advantageous and less obnoxious to the neighbourhood than was at present the case. He trusted the House would leave the whole matter in the hands of the Executive. It would be impossible for it to come to any satisfactory conclusion on the Resolution of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not think it necessary to discuss this matter in a hostile spirit. The ground of complaint with respect to Plumstead Common was not so much the use of the common by the troops as its abuse. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the War Office had a right arising from long use to that common for military purposes. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: The Crown.] Well, the Crown. He should be glad to know if that right rested upon any bettor ground than the right of the public to use the common. He was afraid that it had no other basis. All that the hon. Member for Chelsea had asked of the Government was that further proceedings should not be taken in the matter until it was submitted to the decision of Parliament. The excessive use of the common had really rendered it totally unsuitable for the purpose of public recreation; and he had a memorial from people living in the neighbourhood to that effect. The public considered that the War Office was not the best authority to define the right of use of the commons as between that Department and the public. The obser-

  831
  vations of the hon. Member for Chelsea had pointed to a scheme for the regulation of these commons under the Metropolitan Commons Act, and the suggestion was deserving of the attention of the Government.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea would be satisfied if the Government would give an assurance that the rights of the commoners would not be purchased until Parliament had considered the matter. If the Government would give that promise, and subsequently introduce a scheme of regulation, he believed that the object in view would be sufficiently met.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had not the least objection to say this much—that he would conclude no arrangements before the beginning of next Session, so that there might be information before the House on the subject.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  SUEZ CANAL SHARES BILL— [BILL 189.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that before they went to that stage he thought the House would like to have some little information as to the state of the undertaking. He thought the thing might be said to have settled down, so far as the outside public were concerned, and to have assumed its normal condition. Most of the things had happened which they had expected. The money and the interest on the money at the exorbitant rate agreed on had been paid—all that was done with. Then they had obtained three votes on the Council of the Board of Directors. The Council had been increased to 24 from 21, and three of these places had been given to gentlemen who represented the Government. They had not obtained, so far as he was aware, the recognition of any votes at all in the General Assembly of the Company. He should be glad to know if
  832
  that was correct? He should also like very much to know whether their Directors would be admitted to the General Assembly of the Company as well as to the Council? All these things it was very desirable should be known. The Khedive had pledged himself for the interest on the large sum advanced; but in this matter they had to rely on a Power which had declared itself unable to fulfil its pecuniary engagements, and he should, therefore, like to know whether there was any special agreement that we should be paid, at all events, or whether we should have to take our chance with the rest of his creditors; and whether in that case we should exercise any influence with the Khedive that we should be paid in full, when so many were not paid in full, or not paid at all? It would be very interesting to know all these things. He should further like to know, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated doing, what was often done in bankruptcy—namely, capitalizing the whole matter, and taking a dividend upon that? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not take any particular amount of credit to himself or the Government for the fact that he had obtained three directorships in the Company; because, as was shown on the former debate when the Papers were laid on the Table, M. de Lesseps had been always ready—as early as 1871—to admit three Directors into the Council. M. de Lesseps was extremely frank upon the subject, because he said that would be the very way to preserve the Company under French influence. It would give the appearance but not the reality of power. Therefore, he did not expect much to be made of it. Then there was another point—the settlement of the question of the surtax—and he did not think that we could claim any great diplomatic victory in that matter either, because it had been shown by M. Lesseps that we did not gain by it anything more than he chose to give us. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in giving an account of the state of this undertaking, would steer clear of vague generalities, and that we should be paid no more with wind for our money. On former occasions when they asked what they had gained by this purchase, they had been told that it had strengthened the position of the Empire; and, if

  833
  that statement were to be repeated, he should desire that the logical connection between the purchase and that result should be stated. They had been told that they had interests in the Mediterranean which they must and would preserve at all hazards; but how would the purchase of these shares enable us to preserve them? They were told that the great highway of India must be kept open. That was perfectly right; but how would the flinging of £4,000,000 into the lap of the Khedive, on which we should probably receive no interest for 19 years, help us to keep that highway open? Now that the first blush of the thing was over, and the glory had got rather stale, the Government might reasonably be asked to state how the matter really stood, and what real advantage we had gained by the purchase of these shares which we should not have had if we had not purchased these shares at all. He thought the House ought not to separate before hearing from the Government what good we were to get out of the enormous expenditure which we had made in this matter.
  MR. GOURLEYwas anxious to know precisely the meaning and object of the purchase of these shares. At the time when the purchase was made the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at Manchester, said there were considerations in the present case which took the transaction out of the region of our financial policy, and that it was not to be drawn into a precedent. He should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what those considerations were? So far as he was himself able to judge, the purchase of a portion of the Canal would leave this country in a much worse position than if we had not possessed any shares at all; because, in the event of any complications with foreign Governments, those Governments would naturally seek to have the right to navigate the Canal by vessels of war equally with ourselves, and we should not be able to prevent them, except by keeping a fleet of ships on the spot for the purpose, which might prove very inconvenient. He believed that Her Majesty's Government entered into this transaction without really knowing what the object was. What we ought to have done, if anything at all, was to have purchased the whole Canal, so as to obtain entire control over
  834
  it, and in that event the Government would have received the support of the country. As it was, we were only in the position of ordinary shareholders. It was to be hoped we should some day acquire the whole property.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, we had reserved the right to interfere whenever the interests of the Canal were at stake, inasmuch as we were proprietors of half the Canal, and that should be the first step towards redeeming the whole by a process similar to that by which the Sound Dues were redeemed. It was necessary to do something to enable us to lower the charges, which were very high, and often amounted to one-third of a ship's freight. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider the Treasury Minute, which was published on the 17th of July, with regard to the three directors by whom this country was to be represented on the Canal Company's Board, because that Minute was likely to raise very serious legal questions in France. Even although its terms were accepted by the Council of the Company, he did not think that it would hold good against third parties. The statutes of the Company laid down that each director must be the actual proprietor of 100 shares. Consequently, the Government said in that Minute that it had become necessary to provide each of those gentlemen with that number of shares; but he believed that the way in which that had been done would not give them the requisite qualification. If those shares had the coupons detached, they were clearly not qualfying shares; and although our directors were registered holders of shares, they were bound to give the profits to the Government, which gave them a fixed stipend, to include both their profits and their pay as directors. Therefore, they had no interest in promoting the future success of the Company. The Minute also directed an instrument to be executed by their nominees to the Council, binding them to return their shares to the Treasury in the event of their bankruptcy. But if these gentlemen were proprietors of shares, and yet returned a portion of their assets in case of bankruptcy, that bankruptcy would assume a very remarkable character. But in such a contingency which, of course, he did not anticipate, the French law would sequestrate these shares. It seemed to him

  835
  that the arrangement was one which would lower the dignity of our representatives on the Board of Directors, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the Minute in question.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that most of the disadvantages attending the purchase has resulted from Parliamentary and public discussion. However much we might injure our own position, we could not lose the advantage we had acquired by the purchase. It was not to be expected that Ministers should say in so many words what a private Member like himself might say; but there was no reason why he should not say that, in certain contingencies, the property must be taken possession of by the fleets of this country, and no one could doubt that part ownership would strengthen our position in holding it. That purchase had given us the status and a moral justification to interfere which we did not before possess. Great questions frequently arose upon which it was necessary to take public action, but in regard to which the Government could not discuss all the causes and all the "ins and outs" of the subject. That was the case at present; but what the Government had done would enable us with more justice, reason, and authority to assume a practical control over the Suez Canal when the emergency arose.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he could not regard the possession of the Suez Canal shares as necessary or advantageous. The holding of the shares would not alone keep open our route to our Indian Empire. The share certificates would not prevent a hostile fleet from closing the passage of the Canal in the event of an European complication; in one way only could that route be kept open, and that was by having a more powerful fleet than any that could be brought against us. Our fleet being swept away, what power was there in these £4,000,000 of worthless paper? Surely his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) did not suppose that the destinies of European nations could be determined by means of scraps of paper? No justification for the action which Government had taken could be based upon ground such as that. Then what security did the shares offer for the route to India, seeing that with or without
  836
  the possession of the shares still the only safeguard was a powerful fleet? Looking at the transaction from a business point of view he would like to ask the Government whether they had conducted the purchase in a businesslike manner. In the first place, why was the transaction entered into at all? That was a question the importance of which demanded a fuller discussion than it had received, and the opportunity for that discussion should have been provided at an earlier part of the Session. The Bill before the House was first mentioned some months ago, and it was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time back, and now when the House was weary, when there was but a thin attendance of Members, and those anxious to get away, they were called upon to discuss this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) had challenged the Government to lay before the House the reasons which induced such a large expenditure of public money; he (Mr. Rylands) would not venture to attempt to add force to that appeal, for he felt sure that it would receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would content himself with taking lower ground, and looking at it merely as a business transaction he asked why did the Government purchase an article for £4,000,000 with a guarantee of 5 per cent when that same article could have been bought in Paris for £3,800,000, with a guarantee of 10 or 12 per cent? Unless in the reports which had reached him the truth was grossly misrepresented, £1,500,000 had been considered the full market value of the shares. Such was the statement which appeared in The Times newspaper, and he had seen no contradiction. But it was asked what guarantee was there that the Khedive would pay the 10 or 12 per cent when it was known that he was actually borrowing money for which he was paying 20 and 25 per cent, and people were not disposed to lend the Khedive money at any price. But that consideration applied equally to the guarantee of 5 per cent, and there was no reason why Government should buy the shares upon higher terms than they were offered at. Her Majesty's Government, however, met the Khedive with most

  837
  unusual generosity; they thought they ought to deal with him handsomely, that it was a great international undertaking, and that the Khedive could not be treated in an ordinary business manner. There was an elevation of sentiment about this; but, still, he (Mr. Rylands) failed to see in it a justification for giving for the shares a price beyond what any other capitalist would have offered. The Government were led to suppose that other parties were negotiating for the purchase of the shares; but he was inclined to believe that the English Government were imposed upon in these operations. Then after paying £4,000,000 we were absolutely unable to qualify our directors upon the company, and to get out of this absurd position when three directors were appointed we were obliged to purchase shares for £8,000 more. And so it came to this—that our commercial interest upon the Board was represented by £8,000 worth of shares, and upon the power of that sum our representatives depended! Whether we were right in the question of the qualification or whether we were wrong he was not prepared to say. One question he would like to put, and that was, whether steps had been taken to secure compensation to Sir Daniel Lange, who lost the position he held with the Company owing to the action of the Government in publishing a private letter sent by him. That gentleman was closely connected with the progress of that great work, and he endeavoured to serve his country. Some satisfaction was due to him from the Government of this country, whose inconsiderate conduct had led to his dismissal. Turning to another matter he expressed his strong disapprobation of the way in which the salary of Mr. Rivers Wilson had been increased in consequence of his having been made a director. If the duties of his office were not sufficient to occupy his attention then let other work be provided for him; but he objected to his holding two positions with two salaries. The action taken by Her Majesty's Government in effecting the purchase of the Suez Canal shares had led to serious pecuniary losses being suffered by many persons owing to the state into which the market for Egyptian securities was thrown by the transaction, and much distress and privation had followed. A week before the Suez Canal
  838
  purchase, Egyptian Stock stood at 54, and it gradually went up to 60, then a large purchase was made at 61—the price next day was 64, and the day after the announcement appeared in The Times of the Suez purchase, and the Stock went up to 74. Some parties, who were in the secret, had made large amounts by their transactions. After a time a reaction occurred, and the Stock fell. What did the Government do then? They commissioned a most important member of their own body to proceed to Egypt under circumstances which led people to believe that the fact foreshadowed a great policy—namely, the taking of Egypt by the hand by the Government of England. Then, again, Egyptian Stocks went up, and people held the bonds with some confidence. What happened then? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen Cave) sent in a Report, and Egyptian Stock was very firm and rising; but the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government stated that the Report must not be published; and then what happened? Down went Egyptian Stock; and so it remained for some time. But on a certain Friday morning there were large orders for the purchase of the Stock from France. No one understood what it meant. The day passed. All the Stock that could be procured was purchased, and the Stock Exchange closed; but in the House of Commons, about half-past 1 o'clock on Saturday morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up in his place and said that they had received intelligence by telegraph that the Khedive assented to the Report of the right hon. Gentleman. What happened then? Why, the following morning up went the Stock. So that there were people who on Friday knew about the telegram, and that the announcement would be made, and the result was that those people in France or Egypt operated in the Stock, and they again made a large plunder; but when the Report came out and was found not to justify the expectations it had given rise to, down went the Stock again. In the same way, Mr. Rivers Wilson was allowed to proceed to Egypt, and that fact enabled the Stock-jobbers to operate, and the Stock again went up and down. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London said that the

  839
  Egyptian policy of the Government was a drama in four acts; but it differed from all other dramas in this—that the grand letting off of fireworks and the transformation scene came first, and now it was ending in a good deal of gloom and disappointment. He did not know how the Government could justify what had been done in the matter. Their policy was, he believed, in any case an unfortunate policy, and might lead to an involvment of this country in Egyptian affairs in a very serious manner. He believed that finally the purchase would not be of importance to this country, while the way in which the negotiations were carried on was a source of great loss to our countrymen. He felt sure that it would come to be looked upon as one of the greatest mistakes the Government had made.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should gladly have waited until any other hon. Members who desired to address the House had done so, but the statement just made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was of so very serious a character, if he understood it rightly, that he was bound at once to ask an explanation of it, and at the same time to complain, as he did most seriously, that the hon. Member, if he had anything of the sort to say, had not mentioned it long ago, or given him notice of his intention to say what he had said. What he understood the hon. Gentleman to say was this—that upon the morning of a certain day, on the evening of which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) read a telegram to the House stating that the Khedive had authorized the publication of the Report of his right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave), orders were sent for the purchase of Egyptian Stock from parties abroad with the knowledge that he was in receipt of that telegram, and was going to communicate it to the House.
  MR. RYLANDS: Oh, I beg your pardon.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THEEXCHEQUER: I certainly so understood the hon. Member.
  MR. RYLANDS: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say I meant to cast no personal imputation whatever upon him. It was the last thing that would come into my mind. I believe fully in the high honour
  840
  of the right hon. Gentleman. What I stated was that some people knew that the telegram was going to be sent, and allowed it to be known, and on their own knowledge took means of operating on the market. They must have known in Cairo, or France, or elsewhere in the morning that it was to be sent in the evening.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas anxious that the matter should be made perfectly clear, because in the way the words of the hon. Member were used they involved a serious charge against himself. [Mr. RYLANDS: "Oh, no, no!" Several hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] He accepted, of course, the disclaimer of the hon. Gentleman, and he felt sure that every one would feel that it was impossible that such a thing could have occurred. He at once and frankly acknowledged that it was to him and his Colleagues matter of most serious anxiety, and had occasioned them the greatest regret, that, in consequence of the transactions that had been going on, there had been from time to time speculations on the Stock Exchange, and that, as they were informed, considerable sums of money had been won and lost on this matter. He hardly knew what one could say on such a matter. This, however, he confidently said, on the part of the Government—that no private information had ever been given or made use of, to the best of their belief, on the subject; and he earnestly entreated that, if there was any suspicion of that kind in any quarter, full inquiry might be made, so that, even at this late period of the Session, steps might be taken to ascertain that there was no foundation whatever for any imputation of that kind. He could believe that among all those different transactions some persons might have obtained some information, and there might have been reason to suppose this, that, or the other, and that some speculations that were very good and some that were very bad might have been made; but he wished to state the facts exactly as they occurred with respect to the publication or non-publication of his right hon. Friend's Report. When that Report was handed to them by his right hon. Friend, they communicated with the Khedive and informed him that they proposed to publish it. Well, the Khedive objected, in the telegram which would be found among the

  841
  Papers. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, in answer to a Question put soon after the receipt of the telegram, gave the answer that had been commented upon, and that answer, unfortunately, was misunderstood. His right hon. Friend intended to have said that the Khedive objected to the publication of the Report, not permanently, but in consequence of the then unsettled question of the financial relations of Egypt. His right hon. Friend adverted to what was in his mind at the time the communications were going on between this Government and the Khedive as to the appointment of a Commissioner from England, but it was understood by the public in another sense, and, unfortunately, that misunderstanding gave a blow to Egyptian credit which they very much regretted for the sake of the Khedive. The consequence was that his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) sent a telegram to the Khedive informing him that the non-publication of the Report was injurious to his credit. The Khedive thereupon sent a telegram to say that be was ready to agree to the Report being published. That telegram was received at the Foreign Office late at night, not earlier than between 11 or 12 o'clock. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government was absent, the business was going on, and he thought he could not do better than, at the earliest moment he could, read the telegram to the House. What was done was done in the regular course of official business, and it had been matter of extreme pain and regret to the Government that any person should have been injuriously affected. As to what communication might have been going on between the Khedive and persons at Cairo or elsewhere he knew nothing; but of this he could entirely assure the House—that if the shadow of a doubt existed in the mind of any hon. Member, or if any hon. Member was aware that among any class in the country any impression or suspicion existed that there was anything in the matter, so far as Her Majesty's Government was concerned, that ought to be inquired into, he implored them, he adjured them in the name of the honour of the Government and of the House, not to allow the matter to rest, but to bring it at once into a condition in which it could be fully inquired into. He would now
  842
  endeavour to answer the different points which had been mooted in the course of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) asked what was their precise position with regard to this undertaking? Well, they had waited until the general meeting of the Company, which was to have been held in June, but was not held till July, in order to ascertain the arrangements the Company were prepared to recommend. The managing body recommended—M. de Lesseps especially—the increase of the number of directors to 24, and agreed that the new directors should be nominated by the British Government. The understanding was that they must be duly qualified and elected in the manner described by the statutes of the Company. M. de Lesseps gave the Government to understand that it was presumed they would not nominate persons who would be offensive on any grounds to the shareholders, but that if any such person was nominated it should, on the fact becoming known, be in the power of the English Government to name his successor. It was the impression of Her Majesty's Government that their duty was to nominate persons who should represent the interest, amounting to the value of 176,000 shares, which the Government had in the Canal; but M. de Lesseps pointed out that there still was a question, which had never been decided, as to the precise amount of right which these shares during the time their coupons were detached from them gave to the shareholders. It was competent for the British Government to have brought that question before a French Law Court for decision; but they thought that, looking to the whole spirit of the arrangement, and their desire to enter into this matter on the fullest terms of confidence and goodwill with the Company, it was not desirable to raise contentious questions, and that it would be better that they should see that the directors were qualified in accordance with the statutes of the Company. They did not abandon their claim to vote on account of their own shares, but they thought that the simplest way would be to purchase a certain number of qualifying shares, and place them in the hands of the gentlemen who might be the representatives of Her Majesty's Government on.

  843
  the Council. This view was communicated to M. de Lesseps, and was considered by the legal advisers engaged on both sides of the question, the result being, as far as Her Majesty's Government was concerned, a conviction that the course taken opened no legal difficulties as far as the final settlement of the question was concerned. If, however, it should appear hereafter that legal difficulties really existed, the step taken was one that could be retraced when occasion arose. These gentlemen did not go there to represent their own interests, they went there to represent the interests of the country which nominated them; and the Government were convinced, from their knowledge of the character and ability of these gentlemen, that they would represent effectively the interests of this country. It had been suggested that the mode in which they were appointed, or nominated, was one which implied humiliation as far as they were personally concerned; and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had gone the length of saying that one of them (Mr. Rivers Wilson) ought not, if appointed at all, to receive any payment for the duty additional to that which he at present received as a servant of the Government. The duties which Mr. Wilson at present discharged were highly important, but they did not occupy the whole of his time, nor was his salary by any means extravagant, and it was believed that he might very well give one day in a month to the Suez Canal business, with a small additional payment to recompense him for the work, and pay the expenses which he would have to incur. The question of the right of voting in meetings of the Company by the directors appointed by the English Government had been raised, and upon that question he could pronounce no authoritative decision; but in any case he thought the question was one of infinitesimal importance. The advantage which they had gained in respect of this matter was really that which was stated by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed)—namely, the moral position which they had acquired in dealing with these questions. The surtax arrangement was just one of the questions in point. Though the question was settled, at Constantinople, yet it was settled subject to certain pro-
  844
  tests, and in a manner that always left you with the apprehension that the question might be re-opened, and re-opened in a very awkward manner. The Government should have insisted upon the matters that had been agreed to; but their object was to avoid the necessity of having to invoke the armed interference of the Khedive, or of the Turkish Government, or of our own Power. When hon. Gentlemen talked about keeping open the Canal by the power of our Fleet, of course we might; but the object was to avoid using force, and to put ourselves in a position where we would be able to deal with all these questions in a much more satisfactory manner. These were the general considerations which induced the Government to make the purchase, and nothing had occurred since to cause them to doubt their soundness. Colonel Stokes and Mr. Rivers Wilson had been in Paris, and had attended one of the meetings of the Council, and in their Report to him they stated, that they had been received in the most amicable manner; that they had been treated with the fullest confidence and in a spirit which promised that the best possible relations would exist between us and the managers of this great Company; and that they had been very much struck with what they saw of the administration and the general management of the undertaking. Every person who had read the Company's last Report would have seen that, as far as prosperity was concerned, the undertaking was in a very flourishing condition, for at the present time, when commercial affairs were not particularly bright, it showed that the receipts of the Canal were going on in a most satisfactory manner, inasmuch as last year the excess of receipts over expenditure had increased by about 17 per cent over that of the previous year, while at the same time the expenses had scarcely been increased at all. The question of surtax was still in this position—that it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to adopt M. de Lesseps' proposals merely as for this country, as it was necessary to obtain the concurrence of other countries which were interested in the matter. Communications had been going on with the different Governments which would shortly be laid before Parliament, and they were, so far as they had gone, ge-

  845
  nerally in favour of the arrangement which had been come to, which showed to the shipping interest with certainty what the duties would be that they would have to pay year by year. The right hon. Gentleman had asked questions with reference to the probability of the Khedive continuing to pay the £200,000 per annum; but he thought that those were questions which the right hon. Gentleman, to a certain extent at least, was as qualified to answer as he was himself. It was a very hard matter to say whether or not at some time or another a difficulty might occur in the payment of the money, but his own belief was that the money would be paid. It was paid on the last occasion, and he saw no reason why it should not be paid in future. In conclusion, he could only acknowledge and regret the lateness of the period when this matter had been brought forward—it certainly ought to have been discussed at a much earlier period of the Session. Her Majesty's Government, however, were waiting for the action of the Company and for the meeting to which he had referred and which had explained to the House the manner in which the undertaking was being carried on. In consequence of the mode in which the Business of the House had been transacted it was impossible to get time earlier in the Session for the discussion of the subject. All he could say was that so far as the Government were concerned, the reasons which induced them to make this purchase stood good, that his faith had not been shaken by anything that had taken place, and though there might have been some exaggeration in the minds of the people at the time when the purchase was announced, his own belief was that in making that purchase they had arrived at a good and sound conclusion.
  MR. RYLANDSdisclaimed all intention of throwing imputations upon Her Majesty's Government in reference to this subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THEEXCHEQUERthought that there was some ambiguity in the expressions which had been used by the hon. Member that rendered it imperative upon him to offer the explanations he had done of the conduct of the Government in the matter.
  MR. MAC IVERheartily concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for
  846
  Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed). At first people were thoroughly pleased with what the Government had so well and boldly done. No doubt expectations were raised too high, but this was no fault of Her Majesty's Ministers. In the calm judgment of the mercantile constituency which he (Mr. Mac Iver) had the honour to represent the transaction was still approved, and in the port of Liverpool no sympathy was entertained for the carping objections that had been raised to this purchase by hon. Members opposite. The large trading communities took a broad view of the matter and did not regard it as a mere question of 5 per cent interest.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he did not think that portion of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which referred to the moral advantages to be derived from the purchase was quite satisfactory, nor did he agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Pembroke. The fact was simply this—that in case of a war it might be necessary and justifiable for England by force of arms to secure so important a channel of communication with the East as the Suez Canal; but he failed to see how the purchase of the shares gave the slightest additional power to the Government to adopt that course. As regarded the commercial aspect of the transaction, the shares having no coupons attached, we had no direct pecuniary interest in the good or bad management of the Canal at the present time, and any proposal on our part to reduce the rates or dues would be met by the obvious objection from the other shareholders, that while it would not affect the English Government, which had its five per cent guaranteed, it would seriously diminish their dividend. In his opinion, as far as our mercantile interests were concerned, we were in a better position before the purchase, as mere customers of the Canal, than we were when we acquired a number of shares which did not rank on an equality with the others. He hoped that the forebodings expressed in connection with the transaction would not be realized, but the action of our representatives on the Board of Directors would have to be watched very carefully. They might rely upon it that applications for money to keep the Canal in a proper state would soon be made, and the probability was

  847
  that that money would have to be furnished by England. He sincerely trusted that the Government would instruct their representatives not to compromise the mercantile interests of the country by any premature action on their part.
  MR. GREGORY,in support of England's investment in the Suez Canal, considered it a sound one, politically and commercially considered. He could not admit that there was anything derogatory in the position of the English directors. Those gentlemen were placed on the direction to represent the Government, and a more honourable position he could not conceive. They were trustees of the English Government for the shares and acted on behalf of the Government in the management of this undertaking. They had declared themselves to be trustees in the same manner as was frequently done when family interests had to be represented in commercial undertakings; but they were present in the Direction, not as trustees, but as individuals perfectly free to act in the Direction, independent of any declaration of trust they had made. At the same time they represented a very powerful interest in this great partnership, and must exercise a preponderating influence over it. The possession of these shares to England was of great importance; and seeing that they might have got into adverse hands, he considered the arrangement made by Her Majesty's Government was one of great advantage to the country.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that sharing the general impression at the time of the purchase, he looked upon it as a bold stroke of policy which would place us in a better position in case of the occurrence of unforeseen difficulties. He had read the charter, and if the Company were to become bankrupt, the property in the Canal must fall into the hands of the French. This country had the guarantee of the Khedive, and, what was of far superior consideration, they had the guarantee of the Sultan; but, unfortunately, Turkey was in such a state at that moment that it was impossible to say how it would end. Looking at the matter from a commercial point of view, he agreed with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). First of all, we were told by the Government that it was not a commercial matter; then we were told by Lord Derby at
  848
  Edinburgh that it was; next the Prime Minister spoke of it as a political transaction; and now, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was a commercial one. If it were a commercial transaction, what he had done would be like coming to the rescue of a firm in difficulties and engaging to renew its bills without any guarantee, for amore insolvent State than Egypt did not exist; and if we got back our money it would be through our claim having an admitted priority. We had no greater control that we had before, but the capital we had invested in the undertaking must give a corresponding weight to our influence. He was afraid that considerable expenditure would be requred to keep the Canal in such order that it would be available for our own shipping, and that we should be called upon to find capital for the purpose. It would be better if the Government acknowledged the truth at once, and owned that the purchase of the shares was a political transaction, entered into with the view of keeping open our ocean highway to the East.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, it was natural the Opposition should criticize a transaction of this kind, but it was refreshing to see the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) cast aside the trammels of Party and treat this as a great national question. As such he believed it would be viewed by the constituencies, who, if appealed to, would throw the carping criticism of the Opposition to the winds, and give their verdict that politically the purchase was a bold and a wise act. Had the Government not availed themselves of their opportunity, and not purchased those shares, he had no doubt the Opposition would then have criticized their omission to secure for England the interest she was entitled to possess in so great an undertaking. England possessed the largest number of shares in the Canal, and her interests, politically and commercially, in it would no doubt be well represented by the three directors whom she had appointed to watch over and represent them. Government had, in fact, recovered the position for England which Lord Palmerston had lost.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Until my noble Friend addressed the House I was under the impression that Members of the Opposition had criticized

  849
  the measure submitted to the House by the Government. The noble Lord appears to be of opinion that the discussion which has occurred is not criticism, but carping. I do not think it much matters whether he calls it criticism or carping. We criticize the measures of the Government in the best way we are able, and I can assure him we shall not be deterred from that duty by the epithet he chooses to apply to that humble criticism. Although it is to be regretted in one sense that this debate should have been brought on so late in the Session, it is not altogether unfortunate, because of the instructive comparison that might be drawn with respect to the treatment of this subject between the opening of the Session and its close. At the opening of the Session the transaction was almost in the first blush of its prosperity and popularity. And the minimizing explanation, although it had, I believe, to a certain extent set in already, had not attained the full vigour and strength that it has now at the close of the Session arrived at. It would be extremely instructive, if we had time to make a comparison between some of the speeches delivered at the commencement of the Session and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night. All traces of high policy have now vanished from the speeches of the Government; their high policy remains, in a feeble and diluted form, in the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed). Nothing is now said about the high road to India and the chain of fortresses in which the Suez Canal was to form a link. This line has altogether vanished from the speeches of the Government, and we are told to look for the advantage of this transaction to the improved tone of M. de Lesseps. We are told that nothing can be more friendly than the communications betwen Colonel Stokes and M. de Lesseps. That is easy to be understood; but it may be doubted whether the improved tone of our correspondence is worth £4,000,000 of public money. The right hon. Gentleman can no doubt point to two results. He can point to the appointment of three directors on the Board, and he can point to the satisfactory and amicable arrangements come to between Colonel Stokes and M. de Lessepson the surtax. He
  850
  says M. de Lesseps made a great concession in the matter of the appointment of directors. But that is the very thing M. de Lesseps wanted us to do five years ago. In the negotiations in 1871 it was stated that M. de Lesseps "recoiled with horror" from the idea of the management of the Canal passing into the hands of a foreign Power. He declared he never would be a party for the placing of the management of the Canal in other than French hands, but he trusted to see the introduction of English directors on a French Board. At the same time, this was only to "give an appearance of importance without its actual possession." These being M. de Lesseps' views in 1871, no doubt M. de Lesseps did not see any reason to change them; but these being M. de Lesseps' views, I do not think it was necessary to spend £4,000,000 to get M. de Lesseps to agree to what he desired in 1871. The negotiations on the surtax are said to have gone on smoothly; and they may have ended in a satisfactory result; but that result has been brought about not by concessions on the part of M. de Lesseps, but on the part of Colonel Stokes and the English Government. The surtax was to have terminated at an earlier date than that now fixed upon, and it is not wonderful that M. de Lesseps and the French Direction should show a conciliatory spirit, when all the concessions were made, not on the other side, but on ours. It is quite unnecessary to say what will be the effect in time of war. I doubt whether it will have any effect in time of war. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke that by the influence we have acquired through these shares in the Canal we should have acquired the right in time of war to seize upon the whole, and to disregard not only our own rights, but those of our co-partners. It may be my own fault, but I am unable to follow that argument of my hon. Friend. It would be the same as if we should acquire an interest in the railways of a neighbouring State, with which we at some time might beat war, in order that we might have a moral right to take possession of those railways in case of an invasion of the country. I do not believe that this purchase will have any effect upon the possession of the Canal in time of war. What must happen in time of war must be decided by contin-

  851
  gencies. It is impossible to foresee what can only be decided upon at the moment. What the House wants to know is what will be the effect on certain ordinary creditors in the Canal in time of peace. Many Members of this House who are competent to give an opinion think our position is not improved by anything that has taken place, and that our interests are not so simple and well-defined as before. Up to the present year the Government was the representative of a nation which made use of the Canal to a vastly greater extent than any other European nation. It had certain rights secured to it under the concessions, and at all events occupied a definite and well-defined position as the representative of the greatest trading nation of the world. Now the Government is not merely the representative of the customers of the Canal—it has become a co-partner in managing the Canal, and a co-partner under very different circumstances from the other shareholders. In that way it seems to me that the position of the Government is particularly complicated, and I fail to see that it is in any way strengthened. It appears to me, on the contrary, that the Government will be somewhat shy in future in embarking in these commercial enterprizes, or in interfering in the pecuniary affairs of other nations. It was impossible for hon. Members not to sympathize with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke of the deep regret with which he had learnt of the Stock Exchange gambling transactions which had resulted from the action of the Government. The House was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have so warmly as he did repudiated the suspicion that the Government was in any way a party to transactions of this character; but it showed how extremely inconvenient, and how much to be deprecated, it is that the Government should have taken any part whatever in transactions such as those to which I have referred, and that they should have to trust to the right hon. Gentleman to rise and repudiate any idea of such a thing. There is no doubt that clever and unscrupulous persons, apparently acting in Egypt or in other parts of the world, have made use of the knowledge they acquired of the intention of the Government in this country to act on the Stock Exchange in London, Paris, and other places in a manner not
  852
  creditable to the British Government. I do not think we can be proud of the part which the Government of England played on the Stock Exchange in Europe; but I do think it will be a lesson to the Government to avoid for the future being mixed up in such transactions.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, there seems to be one fallacy that pervades all the remarks of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House on this subject, and that is the assumption on their part that our interest in an institution cannot be at the same time political and commercial. Take, for example, the National Debt. That is a political institution. It is so in a special degree, and never could have existed had it not been founded upon the most delicate of all political considerations—national credit. It depends upon political considerations. Its prosperity and its influence in the world depend upon political considerations. Yet I suppose hon. Gentlemen will hardly agree that it must not be considered a commercial institution, or the declaration of our dividends would not be met in due time with the same regularity and promptness as they are at present. For my own part, I never deviated—nor am I aware that my Colleagues ever deviated—from the declarations we made when we announced the purchase of these shares. We purchased them from high political considerations; and had it not been for those considerations we should never have entered into those negotiations. But having bought those shares, it became our duty to make every arrangement and take every precaution that the country should not be financially and commercially a loser. While, therefore, we thought we had accomplished a great political object, we were at the same time anxious to prevent the country from experiencing any loss. It seems to me the position is so clear that there cannot be any misapprehension that political and commercial principles can exist in the same institution, notwithstanding the unauthorized remarks of the noble Lord and others who preceded him. Nor do I think the noble Lord was particularly fortunate in his argument that M. de Lesseps, when he offered to consent to the appointment of three English directors some time ago, said that they

  853
  would exercise no influence except as directors, if they were introduced into the Board on the part of the English proprietors. It is very true that in 1871 M. de Lesseps did make that remark, and insisted upon it. He said that the three English directors would be nothing more than three individuals who would exercise that influence which by their qualifications under the charter of the Company they might possess. But in 1871, when M. de Lesseps made that observation, England had not purchased half the shares in the Company. Therefore, all the arguments of the noble Lord based upon the remarks made by M. de Lesseps at that time go for nothing at all, and do not apply to the circumstances with which we have to deal at present. Nor is there anyone who can doubt the contrast between the two cases. Suppose that in 1871 English directors had been appointed in the manner referred to, and suppose that in the present case the English directors were appointed after the purchase of the Canal, is there any body of men either in this country or on any of those Stock Exchanges of Europe with which the noble Lord seems so familiar, who would hesitate to say which three individuals would exercise the greatest influence? Every man of sense must know that the three English directors now to be appointed would occupy a totally different position from the three individuals whose appointment in 1871 was suggested by M. de Lesseps. Then the noble Lord says my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely disregarded all political considerations, and founded his observations on commercial considerations. My right hon. Friend very properly, on a Bill of this kind, made observations which he argued out completely, so far as financial and commercial considerations can go. To-night my right hon. Friend, as I listened to his arguments, never for a moment deviated from the political position which the Government assumed with regard to this question. He argued in this way. He said one of the great advantages of this is that we obtain our object in an amicable manner, which otherwise might be obtained only by painful controversy, and probably by force. What is that but a political consideration, and of the high-
  854
  est kind. What does that prove? That we obtain this object, not for financial and commercial considerations, though it is our duty not to neglect these financial and commercial considerations, but for our political considerations. Now, with regard to what the noble Lord says about the influence of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government on the Stock Exchanges of Europe, all I can say is I am innocent in the matter. I have never allowed considerations of what would happen on the Stock Exchanges of Europe to prevent me from doing that in public which I think would be for the advancement of the welfare of this country. If we were to be arrested in our conduct of the high matters which are involved in the government of a great country like England merely, by considerations of what the effect of our words would be upon the Stock Exchanges of Europe, I think we should be in a position which, as a public man, I should feel to be utterly disgraceful. Sir, I hope this Bill will pass without any opposition. I feel sure myself that the feeling of the country is not changed as to this great enterprize. I cannot doubt that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) spoke with justice when he expressed the opinion of the powerful community in which he lives. I believe that the people of the country have not changed one iota the sentiments which influenced them at the commencement of the Session; that they look upon this act on the part of Her Majesty's Government as a political and patriotic act; and as such, if ever the matter is made a subject of controversy, and I am before my countrymen, I shall be ready to appeal to them with the utmost confidence.
  MR. MONKsaid, he thought it only due to the Government to say that he, in common with many Members on that side of the House, did not concur with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in condemning the action of the Government in reference to the purchase of the Suez Canal shares, but he agreed with him in the regret he expressed that the purchase of the shares had led to so much speculation on the Stock Exchange. On that matter he, however, entirely acquitted Her Majesty's Government. He differed entirely from the hon. Mem-

  855
  ber for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in looking upon this transaction as a commercial one. It was undoubtedly a bold step for the Government to take. Unfortunately this country had been placed in a false position in respect to the Canal during the Ministry of Lord Palmerston. The country had never approved of that policy; and when the opportunity presented itself to the Government to acquire a permanent interest in that great work, he, for one, considered that they were perfectly justified in doing so. The country had accepted the purchase as evidence of a far-seeing policy on the part of the Government, and he believed it would meet the approval of a large majority of the House. He hoped they would give a unanimous vote in favour of this Bill.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,admitting that the Government were not to be influenced in their decision of important matters of State policy by consideration as to the effect that policy would have upon the Stock Exchanges of Europe, regretted that when the arrangement as to the purchase of the shares had been completed it had not been at once made known. It was admitted that immense speculation occurred in different Egyptian Stocks, not in consequence of knowledge acquired at this side, but of telegraphic communications from Alexandria, and these might have been prevented by immediate publication. It was, however, an unusual transaction, and the Government had no precedent to guide them; but, at the same time, he was strongly of opinion that operations of this kind ought to be at once made publicly known.
  MR. BATESsaid, that as a matter of fact the transaction was made known when it was completed.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYD,in reference to the supposition that this country was opposed originally to the construction of the Suez Canal, observed that that was altogether a mistaken idea. Had the opinion of the commercial community been taken on the subject, they would by a large majority have declared in favour of the enterprize as a great political and patriotic transaction, to use the words of the Premier. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of the day did not take that view, but the preponderance of opinion in the country was the other way.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), to the effect that Her Majesty's Government ought to have made the purchase of the shares known the moment the transaction was completed, said that what occurred was this —On first receiving an intimation that the Khedive was willing to offer the shares on certain terms, Her Majesty's Government made an offer in return by telegram, and it was not until that offer was finally accepted that they were in a position to publish anything. But when they received notice that the Khedive accepted the offer, they made the fact known that same evening. As to Mr. Stanton, the third of the three directors whom they had a right to nominate, he had been selected by the Government as their representative upon the interior Committee of Management, which only consisted of five members, and would reside in Paris, because the business was carried on there, and not in Egypt.
  Preamble postponed.
  Clause 1 (Treasury to hold and use shares).
  In reply to Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Bill would give power to the Treasury to act in such manner as might seem to be necessary for the interest of the public. He thought it unadvisable either to raise or discuss at the present time difficulties that might never arise.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  WAR DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE (REMUNERATION, &c.) BILL— [Bill 206.]
  Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Lord John Manners.)

  COMMITTEE.ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"
  (for Committee on the War Department and Post Office (Remuneration, &c.) Bill).
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. MELLORproposed that the House should go into Committee on the Bill on that day two months. He opposed the Bill because it would involve the Exchequer in an additional expense of £75,000 a-year. Of the persons concerned it was stated that 274 were merely learners.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day two months, resolve itself into the said Committee," — (Mr. Mellor,) — instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. W. H. SMITHexplained that no person who had been employed as a telegraph clerk by any of the telegraph companies would receive superannuation allowance under this Bill, which was intended to remedy an irregularity in the appointment of the other telegraph clerks which prevented their salaries being passed by the Public Accounts Committee. In consequence of the irregularity to which he referred there were now 3,600persons in the Government service who were not entitled to be paid their salaries, and it would be a grievous injustice to them if the measure were rejected, inasmuch as they were no parties to the irregularity in question, and had taken their appointments on the faith that they were to receive superannuation allowances. The irregularity he referred to was these persons being appointed without having passed the necessary Civil Service examination, for which, however, another examination more suited to their offices had been substituted. Since the present Government had been in office these irregular appointments had ceased to be made. It was true that many of these persons had entered as learners, but they had subsequently become clerks.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  [Lords.] —[BILL 111.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE ATTOENEY GENERALbelieved that the several clauses he now proposed in connection with this Bill had been carefully considered by hon. Members. One of them was in page 6, after line 5, to insert—
  (Amendment of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts in relation to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal.)
  "Whereas it is expedient to amend the constitution of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in manner hereinafter mentioned: Be it Enacted, That there shall be repealed so much of the fourth section of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' as provides that the ordinary judges of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal (in this Act referred to as ' the Court of Appeal') shall not exceed three at any one time.
  "In addition to the number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal authorised to be appointed by' The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,'Her Majesty may appoint three additional ordinary judges of that Court.
  "The first three appointments of additional judges under this Act shall be made by such transfer to the Court of Appeal as is in this section mentioned of three judges of the High Court of Justice, and the vacancies so created in the High Court of Justice shall not be filled up, except in the event and to the extent hereinafter mentioned.
  "Her Majesty may by writing, under her sign manual, either before or after the commencement of this Act, but so as not to take effect until the commencement thereof, transfer to the Court of Appeal from the following Divisions of the High Court of Justice, that is to say, the Queen's Bench Division, the Common Pleas Division, and the Exchequer Division, such of the judges of the said Divisions, not exceeding three in number, as to Her Majesty may seem meet, each of whom shall have been a judge of any one or more of such Divisions for not less than two years previously to his appointment, and shall not be an ex-officio judge of the Court of Appeal, and every judge so transferred shall be deemed an additional ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal in the same manner as if he had been appointed such judge by letters patent. No judge shall be so transferred without his own consent.
  "Every additional ordinary judge of the said Court of Appeal appointed in pursuance of this Act shall be subject to the provisions of sections twenty-nine and thirty-seven of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' and shall be under an obligation to go circuits and to act as Commissioner under commissions of assize or

  859
  other commissions authorised to be issued in pursuance of the said Act, in the same manner in all respects as if he were a Judge of the High Court of Justice.
  "There shall he paid to every additional ordinary judge appointed in pursuance of this Act, in addition to the salary which he would otherwise receive as an ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal, such sum on account of his expenses on circuit or under such commission as aforesaid, as may he approved by the Treasury upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
  "Each of the judges of the High Court of Justice who is in pursuance of this Act transferred to the Court of Appeal, by writing under the sign manual of Her Majesty, shall retain such officers as are attached to his person as such judge, and are appointed and removeable by him at his pleasure, in pursuance of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' and the officers so attached shall have the same rank, and hold their offices by the same tenure, and upon the same terms and conditions, and receive the same salaries, and if entitled to pensions be entitled to the same pensions, and shall as nearly as may be perform the same duties as if the judges to "whom they are attached had not been transferred to the Court of Appeal.
  "Subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875, for the time being in force in relation to the appointment of ordinary judges of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, and to their tenure of office, and to their precedence, and to their salaries and pensions, and to the officers to be attached to such judges, and all other provisions relating to such ordinary judges shall apply to the additional ordinary judges appointed in pursuance of this section in the same manner as they apply to the other ordinary judges of the said Court.
  "For the purpose of a transfer to the Court of Appeal under this section service as a judge in a Court whose jurisdiction is transferred to the High Court shall be deemed to have been service as a judge in any one or more of such Divisions of the High Court as are in this section in that behalf mentioned, and for the purpose of the pension of any person appointed under this Act, an additional ordinary judge of appeal service in the High Court of Justice, or in any Court whose jurisdiction is transferred to the High Court of Justice or to the Court of Appeal, shall be deemed to have been service in the Court of Appeal.)"
  The particular object of this clause was to materially strengthen the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Intermediate Court of Appeal.
  Clause (Amendment of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts in relation to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal),—(Mr. Attorney General), brought up, and read the first and second time.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved to leave out, in lines 11, 12, and 13—
  860
  "and the vacancies so created in the High Court of Justice shall not be filled up, except in the event and to the extent hereinafter mentioned."
  Applications at Chambers had been, greatly increased in number under the new Acts, while there had been no corresponding increase in the number of Judges; and there was now almost as much difficulty in getting a case heard at the time appointed at Chambers as in getting a case heard at the time appointed in Court. On Circuit, owing to the paucity of Judges, Queen's Counsel sat and tried cases both at Nisi Prius and on the Crown side. To compel a prisoner to be tried before a Queen's Counsel, instead of one of the Judges of the land, amounted to something like a denial of justice. At quarter sessions Recorders and Chairmen sat, who had had much experience, to try minor offences; while on Circuit charges of the gravest importance were tried by Queen's Counsel, who had had no experience at all of criminal law. The inconvenience of appointing Queen's Counsel to try cases at Nisi Prius was shown at the late Manchester Assizes, where an eminent Queen's Counsel having been appointed to try a case of compensation for injuries sustained on a railway, the counsel for the plaintiff refused to appear before him, the reason being that the commissioner was counsel himself for a railway company. He had no objection to the transfer of the three Judges, but he objected to transferring them without filling up the vacancies so created. In the face of the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that there would be 1,000 remanets by the 1st of November next, in Middlesex and London only, it seemed an extraordinary thing to take away three of the Judges of First Instance and not fill up the vacancies so created in the Court below. He desired also to point out that the Court of Appeal sat during Circuit, and it seemed a strange way to strengthen the Court of Appeal to transfer to it Judges, who would be liable to go Circuit, and thus absent themselves for a considerable portion of the year. In the Court of Appeal also, the Judges, who went Circuit, could not sit on appeals from their own decisions on Circuit.
  THE CHAIEMAN,in putting the Question, observed that the hon. Mem-

  861
  ber (Mr. Gregory) had an Amendment to propose in line 11, which must precede that of the hon. and learned Member for Salford.
  MR. GEEGOEYsaid, he had hoped that the Attorney General would have made some statement as to the manner in which he proposed to work the new system which he would inaugurate. The Attorney General constituted another division of the Intermediate Court of Appeal by the appointment of three additional Judges, and for this purpose to abstract three Judges from the Court of First Instance. Whether this was wise or necessary was a matter of considerable doubt. There was a considerable block in the administration of justice — a very large arrear in the Common Law Courts and also in the Court of Chancery, which had been materially increased by the fact that that Court had to take vivá voce evidence. The obligation of the Court of Chancery to try out causes, instead of sending issues of fact to other Courts, greatly retarded the progress of business in the Chancery Courts, while the Vice Chancellors had not sufficient time to devote to matters which deserved their personal attention in Chambers; and, as was well known, there was also a block in the Common Law Courts. Under these circumstances, it certainly appeared to him that it was unwise to abstract Judges from the Courts of First Instance, without making any further provision for the business that was now so much in arrear; and he therefore proposed to leave it optional to take the Judges for the Court of Appeal from the High Court, instead of making it compulsory, by substituting the word "may" for the word "shall."
  Amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the word "may."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that large issues were raised by the clause and the Amendments, and sooner or later they must be discussed. When the Judicature Act came into operation last November, there were sham arrears, which were soon disposed of; but under the working of the Act it had been found that the Judicial Staff was not equal to the demands made upon it, and it was no exaggeration to say that a dead-lock had
  862
  resulted. Those who were chiefly prejudiced were the suitors and others who desired to appeal to the Courts of Law. About six weeks ago attention was called to the number of cases then waiting to be heard. In the Intermediate Court of Appeal there were 54 cases in arrear, and in London and Middlesex alone there were between 500 and 600 cases awaiting trial at Nisi Prius. He believed that at the beginning of the new legal year there would be fully 1,000 Nisi Prim cases in arrear. Matters were in this position when Lords Justices James and Baggallay wrote a letter stating that it was impossible, in the present state of the Appellate Court, to get through the business. That letter was communicated to the 18 legal Members of the House, and the conclusion which they came to was embodied in the Amendments of the Attorney General. It was then suggested that it was necessary to do two things—to increase the strength of the Court of Appeal by adding to its numbers, and its stability by ceasing to borrow Judges from the Primary Courts. No one could doubt that the Appellate Judges should be Appellate and not Primary Judges. The question then arose whence this additional strength should be derived. Some thought that it would be better to add at once two or three Judges to the Court of Intermediate Appeal. Every unnecessary addition to the number of Judges was, however, objectionable on two grounds, because it made all the other Judges do less work than need be, and because it lowered the standard of judicial qualification. When, a greater demand was made on the Profession by creating 24 Judges where 12 used to be the number, a lower standard was inevitable. The best number of Judges was the number required to do the work, and no more. He considered that the additional strength required in the Court of Intermediate Appeal could be obtained from the Common Law Bench, where at present there was a great waste of judicial power. Why, for example, in Nisi Prius cases, should there be seen the spectacle of three Judges sitting with the greatest solemnity to hear cases which men of the most ordinary intellect would decide offhand in their counting-houses? In the Court of Chancery a single Judge was sufficient for such causes. Why, he

  863
  asked, instead of having an increased number of Judges, should they not, by accepting the second Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, economize judicial strength without affecting the public interest? If one Judge could dispose of cases of vastimportance in the Court of Chancery, why should not one Judge sit in a Court of Law and dispose of cases there? He was bound to say that these views having been expressed by the legal Members of the House the Attorney General had promptly taken steps, by placing his Amendments on the Paper, to carry them into effect. He wished the Court of Appeal to be like the Court of Bankruptcy, with greater weight and greater effect. The Amendments to be proposed by the Attorney General would be most beneficial to the Bench and to suitors generally, and he hoped that Members of his Profession would assist the Government in carrying them into effect.
  MR. STAYELEY HILLwas ready to assent to the first clause proposed by the Attorney General, but in the interest of the public he could not support the second clause, by which, if it were passed, a Court of Law sitting in Banco would consist of one Judge only. He asked, was the practice in Chancery so entirely satisfactory that they could make conformable to it their practice in Common Law? He compared the position of a Vice Chancellor in dealing with a case with the position of a Judge and a jury, and he said that a suitor who went away from a Court in Banco, whether the verdict had been for him or against him, went away with a more complete satisfaction as to the result of the case than a man who went out of the Vice Chancellor's Chamber. He understood that this Act was to do something for suitors, but it began by giving three weeks more vacation than they had formerly. While he assented to the first clause, he as completely dissented from the second.
  MR. MOEGAN LLOYDsaid, it was admitted on all hands that the present Court of Appeal could not keep up with the business. It was also agreed that an addition must be made to the Court of Appeal, such as was now proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General. The only remaining question, therefore, was how this was to be done. There were only two ways in which it could be done; either by increasing the
  864
  number of Judges, or else by distributing the work so as to enable 15 Judges to do the work now done by 18. Now, the former alternative was out of the question, inasmuch as the Government had declared that under present circumstances they would not increase the number. He thought, therefore, the proposal that they should sit separately was one which ought to be tried. For his own part, he preferred a Judge sitting alone to a Judge sitting with another, or with two other Judges. When alone, one Judge had a full sense of his responsibility, which, if not lost, was weakened by association with another Judge. If he went wrong he could be set right by the Court of Appellate Jurisdiction. There was another improvement which might be adopted with advantage—namely, to make venues local, inasmuch as the accumulation of business in London was in a measure the result of the abolition of local venues. He trusted the Amendments would be accepted.
  MR. GRANTHAMthought that justice ought to be rendered to the Common Law Judges for the manner in which they had sought to fulfil their duties under the new system. He held that a great deal too much stress had been laid upon the working of the new system, with a view to its depreciation. It was not fair to say that the work had diminished, while the block had increased. The work disposed of now was far more important than under the old plan. The new system of pleading made it far more necessary to expose at once the ground of defence than was formerly the case, and these actions were brought to a speedier issue. A greater display of causes used to be made, because attorneys wished to make a show of the causes entered for trial, and the consequence was that many were entered which never were brought to a decision. He contended that the new system should have a fair trial. Many motions at Common Law of inferior importance might be made before a single Judge, and he would instance the example of cases brought before a Judge at Chambers to show how matters might be disposed of which would be considered of more importance if they were brought before a tribunal composed of more than a single person. As to the question of expense, he believed that the public

  865
  would not grudge £10,000, or even £20,000 a-year for additional Judges, who would save enormous cost and delay to suitors. The Judicature Act was passed to produce a fusion of Law and Equity, so that the same Judge might be able to try all the questions connected with a case; but the system did not work in the way which had been expected, and Equity Judges now sent down issues to be tried at the Assizes by the Common Law Judges. It was not fair that one class of Judges should be able to relieve themselves at the expense of another, and he could easily understand that there should have been some feeling on the part of Judges who were helpless in the matter, because they had a loyal desire to finish the business of their Circuits, and were not men to "scamp" their work. In conclusion, he was sorry the measure could not be postponed till another year, when they might have more satisfactory legislation than that now before them.
  MR. NOEWOODfelt, as a member of the mercantile community, that the operations of the Judicature Act, whatever might be the cause, had not given satisfaction to the public. Considerable alarm existed lest we should be placed under very serious disadvantages in our judicial procedure, consequent upon the new Acts. So far were the advantages promised to suitors from being realized that there was now almost as much difficulty in knowing what Court to apply to as ever there had been; the Long Vacation was longer than ever, and the suitors had none of the facilities for having their cases tried which they had so much reason to hope would be afforded to them. He could not disguise from himself the fact that out-of-doors it was asserted too frequently that the Judges had really not shown that anxious desire to accommodate themselves and the business of their Courts to the new system which might have been fairly expected from them. When the Act came into operation, counsel were refused information when they applied to the Bench for it, and one Judge boasted that he had not yet read the provisions of the Act. The Judges might have, by consultation among themselves, removed many of the difficulties which had arisen. They were salaried officers of the State, and it was their duty to regulate the business of their Courts, so that
  866
  suitors might have the greatest possible facility in getting their rights adjusted.
  THE ATTOENEY GENEBALsaid, that the Amendment which stood in his name was the result of the opinions expressed by the great bulk of the legal Members of the House, who ought to share the responsibility. It was admitted that the Intermediate Court of Appeal needed strengthening and improvement; and everybody admitted that the Bill would effect this object. Everybody agreed that to increase the number of Judges without such a step being necessary, would be the wrong thing to do. He would prefer that the new clauses which he had proposed should stand as they were on the Paper without being amended. If any further alteration were found necessary in the future they could be made with more confidence after they had gained the advantage of experience.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the late Lord Westbury had written to him expressing his deep regret that he was unable to appear in his place in Parliament to protest against the revolutionary, and, as he termed it, "most disastrous" scheme.
  MR. BULWEE,as one of the legal Members of the House, disclaimed being in any way responsible for, or favourable to, the Amendments that had been proposed. For his part he protested against Amendments effecting so important an alteration in our judicial system being introduced and discussed in a thin House at that period of the Session. The House should not suppose that the legal profession were in favour of the changes, for from all the learned Gentlemen and learned Judges he had consulted, with the exception of some hon. and learned Gentlemen in that House, he had not heard a single voice in favour of them. One main argument urged in their favour was that Judges sitting alone in the Equity Courts gave entire satisfaction, and, if so, it was asked, why should not Common Law Judges do the same? He denied that Equity Judges sitting alone did give satisfaction; but even if they did there was no analogy whatever between the cases upon which, as a rule, they had to decide and those that came before a Judge and a jury. How, he would ask, was a long legal argument to be satisfactorily conducted at

  867
  Nisi Prius, and the time of the jury wasted in listening to what they were not expected to understand? And if the question were reserved for the subsequent consideration of a single Judge, and important interests depended upon it, it was contrary to all experience to suppose that the suitor against whom the decision was, would be satisfied with it, and, if not satisfied, he would be driven not as at present to the Court in Banco, but at a great increase of expense to the Court of Appeal. He ventured to prophecy that it would soon be found, if these Amendments became law, that the disposal of all business before a single Judge was neither "practicable" nor "convenient," and we should have to fall back upon the proviso empowering Divisional Courts to be held to replace the Courts in Banco. The proposal of the Attorney General was, in effect, to abolish the Court in Banco, and thus deprive the suitor of his First Court of Appeal. The inevitable result would be that the New Court of Appeal would be overwhelmed with the business which would flow into it, for that Court could only sit in two Divisions. To further subdivide it would be to diminish its authority, and if it consisted of but a few Judges it would have no greater weight than the existing Courts in Banco. Lord Westbury, to whom the hon. Member for Peterborough had alluded, once said that the reason why a certain Lord Chancellor generally called in one of his legal brethren to sit with him was, "that he was afraid to be left alone in the dark." The Attorney General proposed that for the future all our Judges should be left alone in the dark. It was, perhaps, a minor consideration, but not to be left entirely out of view, that, under our present system, our Judges acquired no inconsiderable portion of their education by sitting with their brethren in Banco. He hoped the Attorney General would hold his hand, and be content with the Bill as it came from the House of Lords.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOUBTsaid, with regard to the statement as to the disapproval of this measure by the Judges, that, he was afraid, was a statement that must be made with regard to every measure that ever had been or ever would be proposed for the reform of the law. Looking back over many years of legal changes, he could not see
  868
  any measure which had received the approval of Her Majesty's Judges. He regretted that the last speaker was not present at the meeting of the Profession which recommended the clause with remarkable unanimity.
  MR. GREGORYpresumed it was a meeting of the members of the Bar, as he was not present; but he believed that he represented the views of one branch of the Profession (the solicitors) and the interests of the other. The object of his Amendment was simply to render the measure permissive, and to give time for the further consideration of the question.
  MR. NEWDEGATEremarked that constant efforts had been made to subordinate the Common Law to that of the Court of Chancery, and he believed that the effect of the clause proposed by the Government would be to intercept the proceedings at Common Law. He would vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex rather than sanction a system of which all the Judges disapproved.
  Question put, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes36: Majority 58.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid that, as his Amendment to the Attorney General's new clause had been practically before the House, as well as that of the hon. Member for West Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and as he wihsed to economize time, he would not persevere with the clause which he had previously moved.
  THE ATTOENEY GENERALmoved the following new clause:—
  (Regulations as to business of High Court of Justice and divisional Courts of High Court.)
  "On and after the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, every action and proceeding in the High Court of Justice, and all business arising out of the same, except as is hereinafter provided, shall, so far as is practicable and convenient, he heard, determined, and disposed of before a single judge, and all proceedings in an action subsequent to the hearing or trial, and down to and including the final judgment or order, always excepting any proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeal, shall, so far as is practicable and convenient, be had and taken before the judge before whom the trial or hearing of the cause took place; Provided, nevertheless, That divisional courts of the High Court of Justice, may be held for the transaction of any business

  869
  which may for the time being be ordered by rules of court to be heard by a divisional court; and any such divisional court when held, shall be constituted by two judges of the court and no more, unless the president of the division to which such divisional court belongs, with the concurrence of the other judges of such division, or a majority thereof, is of opinion that such divisional court should be constituted of a greater number of judges than two, in which case such court may be constituted of such-number of judges as the president, with such concurrence as aforesaid, may think expedient; nevertheless the decisions of a divisional court shall not be invalidated by reason of such court being constituted of a greater number than two judges; and
  " Rules of court for carrying into effect the enactments contained in this section shall be made in manner provided by 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' on or previously to the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, hut may afterwards be altered in manner provided by the said Act; and
  "There shall be repealed on and after the eleventh day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, so much of sections forty, forty-one, forty-two, forty-three, forty-four, and forty-six of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act,1873,' as is inconsistent with the provisions of this section."
  MR. GREGOEYmoved to omit from the clause the condition "so far" as is practicable and convenient," which he thought would render the clause valueless.
  SIR HENRY JAMESthought a hard-and-fast line was undesirable, and he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSmoved the following Amendment to the clause, in line 22, after "shall be made," leave out to" said Act and," in line 25, and insert—
  "On or before the first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and may be afterwards altered, and all rules of court to be made after the passing of this Act, whether made under 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' or this Act, shall be made by any three or more of the following persons, of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one—namely, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and four other judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, to be from time to time appointed for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor in writing under his hand, such appointment to continue for such time as shall be specified therein."
  MR. WHALLEYstrongly objected to the Amendment. He thought that when it was proposed to change the whole system of their jurisprudence, they should be guided by the best authorities in the course they were asked to take.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had carefully considered the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh, and he must say he considered it an improvement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved the following new clause:—
  (Power in certain events to fill vacancies occasioned in High Court of Justice by removal of judges to Court of Appeal.)
  "Whenever any two of the said paid judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have died or resigned, Her Majesty may, upon an address from both Houses of Parliament, representing that the state of business in the High Court of Justice is such as to require the appointment of an additional judge, fill up one of the vacancies created by the transfer hereinbefore authorized, by appointing one new judge of the said High Court in any Division thereof; and, on the death or retirement of the remaining two paid judges of the said Judicial Committee, Her Majesty may, upon the like Address, fill up in like manner another of the said vacancies, and from time to time fill up any vacancies occurring in the offices of judges so appointed."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved the following new clause:—
  (Increase of allowance to retired Indian and Colonial Judges attending the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.—3 and 4 W. 4, c. 41, s. 30.)
  "Whereas by the thirtieth section of the Act of the Session of the third and fourth years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter forty-one, and intituled 'An Act for the better administration of Justice in His Majesty's Privy Council,' it is provided that an allowance of four hundred pounds a year may be made to two members of His Majesty's Privy Council, having held such office of judge as therein mentioned in every year during which they attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the said Council as an indemnity for the expense which they may thereby incur, and whereas it is expedient to increase such allowance, be it enacted that the said section shall be read as if the words ' one thousand pounds' had been inserted therein in place of the words ' four hundred pounds.'"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to fear that the retiring allowance would not secure Judges in this department. If the retiring allowance was increased to £1,000 a-year, he thought there was a probability of their having too many applicants for the position.
  MR. WHALLEYopposed the clause. It was entirely inconsistent with our ordinary practice.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved the following new clause:—
  (Continuation until 1st January 1878, of s. 34 of 38 and 39 Vic. c. 77, as to vacancies in legal offices.)
  "Whereas by section thirty-four of' The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' it is enacted that upon the occurrence of any vacancy in an office coming within the provisions of section seventy-seven of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain may, with the concurrence of the Treasury, suspend the making any appointment to such office for any period not later than the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, and may, if it be necessary, make provision in such manner as he thinks fit for the temporary discharge in the meantime of the duties of such office, and it is expedient to extend the said period as hereinafter mentioned: Be it therefore enacted as follows:
  "The said section shall he construed as if the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight were therein inserted in lieu of the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  The ATTORNEY GENERALthen moved the following new clause:—
  (Appointment of deputy by district registrars.)
  " A district registrar of the Supreme Court of Judicature may from time to time, but subject to such regulations as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time make, appoint a deputy, and all acts authorized or required to he done by, to, or before a district registrar may be done by, to, or before any deputy so appointed."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. GREGORYopposed the clause, and urged that the system of appointing
  872
  deputies for the administration of justice was open to grave objection and abuse.
  Mr. WHALLEYobserved that the power of appointing a deputy-registrar would be open to very grave objection.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENconsidered that the appointment of a deputy should not be made without the sanction of the Lord Chancellor.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought that, under proper regulations, the appointment of a deputy might prove beneficial.
  MR. GREGORYstill urged his objections to the clause. This power of appointment was unlimited, and he hoped the clause would be reserved for further consideration.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 68; Noes 42: Majority 26.
  On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL the clause was amended by adding that the appointment of deputy registrars should only be made "with the approval of the Lord Chancellor."
  On the Motion of Mr. MORGAN LLOYDIT was also added that the appointment should not be made for a longer period than three months.
  Clause, as amended agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSmoved in page 4, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—
  (Enforcing payment of costs.)
  "Where, in any appeal to the House of Lords, the House of Lords shall order or adjudge any costs to be paid by any party or parties to such appeal to any other party or parties thereto, the cause, matter, or other proceeding in which the said appeal shall have been had, shall, if so ordered by the House of Lords, be remitted back to the Court of first instance for the purpose of enforcing the payment of such costs, and such last mentioned Court shall in such case issue such process for the recovery of such costs as shall be necessary and in accordance with the usual practice of such Court in enforcing the payment of damages or costs ordered to be paid by an order or judgment of such Court."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,believing the provision unnecessary, could not agree to its adoption.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved the following new clause:—
  (Writs of Assistance to be issued to all the Judges of the Supreme Court.)
  "Writs of Assistance, under the Great Seal, shall be issued out of the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, commanding the attendance in the House of Lords of all the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, to treat and give advice in Parliament in the same manner in all respects in which writs under the Great Seal have heretofore been issued out of the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, commanding the attendance of the Justices of either Bench, the Barons of the Exchequer and the Master of the Rolls, to treat and give advice in Parliament."
  The hon. Member said, that it was purely owing to the historical accident that the Equitable Jurisdiction of the House of Lords was only 200 years old, while the Common Jurisdiction was coeval in its origin with the Constitution, that the Equity Judges were not summoned to advise the House of Lords. Now that Law and Equity were fused, it was important that the advice of the Equity Judges should be obtainable by the House of Lords. A similar clause to the one which he proposed was read a second time in the House of Commons on the Motion of Sir Edward Sugden (afterwards Lord St. Leonards) many years ago, and would be found in the Appendix to Sugden on "Property."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobjected to the clause, on the ground that it was an interference with the procedure of the House of Lords.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Election Petitions and the inquiry into and prevention of corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 291.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Registration of Births and Deaths (Ireland) Amendment* (208); Forfeiture Relief* (210); Municipal Privileges (Ireland)* (211); Police (Expenses) Act Continuance* (212);Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment (Dublin)* (213).
Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* (190); Tralee Savings Bank* (202); Elementary Education (204); Pollution of Rivers (207).
Committee—Exhausted Parish Lands* (186).
Committee—Report—Cattle Disease (Ireland)* (195); Savings Banks (Barrister)* (198); Superannuation (Unhealthy Climates)* (199); Bishopric of Truro* (201).
Report—Erne Lough and River* (189); Ardglass Harbour* (193); Juries Procedure (Ireland)* (196).
Third Reading—Poor Law Rating (Ireland)* (197), and passed.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
(The Lord President.)
(NO. 204.) 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 the second time, said: My Lords, of the various measures which it has been my fortune to offer for your Lordships' consideration during this and previous Sessions of Parliament, I doubt whether there is any of more importance than the one which I shall now ask your Lordships to read a second time, dealing
776
as it does with Elementary Education throughout the country, and thus affecting the welfare not only of large portions of the humbler classes, but also all who take an interest in the welfare of society at large. Up to 1870, as your Lordships are perfectly aware, the education of the country was conducted mainly, if not altogether, by voluntary efforts. Latterly supplemental grants were made by the Government; but up to 1870no legislation respecting elementary education found a place in the Statute Book. In 1870 the Government of the day for the first time undertook the task of legislating with a view to educate the children of this country; not, indeed, by overthrowing and supplanting the voluntary system which had worked so well Tip to that date, but by supplementing it, and by providing for deficiencies which the beneficent efforts of those who had upheld the voluntary system had been unable altogether to overtake. As I wish to impress upon your Lordships the views entertained by the framers of that Act, and the object which they avowed in legislating in this matter, I think I cannot do better than read a few sentences uttered by the Prime Minister of that day; and I wish to do this the more because part of my case will be that in this measure we are in no way departing from the principles then laid down, by the Government. On the third reading of the Elementary Education Act, in 1870, Mr. Gladstone said—
"We have had to steer our course amid competing bodies and conflicting difficulties. It was with us an absolute necessity—a necessity of honour and a necessity of policy—to respect and to favour the educational establishments and machinery we found existing in the country. It was impossible for us to join in the language or to adopt the tone which was conscientiously and consistently taken by some Members of the House, who look upon these voluntary schools, having generally a denominational character, as admirable passing expedients, fit, indeed, to be tolerated for a time, deserving all credit on account of the motives which led to their foundation, but wholly unsatisfactory as to their main purpose, and, therefore, to he supplanted by something they think better. That is a perfectly fair and intelligible theory for any Gentleman to entertain, but I am quite sure it will be felt that it has never been the theory of the Government."
And later on the same right hon. Gentleman added—
"So in this matter of education it is a great mistake and error in our view to think that

777
secular education given by a State machinery is, per se,better and more valuable than the same education given by machinery voluntary in its character. Setting aside that which is abstractedly desirable, I think we are justified in feeling that this enormous power which exists in the country ought to be turned to account."—[3 Hansard, cciii. 746–7.]
I merely quote these remarks to show the principles then enunciated by the Government, more particularly because, as I said, it is upon those lines we believe the present measure to be founded. The provisions of the Act of 1870 are so well known that it will be unnecessary for me to enter into minute details of that measure—especially as I am not here to find fault with its provisions. On the contrary, considering the novel character of the legislation initiated by that measure; considering the comparatively short period which has elapsed since that Act passed, I think that the Government which proposed this legislation, and your Lordships who assisted in passing it, may very well be satisfied with the results it has attained. I believe the Act of 1870 has worked a great amount of good throughout the country, and therefore I am contented to offer my need of praise to those who were its authors. A few figures will show the progress made since 1870.It is necessary I should quote them, because they form the foundation of the case upon which I shall ask your Lordships to pass the present Bill. In 1870 the schools inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectors were 8,281: in 1875 the number inspected was 13,217. The scholars in average attendance in 1870 were 1,152,389: in 1875 the scholars in average attendance were 1,837,180:—showing a gradual increase in the attendance during each year from 1870 to 1875. The scholars on the school register in 1870 were 1,693,059: in 1875 they numbered 2,744,300. It was impossible to imagine that the Act of 1870, dealing as it did with so vast a number of the population of this country, would not sooner or later require some alteration; and since I have been in the office which I have now the honour to hold, it has been my duty to watch very closely the working of the Act with a view to see whether any, and, if any, what improvements should be made in its provisions. In 1870, or shortly afterwards, the Education Department appointed Inspectors who were to go
778
through the country and ascertain the educational requirements of the country. After due inquiry, very carefully made by these Inspectors in all parts of the country, the following facts came to the knowledge of the Department. It was proved to the satisfaction of the Department that there were 3,250,000 children who ought to have been at school at that time, while the actual number of scholars attending day and night schools was only 1,225,764. At that time the accommodation for children who ought to have been at school was not sufficient, for the Returns show that there was only accommodation for 1,878,584 children; so that if all the children of school age had been in attendance there would have been a deficiency of accommodation for 1,371,416 children. Before the year 1870 no one had any power to compel that deficiency to be made up, nor was there power in any way to compel children to attend school. But by the Act of 1870the country was divided into school districts, and every district was by the 5th section of the Act compelled to supply sufficient school accommodation for the children in that district; and if the district did not supply the deficiency the Department was empowered to require that a school board should be formed, which would have the power of making bye-laws to compel children to attend school in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Having, therefore, by the operation of the Act of 1870, secured that there should be accommodation for the proper number of children who ought to be at school, it was quite obvious that the next thing was to encourage the attendance of children in the schools. By a Return, which I hold in my hand, I find that in 1870 the accommodation was for something under 2,000,000, and that in 1875 accommodation had been provided for rather more than 3,000,000 children. That Return shows that, while the amount of accommodation provided had been increased very largely between 1870 and 1875, the average attendance of the children had not at all increased in the same ratio. I find that the attendance in 1870 was something over 1,000,000 children, and that in 1875 there was an attendance of about 1,800,000, whereas the figure ought to have been very much nearer 3,000,000. In looking over the figures which have been prepared for

779
the use of the Department and of the public, in order that we may see exactly the educational state and the educational wants of the country, it must be a source of considerable congratulation to all friends of the Established Church in the country to see that, so far from having been paralyzed by being brought into competition with the school boards, the Church has continued to extend her sphere of usefulness, and has apparently been incited with new vigour by the competition for providing for the educational wants of the country. By the increase of her schools and scholars she has imparted to those who are within her pale that blessing which she has for so many generations conferred on large numbers of the people of the country— namely, the blessing of sound secular and also religious education. Well, there being so much more accommodation in schools than children were found to occupy, an effort was made—particularly in the rural districts—to introduce a measure for the purpose of inducing children to attend school. Accordingly, the Agricultural Children Act was passed in 1873, and it was hoped it would give the means of inducing children to attend school, and so make up for the deficiency which has been already shown to exist. That measure passed into law; but it had one very remarkable defect—namely, that there was no authority under that Act to compel its being put into operation. It is true that in some counties the police were authorized to give effect to the Act; but in other counties such a mode of employing the police was much objected to—and I think it will be obvious to your Lordships that the police are not exactly the instruments we should like to make use of as the means for getting children to school. Therefore, as a means for compelling the attendance of children at school, the Agricultural Children Act became practically a dead letter, and we had to consider how we could deal with the whole subject, and whether it was possible to maintain in any shape the provisions of that Act. We found that we could not in any way avail ourselves of its provisions, and therefore the only course left was to repeal that Act and to endeavour to do with other machinery that which the Agricultural Children Act had failed to do. My Lords, in preparing the measure
780
which we now offer to your consideration we wish to retain the great principles which, as I have shown, were in the Act of 1870, and which were the principles that actuated those who brought that measure forward—namely, that the action of the Government ought not to interfere with the local efforts which were being made for the supply of scholars to the schools, but, on the contrary, that we were merely to assist in supplying those deficiencies which had arisen by the measure we bring forward to ensure that there should be for the benefit of every child a sound elementary education. Having provided that there should be accommodation for the children, it was obviously impossible that we could stop there. The providing of these schools had been a considerable tax on those who were called upon to subscribe for their erection, and it was clear that we must provide some means for securing the attendance of the children in the schools. We had two courses open to us. We might deal with these schools by means of what is called direct compulsion, and we also had an opportunity afforded to us of adopting compulsion in an indirect manner. I do not know what the views of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) may be on this subject. It may be that he will follow me, and that he will insist upon the merits of direct compulsion: but, if he does, I will ask him to consider whether in the abstract direct interference with the daily life of every parent in this country can be considered a good thing, and whether we had not better leave them to do that which is their duty, and which we believe and hope the great bulk of parents in this country will be willing to do. We presume in this Bill—and it is a presumption we have followed throughout—that if we remove the inducement of children under a certain age earning wages a parent will do his duty and his children will go to school. By this Bill we have provided that if a parent shows himself to be unworthy of the confidence reposed in him, and does not send his children to school, the State must step in for the benefit of the State itself and also for the benefit of the children. If he habitually neglects to provide for the education of his children, the State will say to the parent—"It is time that some measure should

781
be taken which shall induce you to take a different course, and to provide that education which is absolutely necessary." My Lords, these are the general views which Her Majesty's Government have entertained in dealing with this subject. I will now venture to point out as briefly as I can some of the principal provisions contained in the present Bill. Clause 4 introduces for the first time a very important—I will not say alteration, but—incident in the legislation on this subject. That clause sets out that it is in future the duty of a parent to provide for the education of his children. The Bill provides that under the age of 10 there shall be an absolute prohibition of the employment of children; and between the ages of 10 and 14 a child can be employed only when it has passed a certain Standard, and has put in 250 attendances at not more than two schools every year for five years. This, in short, is a measure which declares that a child must be either at work or at school. The provisions of the Act will not come into full play until the year 1880, and in the interval the lower Standards will be admitted, because it would be obviously unfair that its complete operation should not be suspended for a short time. Next comes a very important portion of the Bill—the authority by which it is to be enforced. As I have said, there is in the case of the Agricultural Children Act no such authority, and it has therefore become a dead letter. Under these circumstances, we have considered which would be the best authority for enforcing the provisions of this Bill, and we thought the best course to pursue would be to avail ourselves of the existing authority. We propose, then, that in a school board district the duty of enforcing the Act should be imposed on the school board, while in other districts it is to be enforced by a committee appointed annually, in boroughs by the Town Council, and in parishes by the Guardians of the Union. The Boards of Guardians are to appoint annually school attendance committees, who are to see that the provisions of the Act are carried out, and they in their turn are to have power to appoint local committees in the various parishes or other areas. These bodies will have the same powers as a school board to enforce attendance; but, in the case of parishes, the power of making compulsory bye-laws would only
782
be exercised on the requisition of a parish. There are, I may add, exceptions to the attendance of children—first of all, where there is no school within two miles; secondly, where the school is closed; and, thirdly, where the local authority may suspend, for the purposes of harvest operations, the provisions of the Act. We require that all children should attend school, and it is perfectly obvious, therefore, that some provision must be made for the case of parents who are not in sufficiently good circumstances to pay the necessary fees. With that view, there is a provision in the Bill enabling Boards of Guardians to pay the amount of the school fees for such parents who may not be paupers, in the strict sense of the word, but who are too poor to pay them. That being so, the 25th clause of the Act of 1870 is proposed to be repealed, at the instance of one of the most eminent promoters of that Act—the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster); and the payment of fees in the case of poor parents is handed over to the Boards of Guardians, who, in my opinion, are the proper authorities to deal with the matter, because they must be far better judges of the condition of the parents than any school board. The practice, I may add, of enabling Boards of Guardians to pay school fees is one which has always prevailed in Scotland, where it has worked well. Some objection has been taken to this proposal on the score that the religious difficulty was involved in it; but I do not think that any such difficulty will be found to arise. Every noble Lord who attends Boards of Guardians will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that when relief is sought by any one applying to those Boards there is no question as to the religious views of the applicant. I find that the Parochial Boards in Scotland pay large sums for education. I find by a Return that they pay annually for public schools, £3,968; for schools connected with the Church of Scotland, £1,072; for Free Church schools, £210; for schools belonging to the Episcopal Church, £50; and for Roman Catholic schools, £352. The rate of expenditure per scholar in average attendance is, I find, £1 18 s. for public schools, £l 13 s. for schools connected with the Church of Scotland, £1 11 s. for the Free Church, £1 9s. for the Episcopal Church, and £1 6s. for

783
the Roman Catholic. In Scotland, therefore, it cannot be said that the religious difficulty interferes with the payment of fees for poor parents. The 10th clause therefore provides that the Guardians may, if satisfied that the parent of any child, not being a pauper, is unable by reason of poverty to pay the ordinary school fee, pay such school fee, or any part of it, not exceeding 3d. a-week—and it is expressly provided that the parent shall not, by reason of this payment, be deprived of any franchise or privilege, or be subjected to any disability or disqualification; nor is such payment to be made or refused on any condition with respect to the school to which the parent may elect to send the child. Where the parent habitually neglects to provide efficient elementary instruction for his child, or the child is found habitually wandering about the streets, the local authority is to warn the parent, and the warning failing, a court of summary jurisdiction may, on complaint of the local authority, order the child to attend some public elementary or other efficient school; and, this order not being complied with, the court may for the first offence inflict a fine of 5s.; but if the parent satisfies the court that he has used all due means to enforce compliance with the order, the court may order the child to a certified day or other industrial school. This brings me to the very important part of the Bill relating to industrial schools. This, no doubt, is an experiment, but it is an experiment to meet exceptional cases that do to some extent exist. It proposed that school boards may, with the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department—not of the Education Department—establish a certified day industrial school. There are in every large town a number of children of poor but respectable parents who are engaged all day in industrial occupations, and are absent from home; and unless some means are found of dealing with these children they will in all probability receive no education at all, and may become inmates of our gaols. The day industrial school seems the best instrument for this purpose. It is, therefore, provided that the Secretary of State, when satisfied that some such school is necessary or expedient for the proper training and control of that class of children in any district, may
784
certify any industrial school in the neighbourhood, established under the Industrial Schools Act, 1866, to be a certified day industrial school; and the court before whom any such child is brought may order it to be sent to such school. Upon this subject, rather than put forward my own opinion, I will refer to the testimony of others. I will refer to the opinion of the late Dean of Ripon (Dr. Turner), who has as much experience on this question as any man in the country. Dr. Turner believes that most essential and effectual relief will be afforded by the establishment of day industrial schools; and they will have this advantage over the ordinary industrial schools, inasmuch as while children cost 7s. per head in the ordinary industrial schools, they will cost 3s. per head in the day schools. There is another point to which I wish to call attention, and that is an important alteration in the conditions upon which the Government grants are made. The present system of Parliamentary grants undoubtedly presses very hardly on poor districts, because the principle is that for every amount supplied by the central authority you require a similar amount to be supplied locally. This tells much against poor town districts where there are no rich subscribers, as well as against small country parishes, where the number of scholars are few, and where the cost of teaching 30 scholars is as great as the cost of teaching 50 or 60. This alteration in the provision applies equally to board schools in town and country and to other schools. We have had a Memorial from the London School Board, which represents a great amount of intelligence, energy, and vigour, and which is not surpassed by any other school board in the country. This Memorial, which is signed by a majority of the members, brings under our notice the inadequacy of the Government grant, and they say that compared with the promises held out upon the passing of the Education Bill, the grant is very inadequate. This is a Memorial of very great weight, and I think it ought to have some influence with your Lordships. I shall not read the Memorial at length, but the following words will show its purport:—
"The increase in the cost of schools has been so much greater than the increase of the grants that the actual burden of maintenance is now

785
considerably heavier than before the passing of the Education Act in 1870. The consequence is that many schools, of whoso efficiency there is no doubt, find it difficult to maintain their footing. The anticipated increase of cost for all schools has been more than realized, but the increase of aid in the way of public grant has fallen far short of what was expected. The average increase of grant since 1870 has, in fact, as your Lordships are aware, been considerably less than one-half of the average increase of expenditure for public elementary schools since the same date. The board would regard it as a public injury of a very serious character if any large proportion of good elementary schools, at present under Government inspection, and bearing their share in the supply of the educational needs of the metropolis, were to be closed or transferred to the board. Either alternative would entail such an increased charge on the rates as the Board could not contemplate without apprehension. The removal of all limitations on the amount of grant which may be earned would create the stimulus necessary to prompt alike managers and teachers to the attainment of the highest excellence."
The system which has been adopted in this country is payment by results; and the logical consequence of payment by results is that you must pay for the result irrespective of the cost at which that result has been obtained. The payment is for the result which the school can show you. If the scholars achieve a certain amount of efficiency, you must pay them a sum of money, and it should be nothing to you what is the sum at the cost of which that efficiency has been attained. If 17 s. 6d. could be earned by a good school for elementary instruction, then I say you have no right to compel the authorities of those schools to show you that it has cost 17 s. 6d. to arrive at this state of efficiency. If you have to pay for the result, all you have to do is to look at the result which is brought before you. Under the existing state of things, if a school has earned £50 by its state of efficiency and the amount of education given in the school, but cannot show that there has been a sum of £50 subscribed in the neighbourhood, then the school is mulcted to the extent of the sum of money between the money subscribed and the money earned—that is, if it is entitled to £50 and the amount subscribed reaches only £40, then it only gets £40 from the Government—that is, £10 less than it ought to receive. This discourages managers and teachers alike, and the proposal now made will place the schools in a much more healthy condition. We do not propose to increase the grant, nor do we
786
propose to take any power to relax the terms on which money is so earned. Provision is made in the Bill for the Education Department to interfere with the school boards or local authorities, who fail in their duties to carry out the provisions of the Act. That, we think, will be a provision of very considerable importance. I now come to the clause providing for the dissolution of school boards under certain circumstances. This proposal elicited a great deal of criticism in the other House. First of all, a school board is only abolished where there is no building; and, secondly, where such a board is considered to be unnecessary, and where the body who in the first instance called the school board into existence by a bare majority decide by a majority of two-thirds that they are dissatisfied with the system of having a school board in that parish; and, further, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Education Department that maintenance of the Board is no longer necessary for the education purposes of the district; thereon the Department may order the dissolution of the school board. There is a provision enacting that school boards in large towns may provide themselves with offices, and. pay for them out of the rates in the same way as they pay for new schools. In some of the large towns there is great necessity for offices, but as at present there are no means to pay for them the boards are obliged to hire a building for that purpose. Then there is an important provision as to vacancies which may occur upon the boards during the period of three years for which the parties have been elected, and which vacancies, it is provided, may be filled up by the members of the board. As your Lordships are aware, in the large towns—such as Manchester and Liverpool—the cost of an election is very great, and this provision is intended to prevent the cost of an election in the event of a vacancy occurring within the three years; therefore it is proposed that casual vacancies shall be filled up by the boards themselves, as in Scotland. Lastly, there is a provision to enable the Education Department to certify that a school is efficient, though it is other than a public elementary school, if it is not conducted for private profit, if it is subject to the same regulations as to attendance and registration

787
as in public elementary schools, and is open to the inspection of Her Majesty's Inspectors. These, my Lords, are the main principles of the Bill. There are others of some importance on which I might touch, but I do not wish to detain your Lordships at too great length. My Lords, the object of this Bill is by no means to injure or impair school boards—on the contrary, there are provisions in it which I believe those bodies will find both useful and acceptable—I mean those referring to the filling up of vacancies, the setting at rest of the question as to the raising of loans for industrial schools, the building of offices, the repeal of the 25th clause of the existing Act, and the transference to Boards of Guardians of the duty of paying fees. In conclusion, I have to express my belief that if your Lordships agree to the second reading of this Bill you will have made a step in advance in education at which all persons who have the interest and welfare of the country at heart will have cause to rejoice.
Moved, ''That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, my first duty in rising to address your Lordships on this subject is to acknowledge—which I do cheerfully—the spirit of conciliation in which the noble Duke has spoken, and the manner in which he has referred to the operation of the Act which was passed by the late Government. There is one point, however, to which he has not in any way referred, but which I think calls for some attention, and that is the very late period of the Session at which this most important Bill comes before us. Some seven years ago this House refused to proceed even with the consideration of an Education Bill, because it came up so late as the 9th of August, and that notwithstanding the fact that this House had previously discussed its provisions, and had only to consider certain Amendments made by the House of Commons. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will repeat to-night the question which he put on that occasion—namely, whether it is fair to this House to bring before it an important Bill within a few days of the end of the Session? For myself, I will not ask whether Her Majesty's Government by pur-
788
suing this course is not making this House a mere instrument for registering the proceedings of the House of Commons; but this I will say, that the arguments which governed your Lordships on the occasion to which I have referred seven years ago apply with ten-fold force to the present Bill, which is of the highest importance, and which practically comes before us to-day—the 8th of August—for the first time. There is a very great difference between the position of the present Government and that of the late Government in this matter. When the late Government brought forward their Bill, they did so with the full knowledge that this House could mould it as they liked; but with regard to this Bill I appeal to your Lordships whether we on this side of the House are not absolutely helpless. What chance have we of making any change in this Bill whatever at this period of the Session? But I need not dwell on this point. I would now refer to what the noble Duke has said with respect to the character of the Bill. I am glad to hear the changes that have been made in the Bill during its passage through the other House, and which have got rid of many of the objections I entertained in the first instance. Not long after this measure was introduced in the other House I had occasion to make some remarks on it out-of-doors, and I then said, among other things, that I regretted the principle of indirect compulsion which had been adopted, because I was afraid it would prove both inefficient and invidious. I think the noble Duke, in referring to this matter, has rather misapprehended the great change which has been made in the Bill since its introduction. One of the reasons why I originally objected to the Bill, was that while it did not force a child up to 10 years of age to go to school, it did prohibit him from going to labour. A more worthless mode of bringing up a child than was thus laid down I could not conceive. But the Bill now contains an entirely different provision. Not only is the child prevented from going to labour, but he is forced to attend school up to the age of 10. Again, the Bill, as originally drawn, discouraged the half-time system. Now I am happy to say it has the contrary effect. After 10 years of age a child, unless he has obtained an education certificate, is prohibited from labouring except on

789
half-time. There is, I think, some objection as to the mode in which compulsion is carried out. I do not know whether your Lordships have read the evidence taken by the Agricultural Employment Commissioners, in which the difficulty raised by the question of certificates is referred to. One of the objections there taken to the provision of the Bill in respect to certificates is that an immense army of Inspectors will be required to carry it out effectively. With regard to the Bill generally, I quite agree with the noble Duke that it marks a great step forward in education; because it establishes the principle that it is the duty of a parent to educate his child, and that if he does not do that the State will take the function upon itself, and will inflict penalties upon him. In that respect undoubtedly the Bill contains an important and valuable contribution to the cause of education. The noble Duke particularly called my attention to the proposed day industrial schools, and then proceeded—though I think with some hesitation—to commend them very strongly. Well, I am not going to enter into the political economy part of the question.—I would merely observe that my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who in this matter of the education of the poor has never shown any great inclination to yield to the doctrines of political economists, has expressed the strongest possible opinion against these day industrial schools, and I believe he would have been here to-day to address your Lordships on the subject had he not felt how utterly hopeless it was to attempt to amend the Bill at this period of the Session. A member of the London School Board, Mr. John M'Gregor, in a letter to The Times, has also expressed himself opposed to the establishment of schools of this kind. What I understand to be proposed is this—That certain children are to be sent to these industrial schools, where they will be more or less in prison and under strict surveillance, and not only. be educated, but taught some kind of industry; but that for nearly two-thirds of their time they will be perfectly free on week-days and, possibly, during the whole of Sunday to profit by the increased intelligence which their schooling may have developed in learning the bad habits from which it is most desirable to wean them. Again, enor-
790
mous outlay will be incurred in erecting schools of this kind in the large towns with every appliance and in the most expensive localities, because there is to be a school within a limited distance of the place where the children live. That, I confess, seems to me a very wild scheme; and my own consolation is that by an Amendment made in the other House the whole thing is to be put under the discretion of the Home Secretary, whereby much of the mischief that would otherwise be produced will probably be averted. The noble Duke then spoke of the new mode of giving aid to schools not under a school board. He stated that the Bill had been framed in no spirit of hostility to school boards. I did express some time ago a fear that there was an undue amount of hostility to school boards; and even in the provisions of the measure as they come up now to us I think there is such a spirit shown. I admit that some advantages are given to school boards—with regard, for example, to the filling up of casual vacancies, with regard to offices, and one or two other petty matters. But when you give aid to the denominational schools without the safeguard which has hitherto existed, that the grant should bear some proportion to the voluntary subscription of the district, I do say you handicap one class of schools most unfavourably as against another. Objection has been taken to the great advantage thus given to denominational schools; but is it clear that this will operate ultimately for the benefit of the denominations? Do you believe that, when the denominational schools go on entirely deprived of voluntary subscriptions, in a number of years they will be allowed to be regarded otherwise than as State schools? When they rest on the Government grant without voluntary assistance, I believe that in a certain length of time you will have a claim which it will be impossible to resist to take a more complete State control over these schools. Then, with respect to the 25th clause, no responsibility attaches to the Education Department. Whether it was originally right or wrong, the 25th clause had come to be generally accepted as a compromise, and though, it had at one time caused considerable dispute, it was at last working very well. But the Government, almost in a sort of panic, re-opened the whole question, and

791
it is impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that this unnecessary disturbance of a matter on which there existed acquiescence will probably rouse bitter and angry controversy again in many parts of the country. Now, while I think some of the provisions of the Bill are very good—so good that I shall vote for the second reading—I may state that I will not give Notice of very important Amendments to be proposed in Committee, because, as must be felt on both sides of the House, it would be perfectly abortive, and indeed an absolute farce, to attempt anything of the kind. Your Lordships will remember the old play in which a man finds his chimney smoking very badly. His first impulse is to complain to his landlord; but he is afraid that it might give his landlord the idea of raising his rent. And so I am afraid that if I gave Notice of Amendments it might encourage some independent Members of your Lordships' House to propose other Amendments of a strongly re-actionary character—Amendments to which, judging from their conduct in the other House, the Government might be tempted to accede. Therefore I shall not trouble your Lordships by submitting Amendments which I feel I have not the remotest chance of carrying within a few days of the Prorogation of Parliament.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, at this period of the Session, and considering the way in which this matter has been so fully debated "elsewhere," it can hardly be desirable to detain your Lordships at any length. But, at the same time, I think I should hardly be doing my duty if I did not express some opinion on the merits of this Bill, which it seems is absolutely certain to become the law of the land whether this House prolongs or shortens the discussion. I am the more anxious to say a few words because, although nothing can be more kindly than the feeling with which the Bill has been discussed in this House, your Lordships are perfectly aware that in the country generally there has been a good deal of agitation on the subject of the measure: and, as representing the Church of which I have the honour to be the Chief Minister, I cannot allow one or two remarks to pass which have been made as to the tendency of the Bill and the reasons why it has been ac-
792
quiesced in by the clergy of the Church of England. I think that observations have been made with reference to the zeal of the clergy on the subject of education which are of a somewhat unkind and ungenerous character. It would almost appear as if some thought that that enormous sum of money which from 1811 down to the end of the year 1874 was produced by the voluntary exertions of members of the Church of England in order to promote the education of the poor—namely, some £27,000,000 sterling—had been collected rather in the spirit of a Pharisaical desire to make converts than with any real love for the children of the poor and a desire to have them thoroughly instructed. I cannot help thinking that elsewhere we have been represented as being anxious to compass sea and land in order to make one convert, that when we had gained him we might make him two-fold more bigoted and uncharitable then we are ourselves. I believe that any who have cast such blame on the exertions not only of the clergy, but of the laity also, of the Church of England in this matter must be sorry by this time for what they have said. My own experience is that there is nothing dearer to the hearts either of the clergy or of the attached laity of the Church of England than the instruction of the children of the poor—not for the sake of attaching them to this or to that sect, but for the sake of conferring on them the greatest benefit which it is in our power to bestow. The only further remark I would make on this subject is that if there be any bigotry in the matter it is not all on one side. This Bill has been represented as a concession to the Church of England. I am disposed to think that it has considerable advantages as being likely ultimately to promote the cause of religious education; and, though I am aware that the religious education of the country is very greatly in the hands of the Church of England, yet I have still to learn that when I speak of the religious education of the country I am speaking in the interests solely of the Church of England. In the discussions elsewhere it has been taken for granted that if you promote religious education you necessarily promote the interests of the Church of England. Certainly no greater compliment could be paid to the Church of England than by this assumption. But still,

793
my Lords, we are not to depart from facts. I hold in my hand the Return printed by your Lordships' House at the beginning of this Session of the number of schools, denominational and others, in this country. The denominational schools of the Church of England are in an enormous majority. But I find 2,000 other schools not complying with the regulations of school boards, which I suppose refused to comply with them because they thought these regulations did not sufficiently maintain the religious instruction of the country; and these 2,000 schools are schools of Nonconformists, who certainly cannot have identified religion with the maintenance of the Church of England. Therefore, when I argue that it is good if this Bill has done anything—though it be but a little—for the cause of religious education, I altogether deny that I am only representing that community of which I am a minister. I am speaking in the name of all the religious communities, not excluding the Roman Catholic community, which has so many schools of its own; and I believe we are acting very consistently with the principles of the Act of 1870, if we are very carefully on our guard against any unexpected consequences, which are gradually pushing those religious schools into the shade and making it an absolute necessity for them in the course of time, against the intention of the promoters of the Bill of 1870, to be superseded by board schools. The Roman Catholic body have, as I see, 598 schools of their own. I should like to know why they are to be forced on account of their poverty to surrender these schools, and to send their children to board schools? I do not know, if I were a conscientious Roman Catholic, that anything would induce me, if it were possible for me to secure for them that particular religious instruction which I should so highly prize, to send my children to a school where they could not possibly obtain it. And if Roman Catholics may hold this opinion, I do not see why Wesleyan Methodists are not to hold it—and I know that they do. I know, too, if you travel beyond the Border you will certainly find in the northern parts of this Island many persons who have no great desire for the maintenance of the Established Church of England, but who have the strongest determination that they will
794
have their children taught according to that creed which they themselves prize; and I have yet to learn that the Nonconformists of the South have so entirely separated themselves from their brethren of the Westminster Confession as not—many of them, at least—still to desire that they should have if they please the right of instructing their children according to those beliefs which they so greatly prize. Therefore, I think it is an unfair assumption that, if this Bill does in any way remove the disadvantages which have accidentally arisen in the way of the Act of 1870, and have made it less conducive to the maintenance of fair play to all parties, that alteration is necessarily one which has been made simply for the benefit of the Church of England. Now, my Lords, if I wished to prove that this Bill is not particularly satisfactory to those who are in favour of religious education, I should have no difficulty in making good that point. I am thankful for small mercies. I am therefore glad that anything has been done which shall upon the whole give to the instruction of this country more of a religious character. But still when we are met with something like a loud outcry that this is a great concession made to the advocates of denominational and religious education, we are bound to consider for a moment what the demands of those who are in favour of religious education are, and how far they have been incorporated in this Bill. I hold in my hand the resolutions proposed at a great meeting, held with the view of influencing the Government with respect to this measure. At that meeting it was observed with regret
"that the Elementary Education Bill, now before the House of Commons, does not include in its provisions any satisfactory recognition of the general desire of the country for adequate religious instruction in all elementary schools."
I hold in my hand another set of resolutions of the National Education Union, and their proposals are these—
"That, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 14 of the Act of 1870, the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments may be taught in schools provided by School Boards.
''That it may be made a condition for the receipt of a Parliamentary Grant in the case of a Board School that religious instruction should be given therein, and that such instruction should consist of at least the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments.

795
"That all Public Elementary Schools should be exempt from local rates,"
and so on. These were the proposals of the favourers of denominational education at the time that the country first began to discuss this Bill. I am sorry to say there is not a concession made to us that I know of in one of these respects; and since I entered the House this day I have been waited upon by a deputation begging me to do what I agree with the noble Earl (Earl Granville) would be useless—namely, to propose an Amendment that the Bible should be read in every board and other school throughout the country. I believe if I proposed that in this House the proposal would have an echo in the country. I believe it is true that the country, having been appealed to on this matter, is in favour of religious education; that it knows there is no real and true good education which is not religious; and I think I might almost cite even the Gentleman who represents the Birmingham School Board, as himself bearing testimony to the fact. For the Secularists appear to me at this moment to have awakened to the consciousness that they are very weak in the country, and, therefore, what they say is, not that they hold a secular education is the real education, but that it is to be the only public education, and that the other is so sacred a thing that it must be carried on privately and by voluntary effort. Whether they are right or wrong in this view, I am confident, my Lords, that they have not the voice of the country with them; because we are all aware that if the children of the poor in the present state of education and religion in the country do not receive religious instruction by the public means which are taken to secure it, they are but little likely to receive it at all. My Lords, I think the voice of the country in this matter is shown by the proceedings of the school boards. Some gentleman was at the trouble to collect, with very great care, all the different rules and regulations which were made by the school boards throughout the country, in order to show how hopeless was the task they had undertaken of teaching religion without teaching any particular religion. Well, I grant that he made out a tolerably good ease; but I think the evidence which he collected was more distinctly conclusive on this point
796
than on the point to which he directed our attention—namely, that, in spite of all the regulations you may introduce, to say there is to be no dogmatic teaching in your public schools, men cannot do without it, and, whether by right or by wrong methods, by subterfuge or openly, they will endeavour to introduce something in the nature of dogmatic teaching. What is dogmatic teaching? I hold in my hands a little extract which I read the other day of what has been prepared for France in this matter by the very eminent man who carried the knowledge acquired by him at Rugby, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, to the regulation of public instruction in the country of his birth—
"Clause II.—From the age of ten the pupils of both sexes"—this is in the French elementary schools—"shall sedulously receive general notions on the existence of God, on the immortality of the soul, on morals, and on the organic principles of Republican Government."
I presume the last would imply some very dogmatic statements indeed. The paper seems to be drawn up by M. Waddington:—it is highly probable that it has not been adopted; but it shows what is occurring in a country which desires to shake off all dogmatic teaching, and to get entirely free from this nightmare. I mention these things because I think it will be found that ultimately the good sense and the religious feeling of this country will more and more gravitate towards a religious education. I do not know that we shall have very strict denominational education; but I am quite sure that if the country is to be what we all trust it will be in the ages that lie before us, it will gravitate towards a really religious education. I have said that I have received many suggestions to make Amendments in this Bill in this direction. They came from persons quite above suspicion of not being in accord with the general love of progress which characterizes this 19thcentury. One gentleman of long experience as a Government Inspector of Schools begs me to remember what Lord John Russell and Sir George Grey did in this direction in a former time, when old Constitutional and Liberal principles had not given way to any theories of doctrinaire Radicalism. One, as being a pupil of Arnold, begs me to secure that something representing Arnold's hearty love of religious education shall find its

797
way into this Bill. I hold in my hand, also, a Petition, which I ought to have presented some time ago, urging the same point. As we have failed, therefore, to obtain any of the particular benefits which we might have hoped for from a revision of the legislation of 1870, I think it is particularly hard that we should be exposed to obloquy because we have obtained in this Bill a slight instalment of that which is neither more nor less than simple justice. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) has quoted the opinions of the Government of 1870, when they brought forward the Bill of that year; and when we consider the line adopted by one eminent man, to whom the country owes, perhaps, more than to any other for his labours in the cause of education during the last six years, I cannot but believe that to remedy now the inconveniences which have arisen from the unforeseen working of the Act of 1870 is simply an act of justice. It is because, firstly, we have no chance of getting any more; and, secondly, because we think it fair, on the whole, to acquiesce in the legislation of 1870, that we, the clergy of the Church of England, have made up our minds to do our best to support this Bill. It is not that we are quite satisfied with it. I would have everybody to understand that we wish for a great deal more; but we cannot get it. We think it right, therefore, to acquiesce in that which is, on the whole, a fair compromise. Very much the same thing happened in 1870. We differed altogether from parts of the legislation of 1870, but thought, on the whole, it was fair to all parties. Now, as then, we ask only for a fair field and no favour; and this is what we think the Bill does for the poor schools throughout the country. In the poor districts, if there was, to use the noble Earl's (Earl Granville's) expression, any "handicapping," it certainly was not in favour of the denominational schools. They had to contend with persons who had a bottomless purse at their disposal, and who alone could compel the attendance of the children; and, therefore, they had very little chance of fighting their way in a fair field which it was the intention of the Act of 1870 to secure for them. I think they will have a fair field now, and therefore I, for one, am quite ready to acquiesce in the Bill—though I should be very glad, if this
798
were not now the 8th of August, to ask that the Bible should be read in all the schools. At this period of the Session, however, there is no use in making such a proposal. Now, what is the great aim of this Bill? I suppose it is to educate by compulsion. I do not think compulsion the highest or most desirable mode of securing education. The only object of having compulsion is in order that, for a generation or two, you may convince men of the blessings of education who are at present not sufficiently educated themselves to understand and appreciate these blessings. I hope, however, the time will come when you may repeal the clauses as to compulsion, and when parents will be as unwilling to deprive a child of his education as they would be to starve him, and so deprive him of his natural food. I have alluded to the country on the other side of the Tweed, and cannot help mentioning what was told me by one now deceased (the late Mr. Edward Ellice), of his recollections of the Highlands in his early days, when the shepherds on the remote mountains were so desirous that their children should be educated, that during the summer they sent them to schools many miles distant, over hill and flood, and during the winter took care that their children should not want teachers, for the boys from the schools in the nearest towns were then lent out to act as private tutors in these shepherds' hovels. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of such a measure as this, if it really fulfils the purpose for which it is intended. Nations change their character very rapidly. A year or two of slavery or of licence altogether destroys the character of a nation; and a single generation of well-enforced compulsory education may, and I trust will, so influence for good the generation which follows that compulsion may become altogether unnecessary. For these reasons I shall support the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that as one of the authors of the Act of 1870, of which he had charge in this House, he asked permission to say a few words upon the present Bill. Its main object was to extend more widely than at present the system of compulsory attendance at schools. Now, he confessed he was one of those old-fashioned people—of whom, perhaps, there were now not many on either side of the House—who

799
looked with jealousy and with close scrutiny upon any proposal for extending the principle of compulsion and for interfering with the freedom of private life. That jealousy was a sound one as a general rule, and it was particularly sound with respect to interference between parent and child; because the relation between parent and child was so sacred that we ought to be very careful in any steps we took that might tend to weaken it. But though he held this opinion, he did not, of course, say there were not cases in which it might be just and necessary that the State should step in to see that a parent performed his duty to his child; and he quite accepted the principle laid down in Clause 4 of the Bill, that it was the duty of a parent to provide efficient elementary education for his child. He thought, however, it was very desirable that we should closely scrutinize proposals of this kind when made from time to time— because their justice depended entirely on the way in which compulsion was applied. It ought to be applied in a manner which carefully guarded to the utmost possible extent the free choice of the parent as to the school to which his child should be sent. The compulsion proposed by this Bill was of two kinds, direct and indirect. He had heard with some surprise the statement of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), that there was no direct compulsion in this Bill. It appeared to him that when their Lordships went into Committee they would find there was a very stringent provision for direct compulsion throughout the country. He would not now go into details, but he should desire to make some remarks when the Bill was in Committee on the way in his noble Friend proposed to apply both direct and indirect compulsion. He rejoiced that an Amendment proposed in the other House by his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had been introduced into the Bill, which Amendment would enable the half-time system to be adopted in rural districts. He hoped that the extension of compulsion would in a few years become unnecessary, and that the value of education would be appreciated throughout the country; but he entertained some fear as to the possible consequences of extending the system—especially of direct compulsion—to what he might call single-school
800
districts. In many places there was a single school in connection with the Established Church, to which school all the children in the parish, speaking generally, were in the habit of going with perfect satisfaction, under a system which worked very quietly and efficiently. Englishmen were, however, very often ready to do willingly what they would not do by compulsion, and he feared it might turn out that the effect of this Bill would be to disturb the harmonious working of the present system—although no one would be more glad than he to find himself wrong in this supposition. He was well aware there were many persons in this country who would say that such difficulties as he had described would be entirely got rid of by the general establishment of what were called unsectarian schools. He could not share the opinion that that system would tend to get rid of the religious difficulty, although it might possibly alter the phase of that difficulty. Although unsectarian schools might be very acceptable to a considerable number of persons, they would, on the other hand, be extremely unacceptable to others. On this point he would cite the testimony of Dr. Rigg, the head of the Wesleyan Training College at Westminster, and for some years a member of the London School Board. That gentleman said—
"The instruction, indeed, is called 'unsectarian;' but to a Roman Catholic it is sectarian, being a form of generically Protestant instruction out of the Scriptures. So to the Deist, the Rationalist, the 'advanced liberal' Unitarian Christian, it is a form of sectarian and dogmatic instruction, opposed to his 'conscientious convictions.' So far as the instruction goes it is a broad Protestant form of Biblical Christianity, and favours certain Christian sects in common, to the exclusion of other religious communities professedly Christian, or perhaps, also, professedly non-Christian."
That appeared to him to be a perfectly fair statement of the case. His own belief was, that under any system of State-aided schools the so-called religious difficulty could not be wholly got rid of, but it might be reduced to a minimum; and, in fact, it had been reduced to a minimum, by the system established in 1870. His noble Friend who spoke second in this debate (Earl Granville), made some remarks with respect to the proposed increase of grants from the Education Department. The

801
grants were not to be made exclusively to denominational schools, but to all schools; though, no doubt, a change was about to be made in the conditions on which those grants were issued. It did not appear to him that the proposed increase was fairly open to the objection of his noble Friend. That objection was based on the ground that the clause would have the effect of getting rid of the local and private subscriptions in the great majority of voluntary schools. If he entertained that opinion he should be inclined to think that such a proposal would be very injurious to the interests of denominational schools; but he did not believe that the result alluded to would be at all general. There were, moreover, under the system of 1870, schools which were supported exclusively by the Government grant and by school fees. These were schools belonging chiefly to the Wesleyan and other Nonconformist Bodies. Therefore the principle of schools without voluntary subscriptions had been admitted ever since the passing of the Act of 1870. A good deal had been said about the clause which provided for the dissolution of certain school boards, and he for one very much regretted that the Government, who had not originally proposed that clause, should have given way with respect to it to their more ardent and less discreet Friends. The clause, he believed, would have no very appreciable effect, but it might have the effect of stirring up animosities and raising questions that he hoped had been set at rest. There was nothing which, for his own part, he more strongly deprecated than the existence of a hostile antagonism between denominational and board schools. There ought, he thought, to be between them only a friendly rivalry as to which could do most in the public interest and for the cause of education. There was, he believed, room for both classes of schools in the country, and good work to be accomplished by both. Having said thus much, he would observe that he could not concur in the language which was sometimes used as to the effect of the present Bill upon the policy of the Act of 1870. The noble Earl who spoke second (Earl Granville) spoke of that Act, as was commonly done, as being a compromise. Well, some of the wisest measures which
802
had been passed by the Parliament of England had been the results of compromise; and in that way much of the violence and revolution which characterized the history of other countries had, he believed, been avoided. But if those who employed the word "compromise" with respect to the Act of 1870 meant thereby to imply that it was devoid of principle, then that was an interpretation of it which he begged most distinctly to repudiate. He for one was proud of having been permitted to play even an humble part in that great legislation; for what was the policy of the Act of 1870? It was based on the history of education in this country. Its object was to make the utmost use of that which was good in the existing system and at the same time to adopt such new provisions as would speedily bring within the reach of every child in the Kingdom the means of elementary education. The first principle of the measure was to take advantage of those great forces, chiefly religious, which had in the past done so much for the cause of public education, to accept what they had done, and to aid them to do more. The second was the introduction of a new force to supplement those more ancient forces, so that schools might be established throughout the length and breadth of the land. The third and last principle was cautiously and tentatively to make trial of a system of compulsory education, while scrupulously respecting the free right of choice of the parent as to the school to which his child should go. Those were the principles on which the Act of 1870 was framed; and what had been the result? In six years, under the operation of that legislation, the school accommodation had been increased to the extent of 1,380,487, of which accommodation for nearly 1,000,000 had been supplied by voluntary efforts. The average attendance during these six years had increased by 659,798, the certificated teachers by 9,925, and the pupil teachers by the enormous number of 16,286. The legislation of 1870 had produced these great results. He believed that its policy was as sound in principle as it had been rich in results, and he trusted that policy might long continue to guide them in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have, my Lords, the happiness to

803
have arrived at a somewhat calmer discussion of this subject than those through which this measure has so recently passed. Two Ministers who were principally responsible for the Act of 1870 have spoken this evening, and both of them have told us that they are not prepared to move the rejection of the Bill. It is impossible to listen to such an announcement without reflecting that the Colleagues of those noble Lords in "another place" have sent it up to us with anything but their blessing, but with an anathema, and that one of them (Mr. Goschen) voted against the third reading. It is another satisfactory proof of the calmness of our deliberations, or perhaps it may be due to the smaller attendance, that a more sober view is taken of the Bill by the two noble Lords of whom I am speaking than by their Colleagues in the other House. It was, of course, the duty of the noble Earl who spoke second (Earl Granville) to find some fault with the measure, and I quite sympathize with the difficulty he has had to encounter in doing so. He seems to think that a great indignity has been offered to this House in its having been sent up to us at so late a period of the Session; but that is a charge which if true ought to have been addressed to his Friends in the other House, where five days were taken up in the discussion of a single clause. The noble Earl cited the precedent of the Scotch Education Act of 1869; but I think he must have forgotten the circumstances of that case. That Bill, after long and anxious discussion in this House, and having been largely amended, was sent down to the House of Commons. There the Lord Advocate in one night, and without discussion, by force of the overwhelming majority at his command, re-introduced all those clauses which this House had struck out; and then the Bill was contemptuously sent back for our acceptance on the 9th of August. There was a great difference between that Bill and this Bill. That Bill was sent up to us in known and contemptuous disregard of our opinion; this Bill has been sent here with the general knowledge that it is highly acceptable to your Lordships. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) has referred to the clauses relating to day industrial schools, and he dwelt upon the perfect futility of giving children education during the day which would
804
be rendered more than useless by the wickedness they would learn from their parents at night. But I think the noble Earl can hardly have reflected that that is a formidable objection to any education of the lower classes at all. There must be many poor persons in the community who will be liable to temptations; and if you lay down that profligate companionship is not only to neutralize the advantage of the education given, but to make that education a positive evil, you throw very great doubt upon the policy of general compulsory education. I should concur with the noble Earl in doubting the policy as to these wastrel clauses if it was intended to make them universal in all parishes. Undoubtedly, it is exceptional legislation. It is aimed at an exceptional fact—the terrible condition of some children—the wandering and unclaimed children of our large towns. This is one of the greatest evils and sorest disgraces of our highly-civilized social life, and you must apply such remedies as may seem equal to meeting it; but you must not imagine that remedies suitable for an unusual and exceptional disease can be applicable to all states of society. The noble Earl went through what I may call the 17 s. 6d. clause; but it is not necessary to say much in answering him on this point. He said that it was inconsistent with the Act of 1870. Happily, we have the great High Priest of that Act with us, and he tells us that there is nothing inconsistent between them. I do not venture to interfere between two authorities so great. We do not confine this 17 s. 6d. to voluntary schools; if we did it would be handicapping them in the race. We give precisely the same advantage to the two competitors, and it cannot be said that preference is given to one over the other. The noble Earl forgets that all these voluntary schools have been built almost entirely by voluntary effort—if I may so speak of it, the business has been started by the capital of the voluntary people. After all, the real answer to the complaint is that the assistance of 17 s. 6d. is to be given in no case until the children display the proficiency required by the Council of Education. Surely, where this proficiency was shown, it would be no ground on which to refuse the assistance to say that it was done by voluntary effort? If the volun-

805
tary school passed the tests of the Education Department it had a right to the payment. As to the references made to the Act of 1870, and the understanding then come to, no doubt that Act was passed by an understanding. Its passing was not characterized by what we have lately witnessed—by discussions of five nights in length. If the Act of 1870 had been met with the same spirit as the Bill of 1876 has been met with, the Act of 1870 would never have reached the Statute Book. The Act of 1870 maintained, generally speaking, a fair neutrality between the board system and the voluntary system: leaving to each locality a free choice between the two systems. But there was one exception to that impartiality. While the Act provided for a change from a denominational to a board school, it refused to sanction a change from a board school to a denominational school. As long as that inequality existed you could not say that the subject was dealt with in a fair and even-handed manner by the Act of 1870. I agree that this clause will not have a large effect. I have no doubt it will relieve a feeling of soreness in this country, but it will not have a large general effect.. It will have a moral and indirect effect in another way. It will announce to the country that the State is absolutely impartial between the two systems, and that wherever people are willing to support denominational education, the State will allow that denominational education to be pursued. I think there is nothing in this Bill to justify the belief that it is, in any way, a great or special concession to the Church of England. I believe it is a concession to what is called denominational education or sectarian education. It is a concession to religious education resting upon doctrinal or sectarian teaching; but even to that extent the concession is a small one. As the most rev. Prelate has pointed out, those who are in favour of doctrinal education are anxious for more than they have received; but this Bill has not granted to them everything which will directly stimulate religious education or which will require any form of religious education as a condition of State aid. Our refusal does not arise from indifference to the subject on the part of the Government. It is not because we disagree with those who believe that religious education by
806
the will of the people of this country will always be the predominant education. We have not thought it necessary to approach this subject in the way to which I refer, because we feel confident that there is so thorough a conviction in all parts of the country that no education which is not a religious education is worthy the State to give or the child to receive—because the Government have the full conviction that the people will remain firm on this point, and will yield to no temptation. We felt that, therefore, we could properly and safely avoid a subject full of difficulties, and that we were not called upon to lay on the Table a Bill that should contain a direct provision requiring religious education as a condition of State aid. The most rev. Prelate told us that coercive education was merely a preparation for that period when the attachment of the people to education should be so determined that coercion would be no longer necessary; because if public opinion on that head was as thorough as could be wished coercive measures would not be necessary. They are now necessary as regards secular education because the need of it is not fully felt by all classes of the population. What he has said of education generally is pre-eminently true of religious education. It is the very universality of the feeling in favour of religious education that has made us feel we could safely avoid a subject so full of difficulties, and lay the Bill upon the Table in its present shape. We have laid down no direct provision for religious education simply because we are convinced that it is unnecessary and not from any feeling that religious education is not desired by the people of England.
LORD ABERDAREthought he would be a bold man who should state that he did not know that this Bill could not possibly receive at this period of the Session, the consideration which the importance of its subject required. He would appeal to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), himself to say whether the Bill would now receive the same amount of consideration that would have been bestowed upon it if it had been brought up to that House a month ago? Here was a most important measure consisting of upwards of 60 clauses—yet such was the period of the Session that it was quite useless for any noble

807
Lord, however interested, to propose any important modification during its progress through Committee. In refering to the opposition which the measure had lately encountered, the noble Marquess appeared to him to be somewhat unjust towards the Members and supporters of the late Government, for not only was the principle of the measure accepted by them, but some of them actually delivered powerful and effective speeches in its favour. What they had taken exception to was not the principle of the Bill as it was originally drawn, but the changes which the Government had subsequently introduced into it. As to the Conscience Clause, which was formerly so much opposed, it was now asserted to be necessary. In Church schools, for the most part, the spirit of the Conscience Clause was no doubt observed; but those schools were undoubtedly pervaded by influences to which Dissenters with great reason were unwilling to subject their children. Would any noble Lord who was a member of the Established Church care to send his child to a Roman Catholic or Unitarian school, however strict the Conscience Clause then in operation might be? He was sure no noble Lord would willingly run the risk involved in doing such a thing. The Nonconformists, on the same principle, preferred board schools for their children, because they felt that there they would be protected. But by the extension of the powers of the Guardians and Town Councils under this Bill the injustice previously felt by the Nonconformists was materially aggravated, and it was not surprising that they should look on the Bill with disfavour; it was not, however, till the Government accepted Amendments still more hostile to their interests that they had opposed the measure in any really determined spirit. Whatever faults it might have, the school-board system was accepted by the Dissenters, and it was only natural that their distrust should be excited when the Government accepted the Amendments referred to. When the subject was discussed in 1870 it was argued that the local contributions might be looked upon as the means of providing the religious part of education, and the Government grant as the means of providing the secular part; and the great objection raised to the present Bill was that under it they might have the denominational schools
808
entirely supported from grants out of the taxes. The clergyman of a rural parish would increase his school fees; with the assistance of the compulsory system he might compel the attendance of the children; if the parents could not pay the fees the Guardians would have to find the money; and thus the denominational system would be maintained by State funds without any local contributions. In the Bill of the Government there was a very considerable defect in respect to compulsion. Town Councils, if they thought proper, would be able at once to frame compulsory bye-laws, and Boards of Guardians would be required to appoint committees to compel school attendance up to the age of 10; but between the ages of 10 and 14 compulsion could only be adopted on the requisition of the inhabitants of the parish. Now he believed it would be found that just in proportion as a parish needed a compulsory system would there be an objection to it among the inhabitants. He admitted it was a great improvement to provide, as the Bill did, that a child must be educated up to the age of 10; but in a parish without compulsory bye-laws the child might then escape from all education if he either obtained a certificate of having passed an examination in Standard IV—to which he had no objection—or had a certificate showing that he had attended school for 125 days during the year. Now he wanted to know why all children should not be required to pass a standard of proficiency?—especially when they remembered how careless many parents were in regard to the education their children received. Irregular attendance at school was one of the greatest difficulties against which teachers had to struggle; and he thought they should require that the child should have been regular and diligent in his attendance. An attendance of 125 days was quite insufficient; and, moreover, the fixing of the minimum number of attendances by Act of Parliament had this evil effect, that the parents and children always seized on the minimum, and made it their maximum, contenting themselves with doing only what was absolutely necessary to obtain the object for which the conditions were imposed. Again, if the House was earnest about education, they ought not to limit to the age of 10. Canon Norris, one of the most eminent

809
Inspectors, had made a special inquiry as to the hold which the elementary education given in the schools had had on the working classes in Staffordshire, and he showed that just in proportion as a child left school at an early age did he loose all, or nearly all, the benefit he had received as far as regarded the elements of instruction. They ought to compel attendances at least up to the age of 13, and more than attendance for 125 days in the year should be exacted from children who were relieved from the necessity of passing an examination in the Fourth Standard. In conclusion, he thought it was of little advantage making speeches on the second reading of the Bill unless they were followed up by Amendments in Committee; but as the noble Duke had informed them that the Committee would be taken on Thursday, proper time would not be allowed for putting Notices of Amendments on the Paper.
LORD HAMPTONsaid, he looked upon the Act of 1870 as a great measure, and he felt grateful to the Government that had brought it in; and one of the reasons why he was disposed to give this Bill a most cordial support was, because he regarded it as a worthy sequel to that Act. But he must join those who had preceded him, in expressing his deep regret that what he believed to be the most important measure of the present Session should have been brought before their Lordships at so late a period of the Session—at a time, indeed, so late that it was utterly impossible to consider it adequately. He did not impute blame to his noble Friends on the Treasury Bench—they had been the victims of circumstances. The one cause which more than any other had led to this Bill being sent up to their Lordships so near to the close of the Session was, the unduly warm discussions which arose in the other House of Parliament on the clause for the dissolution of school boards in certain cases. He could not understand how by any Party in the House of Commons that clause could have been considered worth the angry feeling and waste of time to which it had led. With regard to the Bill itself, he looked upon it as a most valuable step towards the completion of the general education of the country. If Her Majesty's Government had decided to introduce into the Bill a provision for direct compulsion he
810
would have been ready to support it; but, to the best of his judgment, the Government had taken a wiser course. They had done well, when it became necessary that compulsion should be resorted to, to try the experiment of indirect compulsion; if that failed, direct compulsion could be resorted to. If the provisions of this Bill were entirely and sincerely carried out throughout the country, he believed they would go a long way to avert the necessity for stronger measures. There was one point in the Bill which was worthy of all praise, and that was the proposal to put Boards of Guardians in the position of school boards, so as to make it less necessary that school boards should be adopted all over the country. He did not join in the objection felt to school boards by some with whom he generally agreed. He did not object to school boards. On the contrary, he believed, if we were to have a system of education extended to the whole population, and especially to the populous parts of the country, school boards would be found one of the most effective means of carrying out that object. He agreed with the opinion, so strongly expressed by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon), that there ought not to be any feeling of antagonism between school boards and voluntary schools, but that they ought to work harmoniously together for the promotion of a common end. He believed that there were two things at the root of the objection to school boards—In the first place, they had been found much more costly than they ought or needed to be; but still a greater objection was the general feeling that under these school boards, according to the present state of the law, the children could not receive the religious instruction which they ought to receive, and which the parents generally desired. The country generally was in favour of the Act of 1870, with the exception of its inadequate provisions on the subject of religious instruction. In his judgment and conscience he entirely agreed with what had been said so eloquently by the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) as to the feeling of the country on this subject. He had hoped that we might have had in this Bill a provision requiring that religious instruction should be given in all board schools; and when he expressed that

811
opinion he distinctly and emphatically disclaimed the idea of speaking with any view to the exclusive interests of the Church of England—he was speaking in the interests of no particular Church; and the humble efforts he had made in former years to promote education justified him when ho said that he was not speaking in the interest of any particular denomination. He spoke in the cause of Religion and Christianity. He was the last man who would urge any system which would violate the scruples of Nonconformists;—he had always taken a different line. But the Roman Catholics in Ireland had religious instruction in their schools; if their Lordships turned to the Presbyterians of Scotland, they would find there was religious instruction in their schools; and in England he ventured to say that the national system, whatever it might he, ought not to be one which excluded religion. They were indebted to a Member of the House of Commons for having moved for a Return of the religious instruction in the board schools. He doubted whether it was as generally known to the public as it was to their Lordships what the case was with the great School Board of London. The Lord President, in his opening speech, spoke in high terms, and very justly, of the School Board of London. Well, this Resolution was passed by that School Board—
"That, in the schools provided by the Board, the Bible shall be read, and there shall be given such explanations and such instructions there-from in the principles of morality and religion as are suited to the capacity of the children, provided always that in such explanations and instructions the provisions of the Act, the 7th and 14th, are strictly observed both in letter and spirit, and that no attempt be made in any such schools to attach the children to any denomination."
When the London School Board had passed such a Resolution, the Government might well have regarded it as a precedent in this Bill. On the other hand, the Birmingham school board, as he learnt by a letter from a clergyman there, banished all religious teaching from its schools—
"No Board teacher was allowed either to read or to teach the Bible, and, in fact, as far as the Board teaching was concerned, the name of God must not be mentioned."
Some statistics prepared by the National Society showed the action of school
812
boards upon the subject of religious education. Out of 284 school boards, 62, while permitting the reading of the Bible, did not allow any note or comment, 16 forbad the reading or explaining of the Bible, and 39 forbad all religious observance or instruction in connection with the ordinary work of the school, or by any member of the school staff. Surely, it was not seemly or right that, under the legislation of this country, it should be in the power of any handful of men, exercising a brief authority in any district, thus to exclude from the teaching of the rising generation that knowledge without which education was worth very little. It was satisfactory, however, that while 117 boards had thus neglected the teaching of religion, the remainder, 167 in number, had in various ways, as in the case of the London School Board, laid down by certain rules that religion should be taught. Here was a clear proof, by a numerical majority, that the country was in favour of religious teaching, and any Government which made a change in this respect would receive the general support of the country. The question became more important when they considered the rapid increase of board schools as compared with voluntary schools. He accepted this as a valuable Bill to the extent to which it went; but he deeply lamented the omission as to religious education, his belief being that if the Government had introduced clauses of a moderate character, providing that religion should be taught in all our board schools that decision would have been in general harmony with the opinion of the nation. This subject could not and would not rest where it was. The country would not be satisfied as long as it was in the power of any set of men to deny to the children of the humbler classes the benefits of religious education.
EARL FORTESCUE,as a consistent Liberal, saw no just reason for opposing the provision that a majority of the inhabitants should be able, if they wished, to get rid of a school board now that other means of compulsory education were provided by legislation. School boards had done, and were doing, a useful work, but he agreed that they were much more costly than they might be or ought to be; and great part of this cost arose from the system of election. He suggested, in 1870, that that system

813
might be assimilated to the mode of electing Boards of Guardians—a system which worked so satisfactorily that in 1874 and 1875 only four cases of contested elections had required inquiring into by the Local Government Board during each year; and which had been declared to be cheap and economical by more than 400 school boards in their Memorial to the Lord President complaining of the immense cost of the present system, of election. It should be remembered that a large majority of the ratepayers voted under the Poor Law system of sending a few clerks round to collect the votes of the many voters; while, in spite of all efforts to excite and stimulate the voters, comparatively few voters voted under the school-board system of obliging the many voters to go and get their votes recorded at the polling booth by the few clerks. One cause of the unpopularity of school boards was the great expense incurred by them in elections and for non-educational purposes. He objected to those provisions in the present Bill that broke down the distinction between pauperism and independence. He was referring to what he might call the gushing and sentimental clauses about paying the school fees of the children of poor parents without considering it as relief given to those parents; about founding scholarships for children of 10 years old—a sort of yearling races; and, above all, about feeding children at the public expense in day industrial schools. Such a system combined the different disadvantages of legal relief and of private charity, without the advantages of either. Such relief would be grudgingly given and thanklessly received. It was undesirable in itself, and very dangerous as a precedent. He wished, however, to boar his testimony to the value of the clauses which dealt with poor schools, and which in his judgment would not lead to the results anticipated by his noble Friend the late Foreign Secretary. In conclusion, the noble Earl expressed his gratitude to the Government for the tardy, but not too tardy, repeal of the 25th clause and the substitution of the Board of Guardians as the body for ascertaining the ability of parents and for paying the school fees for the children. He could claim consistency in taking that course, because he had protested against the system as
814
originally proposed for imposing that duty on the school boards, which had no officers like the relieving officers of the Board of Guardians, both competent and available for inquiring into the circumstances of the parents.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthanked the noble Duke for bringing in the Bill, which would be accepted as a fulfilment in part of the promise made by the Government to promote religious education.
LORD WAVENEYbore testimony from his own experience to the value which the provisions in the Bill relating to industrial schools were calculated to confer.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2aaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL—(No. 207.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was very much the same measure which had passed the House last year, and was lost in the general confusion which usually attended the termination of the Session in the other House. It did not go quite so far as that measure, but it proposed to effect three objects—the exclusion of solid matter and of sewage from rivers as well as all new sources of pollution arising from manufactures and mines.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Act passed in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of Her most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria, relating to the registration of Births and Deaths in Ireland—Was presented by The Earl of DONOUGHMORE; read 1a. (No. 208.)
House adjourned at half-past Nine o'clock till To-morrow, Two o'clock.