Sitting of 29 July 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Committee—Report—Elementary Education [155–277].
Third Reading—Savings Banks (Barrister)* [269]; Slave Trade* [270]; Cattle Disease (Ireland)* [94], and passed.
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, that the Irish Cattle Show was to be held in Cork on the 2nd, 3rd, and4th of August, at which many Irish Members wished to be present. The Lord Lieutenant had graciously promised to attend, and had accepted an invitation to a banquet on Wednesday next. He wished to know, Whether, under these circumstances, the honourable Member for Londonderry County would proceed with his Motion on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill on Wednesday next, having regard to the short time given for consideration of the Government Amendments?
  MR. R. SMYTH,in reply, said, he felt the greatest reluctance to deprive any hon. Member from meeting the Lord Lieutenant at Cork, and, so far as the hon. Member was concerned, he could pair with his Colleague, which would enable him to do so. It was his intention to ask the House on Wednesday to go into Committee on the Bill.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
  [BILL 155.]
  (Viscount Sandon, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 28 th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  VISCOUNT SANDON said, as he had promised the hon. Member for South Leicestershire to meet possible evils to which he had called his attention, he would propose a new clause, so that there might be no doubt whatever that the public money earned by the schools was expended for the purposes intended by Parliament. The clause was as follows:—
  (The conditions of a Parliamentary grant to include application of incomes to purposes of public elementary schools only.)
  "The conditions required to be fulfilled by schools in order to obtain annual Parliamentary grants shall provide that the income of the schools shall be applied only for the purposes of public elementary schools."
  MR. W. M'ARTHURthought the clause would meet the object in view.
  Clause read a second time, and ordered to be added to the Bill.
  MR. BOORDmoved the following new clause:—
  (No prosecutions to be undertaken except with the authority of at least three members of a School Board, School Attendance Committee, or Local Committee.)
  "No legal proceedings for non-attendance, or irregular attendance at school, shall be commenced in a court of summary jurisdiction, by any person appointed to carry out the compulsory bye-laws of a School Board or Local Authority, except by the direction of not less than three members of a School Board, School Attendance Committee, or Local Committee, who shall have previously investigated the circumstances under which it is proposed to take such action."
  The hon. Gentleman said, the object of the clause was to carry out the intention of the Act of 1870 with regard to prosecutions—that they should not be resorted to until every other means of inducing the attendance of the children had failed, and only then after very careful inquiry into the circumstances of each case by persons who, from their local knowledge, were thoroughly competent to perform the duty. In the metropolis and in large towns the need of such caution was greatest, since

  61
  the circumstances of individuals were less likely to be known there than elsewhere. Hence, in some of the London districts, divisional committees of the ratepayers had been formed, who were admirably fitted for the discharge of these functions. Speaking at the opening of the new offices of the London School Board, after describing the method of persuasion to be employed by the visitors, Sir Charles Reed said of the divisional committees—
  "After that, it rests with the ratepayers themselves, who constitute the divisional committee, to decide whether the superintendent shall take any case before the magistrate, so that the public authority shall give decision. Therefore, I think the Board, having placed the power in the hands of the ratepayers, may fairly say that they have sought the very test tribunal. In every division of London we have ladies and gentlemen who are united in this benevolent work: they investigate at great pains every case, they see every parent, and they direct every step; and the question is carried before the magistrate, subject to the committee of the Board, at their instigation."
  There was also a resolution passed by the London School Board on the 19th June, 1872, to the effect—
  "That no prosecution in any division, to enforce the bye-laws for compulsion, be carried on, except by the authority of the divisional members, or a majority of them, who shall be solely responsible to the Board therefor."
  Now, the sentiment contained in that speech, and the policy laid down by that resolution, was all that could be desired; but what he complained of was, that the practice of the Board had not been in accordance with its professions, for by a Return that had been presented to the House he learned that out of 2,154 cases that had gone before the magistrates in the Greenwich Division, with which he was naturally chiefly concerned, only four had been investigated in the manner prescribed by the resolution he had quoted, whilst, in some 50 cases, the preliminary investigation had been left to the superintendent of visitors. A resolution of this kind was an instruction to the members of the Board, and it was highly unsatisfactory to find some of them, within one month of its passing, deliberately arranging to violate it, as was shown to be the fact by the Return. Up to the 17th of March, 1875, the divisional committee of ratepayers had some voice in the matter, though not nearly so much as was represented by Sir Charles Reed
  62
  in his speech; but after that they had been superseded, apparently without reason given. During the time the committee exercised their functions, prosecutions had been going on at the rate of about 500 per annum; whilst, after their dismissal, the rate increased to nearly 700—an increase of something like 40 per cent. The general result of all this had been, that a great outcry had been raised in the division, the magistrates had complained publicly of the want of care exercised in inquiring into the cases brought before them, and there was great danger of education becoming unpopular amongst those whose sympathy it was especially desirable to have, if something were not done in the way of a remedy. Now, the clause he (Mr. Boord) proposed was declaratory of the intention of the Act of 1870; it was, as he had shown, in close agreement with the declared policy of the School Board, and he therefore trusted it would meet with the approval of the Committee.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it would be a very serious matter to embody this clause in the Bill. The proper judge in these cases was the magistrate, and nothing could check unnecessary prosecutions more than if the magistrate were to say that there were no grounds for them. Great caution on the part of the school boards he admitted to be necessary.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, it was exceedingly desirable that those cases should be investigated with great care by the school boards before the parents were subjected to inconvenience and annoyance by being summoned; and if there was an impression in the country that school boards were acting with harshness to the parents, an appeal would probably be made to Parliament on the subject. But he was unwilling to hamper the action of the school boards as well as that of the new school attendance committees, by any direction of so stringent a character as this. Public opinion, he trusted, would exercise a salutary check on the conduct of school boards in this matter, if they had not used sufficient caution and care. He hoped it would get to the school boards through the ordinary channels, that both his right hon. Friend and himself were of opinion that great caution was necessary; but he must repeat what he had said in the House on

  63
  the various occasions when attacks had been made on the action of school boards in the matter of compulsion, that he believed they had generally shown a rare discretion, delicacy, and judgment in the exercise of this difficult duty which Parliament had imposed upon them.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTwas sorry his noble Friend could not accept the clause. Looking at the way in which prosecutions had been conducted, not by the London School Board only, but by school boards in general, he could not think that the state of the question was altogether satisfactory. It should be remembered that the class of persons affected were those least able to protect themselves, and that all that was asked was that no prosecution should be ordered, without due consideration by at least two responsible persons. He suggested that his noble Friend might prepare a clause to meet the difficulty, and bring it up on Report.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, that the London School Board, of which he had been a member, had invariably exercised the greatest care before summoning parents; and if upon investigation a clear case was not made out no further steps were taken. There were very few instances in which the magistrates had censured the school boards. The adoption of this clause would inflict injustice upon the school boards.
  MR. ONSLOW, on behalf of the poor in rural districts, urged the noble Lord to re-consider his decision, and to bring up a clause of a milder character on the Report than the one before the Committee, in order to protect parents from hardships, which were not at all unlikely to arise.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, it gave him great satisfaction to hear the noble Lord refuse to accept the clause. The conclusion he had arrived at during the progress of these discussions was that, though there might be a few exceptions, the House, as a whole, was deeply anxious to secure the education of the mass of the population. But what, he asked, was likely to be the effect of a clause which threw doubt on the discretion with which school boards had exercised the powers intrusted to them? If cases which appeared hard did occur, they could only be cases where parents were neglecting the education of their children, and those were the very cases which the House
  64
  had in view in framing this measure. He did hope that no such restriction would be imposed on the local authorities, but that, trusting to their discretion, the Committee would enable them to exercise without interference of any kind the compulsory powers which had already been granted. He concurred most cordially in the opinion that school boards and local authorities generally ought to deal tenderly with parents in inducing them to send their children to school. There might have been instances in which the feelings of parents had not been regarded in the spirit which the Committee would desire; but, upon the whole, the evils that could result from prosecutions to parents who neglected the education of their children were far less than those which might be apprehended from placing such a restriction as this upon the action of school authorities.
  MR. MELLORhoped the hon. Gentleman would divide the Committee on his clause. The beadles who enforced school attendance were the most bumptious of men, and there were many cases to his own knowledge in which there was no occasion whatever for taking out a summons. In his own borough every case brought before the magistrate cost 8s., the greater part of which had to be borne by the rates.
  MR. HENLEYwas unable to give an opinion as to whether the clause was quite sufficient to secure care in instituting prosecutions; but he thought hon. Members must all agree that it was very unfortunate when the prosecutions were instituted unnecessarily, and now it would be additionally unfortunate since persons might have to travel eight or ten miles or more to the petty sessions where the cases would be heard. There would be not only this hardship, but also the loss of a day's work. As to whether it would be desirable to have exactly the number of persons to investigate cases, he was scarcely prepared to give an opinion upon that point; but, at any rate, the investigation should be by a competent authority.
  Lord ROBERT MONTAGUurged that the local authorities would not allow the Inspector to bring cases unnecessarily before the magistrate, because if they did they would be cast in costs.
  MR. KNOWLESsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would re-consider his deci-

  65
  sion. By having a committee of two or three persons to investigate the cases beforehand the hands of the Inspector would be strengthened.
  MR. RUSSELLGURNEY suggested whether it would not be possible that the Education Department should issue a Minute requiring that more care should be taken than at present. Hon. Members all felt the almost indiscreet way in which in some districts these summonses had been issued, and there was nothing more likely to make school boards unpopular. It would be a very easy thing before proceedings were taken to get the signatures of two or three persons who had investigated the matter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERurged that it would be a very grave thing to produce the impression that the House of Commons thought the school boards had misused their power. It was very remarkable, considering what the difficulties were, how few unnecessary cases had been brought forward; and generally, when both sides had been heard, the school board had come well out of it. Before the Committee weighed down persons desirous of doing their duty with their disapproval there ought to be an inquiry by a Committee or Commission into the subject.
  MR. RODWELLjoined in the appeal which had been made to the noble Lord to see whether he could not on the Report bring up a clause which would prevent poor persons from being harassed by unnecessary prosecutions. No one could read the newspapers without seeing that cases of the greatest hardship had occurred.
  MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, he happened to be a member of the school board of Salford, and in that borough and in Manchester every case was investigated by members of the school board. If gentlemen undertook the duties of a school board they were bound to perform them.
  MR. ROWLEY HILLsaid, he was a member of the school board for the town which he represented (Worcester), and that the greatest care was taken and every investigation made before parents were summoned before the magistrate.
  VISCOUNT SANDONbelieved that the mass of school boards took every care before taking out summonses. He did
  66
  not think that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord) intended to cast any slur on the school boards, but he felt sure that the clause would go much further in fact than was generally desired. He would before the Report consider the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder (Mr. Russell Gurney), and see whether it would not be possible for the Department to do something in the moderate way which he had suggested to meet the wishes so largely expressed. If he could, he should be glad to do so; but he could give no positive pledge on the subject..
  MR. BOORD,: replying to the observations that had been made, said, he was afraid his anxiety to save the time of the Committee had led to an omission in his opening remarks. He was not amongst those who bore the school boards any ill-will, and he wished to disclaim any feeling of prejudice in bringing this matter forward. He believed the London School Board had done very good work, and would continue to do it in the future. All he wished to secure was that proper precautions should be taken to protect parents from hardship being inflicted through the indiscriminate exercise of a very stringent power. He thought he had shown that such precaution had not always been taken. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who had said that if this clause were passed, it would be necessary to prove in each case that there had been an investigation before it could be brought before the magistrate, he said that would no doubt be so; but he had in his mind a case that had been recently tried in which the magistrate took precisely that view of the existing law, and, on it being shown that no investigation by the members had taken place, dismissed the summons with costs against the school board. He agreed with the noble Lord that it would be unfortunate if the opinion gained ground that there had been recklessness in these matters, and it was chiefly on that account that he had proposed this clause. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur) opposite had said that it would be impossible to get three members together to do the work; but he would ask whether the due investigation of such cases

  67
  was not part of the duty of a school board? The argument that it would be impossible to get three men together to perform so obviously essential a duty, was the weakest that had been produced, and, in reality, tended to show the need of the clause. In reference to the statement of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Rowley Hill), he would only say that he wished the system that prevailed there was carried out universally. He was exceedingly sorry that his noble Friend had not seen his way to make any definite promise; and unless he could give an assurance that something would be done in the direction indicated by the clause, he (Mr. Boord) would feel compelled to press it to a division.
  VISCOUNT SANDONreplied that he could not go a step further in regard to pledging himself in the matter than he had done, and that he thought his hon. Friend ought to have accepted the assurance already given that the question would be considered, and he would have another opportunity of bringing forward his Amendment, if he was not satisfied with his proposal, on the Report.
  MR. W. M'ARTHURdenied that he had said it was impossible to get three members together to do the duty referred to by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord); he had merely contended that in large districts like Lambeth, which covered an area of 11 square miles, and constituted one district, it would be impossible that cases occurring in all parts of that large area could be investigated by any committee.
  Mr. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he hoped that as the Vice President of the Council had promised to consider the subject the hon. Member for Greenwich would not press the clause at present. If the noble Lord did not do anything to meet his views, he could move the clause on the Report, substituting two for three.
  MR. WHALLEYbegged to tender the thanks of the public and his own to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord) for having brought forward this point. He thought it essential that some such provision should be made, and trusted that the Government would see their way to the adoption of a clause similar to that under discussion.
  MR. BOORDwithdrew the clause, stating that he would re-introduce it,
  68
  with some modification, on the Report.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

    Schedule 1.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved, in page 14, line 40, to leave out "250," and insert "350." The object of the Amendment was to provide that 350 attendances between the ages of 5 and 10 should be required in order to obtain a labour pass.
    VISCOUNT SANDONpointed out that the 250 attendances were required in each of the 5 years. No reasonable excuses here came in, and considering the number of years in which the attendances must be made, and the anxiety the parent would have to secure that the child got on in his learning so as to secure the Standard pass, in case the attendances failed, he could not think there was a necessity proved for making a more stringent rule as to the Attendance pass. Illness or other circumstances might interfere with the children going to school, and the Government thought that they could not safely strain the number beyond 250.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, without urging the noble Lord to accept the Amendment, suggested that he should re-consider the matter, with a view to a higher figure than 250—say 300.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in the hope that the noble Lord would consider the question before the Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HARDCASTLEmoved the omission of the words which required that the attendances should be "in not more than two schools."
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that he had gone as far as he could in allowing the attendances to be divided between two schools in one year. If the children were sent to three or four schools the value of the education would be lost. He feared therefore it would be impossible for him to comply with his hon. Friend's suggestion. He could not, under any circumstances, agree to what he believed would be a most serious injury to the children.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTpointed out that it would be necessary to meet the cases of the shifting population in London and other large towns.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that if the children were continually changing the school the education would come to nothing.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HARDCASTLE (for MR. TORR)moved, in page 14, at end of table in sub-section (3), after line 43, to add—
    "Provided, That, in the case of a school district being a municipal borough in which for not loss than three years before the commencement of this Act bye-laws have been in force requiring, as a condition of total or partial exemption of a child from attendance at school, that such child must have passed a standard of proficiency corresponding to the fourth standard of the Code of 1876, or any higher standard, the same or a corresponding standard of proficiency (but not exceeding the standard which, under this Schedule, will be required after four years from the commencement of this Act) shall be required for the purpose of a certificate under this Act enabling a child to be employed."
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that he considered the proposal a very valuable one, and he willingly accepted it, being obliged to his hon. Friend, and to his hon. Colleague, for having made it.
    Proviso agreed to.
    VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, in page 15, line 12, after "1876," to insert "or such higher standard as may be from time to time fixed by the Education Department."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE O'CONOR DONmoved, in page 15, line 13, after "elementary," to insert "or other efficient."
    Amendment agreed to.
    VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, in page 15, line 16, leave out "two hundred," and insert "three hundred," and page 15, line 16, after "attendances," insert "after five years of age."
    Amendments agreed to.
    MR. BIRLEYmoved, in page 15, section 5, line 16, after "attendances," leave out "in not more than two schools," and in page 15, line 17, after "years," insert—
    "except where a child has been committed to an industrial or workhouse school, in which case such attendances may also be reckoned."
    Amendments agreed to.
    VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, in page 15, line 17, at end of line insert—
    "or such larger number of attendances as may be for the time being fixed by the Education Department,"
    and in page 15, line 31, at end of line insert as a fresh pgraph—
    "The Education Department may from time to time by order make such regulations and conditions in relation to the payment of fees under this Act by that department as they may think expedient.
    "The order shall provide that not more than ten per cent of the children in a public elementary school shall obtain in the same year certificates entitling them to the payment of fees, and that if the children qualified to obtain such certificates exceed the said percentage, those children who have attended the greatest number of times shall have the preference.
    "The order may make the continuance of the payment dependent upon the fulfilment of conditions, and shall provide that the continuance of the payment shall be conditional upon the child attending the school for not less than three hundred and fifty attendances in each year, and obtaining at the end of each year a certificate of proficiency in reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic according to a standard higher than the standard according to which it obtained the previous certificate.
    "The order shall further provide that the school, by previous due attendance at which the child was qualified for obtaining the payment of fees, and the school, the fees at which are paid by the Education Department, shall be a school, or department of a school, at which the ordinary payment in respect of the instruction of each scholar does not exceed sixpence."
    The noble Lord stated that the proposed changes in this clause, relating to prize free education, were introduced, after considerations of various objections raised on both sides of the House, with a view to make the free education won by children in their 11th year more clearly a prize. They also provided that they should continue to work well and regularly at school if they were to retain the exhibition, and enabled the Department, if it found it necessary, to make stricter rules hereafter. These changes were the result of much consideration, and would, he thought, be great improvements, and remove all risks of danger from the school. Certainly, as it now stood, it could not be held to countenance general free education. It was undoubtedly a new plan, but it was one from which personally he anticipated very valuable results.
    The O'CONOR DONmoved, in page 15, line 31, in Viscount Sandon's new

    71
    paragraph, line 4, after "children," insert "presented for examination."
    Amendment agreed, to.
    Amendments, as amended, agreed to.
    VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, in page 15, line 34, at end, insert—
    "and where the attendance is at a certified industrial or certified day industrial school includes such attendance as may be from time to time directed for the purpose by a Secretary of State."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 2.
    VISCOUNT SANDONmoved to leave out the Schedule and insert the following Schedule:—
    Second Schedule.
    (Rules as to Local Committee.)

    "(1.) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the school attendance committee may from time to time add to or diminish the number of members, or change the members of any local committee appointed by them, or may dissolve any such committee.

    "(2.) A local committee shall, unless the school attendance committee appointing them otherwise direct, continue in office until the first meeting of that committee after the next annual appointment thereof, and thereafter until a new local committee is appointed.

    (Rules as to School Attendance Committee and Local Committee.)

    "(3.) Subject to any regulations made in the case of a school attendance committee by the council or guardians appointing it, and in the case of a local committee by the school attendance committee appointing it, the provisions of the Third Schedule of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,'with reference to proceedings of managers appointed by a School Board, shall apply to the proceedings of a school attendance committee and a local committee under this Act.

    "(4.) A school attendance committee shall continue in office until the first meeting of the council or guardians appointing it after the next annual election of councillors and guardians, and thereafter until the new committee is appointed.

    "(5.) A committee appointed by guardians shall be appointed at the first meeting after the annual election of guardians, or some other meeting fixed with the approval of the local government board for the purpose."

    Motion agreed to.
    Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 277.]
    MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the Bill would be immediately printed, and that the noble Lord would be enabled on Thursday to give the House information as to the legal opinion in the Keynsham case.
    VISCOUNT SANDON would be happy to do so.

BISHOPRIC OF TRURO BILL— [Bill 185.]
(Mr. Assheton Gross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
BISHOPRIC OF TRURO BILL— [Bill 185.]

  CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE
  [28th July.]
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdemurred to the measure being taken that day, as he believed the understanding had been that it should not be taken at the present sitting at all.
  MR. W. H. SMITHdissented from the view which the right hon. Gentleman took as to the understanding which had been arrived at on the subject.
  After some conversation, debate further adjourned till Monday.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1874–5.

    COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on Navy and Army Expenditure, 1874–5).
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. MONKdesired to call the attention of the House to the practice which had grown up recently both at the Admiralty and the War Office of appropriating the excess of certain Votes, not exhausted, to other Votes for which the money had not been originally voted. It was true that the Appropriation Act gave power to the Treasury, in cases of emergency, to sanction the payment of such excesses, providedthey did not amount in the aggregate to more than the sum voted for the Department in which the excess occurred, but the practice involved a very serious question. When the Admiralty took possession of these excesses in order to cover a deficiency, the control of Parliament was effectually withdrawn from the expendi-

    73
    ture of the money, even though the sanction of the Treasury were obtained. In some instances, application was not made to the Treasury for its sanction for several months after the sums had been irregularly expended. He thought that before any surpluses were so appropriated a statement should be made by the Department that it was not in its power to have brought in a Supplementary Estimate, while Parliament was sitting. The Committee on Public Accounts adverted to the large deficit on the Navy Estimates for 1873–4, and expressed an opinion that the serious attention of the Admiralty should be given to the circumstance; and yet, notwithstanding their objections, a deficit of £238,000 had occurred in the Estimates for 1874–5. The Committee also observed, as they did in their Report of the previous year, that the circumstance of the insufficiency of the provision for the year was not brought under the notice of Parliament before the close of the financial year. He preferred this as a charge against the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was true that the First Lord said he was kept in the dark on the subject until it was too late to bring in a Supplementary Estimate. But whose fault was that? The Department was solely responsible for it. The Committee said in their Report—
    "The Accountant General was examined, and he accounts for the delay or omission to bring the deficit under the notice of Parliament, on the ground that it was hoped the deficit apparent in some Votes would be, on the whole, counter-balanced by the surplus on others, and that this hope was disappointed."
    The Committee went on to say—
    "Your Committee think it right to call attention to the habitual use made by the Admiralty of the powers of applying, with the consent of the Treasury, the surpluses of certain Votes to meet deficiencies on others. This course of proceeding, unless strictly guarded, must to a great extent render nugatory the control of the House over the Votes."
    That was the question he wished to bring before the House. The control of Parliament was taken away from the sums expended on the Navy. He regretted that the First Lord had left the House, when he knew that he intended to bring the question forward. The practice of which he complained was contrary to constitutional usage, whereas it was absolutely necessary that the
    74
    House of Commons should keep a watchful eye over the public expenditure. Some alteration was imperatively called for in the 4th and 5th sections of the Appropriation Act, and there ought to be some further supervision, beyond that of the over-worked officials of the Treasury, in regard to the expenditure, which had not been sanctioned by Parliament.
    Mr. W. H. SMITHsaid, that as the point was likely to lead to discussion, and as the Prime Minister had stated that no Business to which there was any opposition would be taken, he would agree that the debate should be adjourned till Monday.
    Debate adjourned till Monday.
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday.