Sitting of 8 August 1881

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES, Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
Resolutions [August 6] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee— £21,695,712, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [August 5] reported—Ordered—First Reading—East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities)* [244].
Ordered—First Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance* [245].
Second Reading—Patriotic Fund [240]; Solent Navigation * [207].
Committee—Report—National Debt [236–243]; Indian Loan of 1879 * [237].;
Third Reading—Conveyancing and Law of Property* [231], and passed.
Withdrawn—Parliamentary Revision (Dublin County) * [208].

QUESTIONS.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MESSRS. MURPHY AND CAMPION, PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  1194
  tenant of Ireland, If he will state what are the grounds on which Messrs. Murphy and Campion of Rathdowney, in the Queen's County, have been sent to Naas Gaol?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the grounds on which the persons named in the Question were arrested were that they had incited other persons to intimidate tenants not to fulfil their lawful contracts by paying their rents.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that both these men emphatically denied having directly or indirectly ever sanctioned, or otherwise assisted in, any proceedings of this nature?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he had not exactly that statement before him.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mrs. O'Halleron, wife of Mr. Martin O'Halleron, a "suspect" under the Coercion Act, of Ketullo, Athenry, county Gal-way, who has a large family to support, has received no relief since the arrest of her husband in March last, except ten shillings that was granted her about three weeks ago; and, whether the Loughrea Board of Guardians was prevented from receiving the grant by the refusal of the chairman to put a motion on the subject to the meeting?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it was true that Mrs. O'Halleron had received 10 s. and no more than 10s., out-door relief, which was granted on the 9th ultimo. On the 23rd ultimo the presiding Chairman refused to allow the question of further relief to the family to be put to a meeting of the Guardians. The case was, however, investigated, and it was decided at a subsequent meeting to refuse relief to Mrs. O'Halleron, on the ground that she possessed six acres well cropped, a cow, and a heifer. He would also refer the hon. Member to the 3rd section of the Relief of Distress Act, 1880, under which statute, as the hon. Member was doubtless aware, matters of this kind were left to the decision of the Guardians.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause inquiry to be made into this matter, as to whether there was no prejudice against this woman on account of her husband's act;

  1195
  and if he would send down an order that relief should be granted?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought there was nothing to warrant any further inquiry. The Chairman of the Guardians had at first refused to authorize a discussion through a misapprehension of the law. At the next meeting a majority of the Guardians decided against giving the relief, and, for all he knew, it might have been a unanimous decision. There could have been no animus in the matter.

  SPAIN—THE ZAMORA WATERWORKS.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Spanish Government as to the persistent refusal of the local authorities to carry out the repeated sentences of the Spanish Courts on the subject of the Zamora Waterworks; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in face of this continued denial of justice?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, this matter has, from time to time, been urgently pressed upon the Spanish Government by Her Majesty's Representative at Madrid; and on the receipt in April last of a letter from the agents of the Company in England, from which it appeared that their client's claim was still unsettled, Mr. West was again instructed to press the Spanish Government to take immediate measures for its settlement. The result of this representation was that on the 13th of June last Mr. West received a Note from the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs stating that positive orders had been sent to the Civil Governor of Zamora to carry out the Royal order for compelling the Municipality to pay the sum due to the Company, and that unless this order were complied with the severest measures would be adopted against the Corporation.

  ARMY—PENSIONERS OF THE ROYAL MARINES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether pensioners from the Royal Marines serving on the Militia Staff will be placed on the same footing at their final retirement from the Ser-
  1196
  vice as Pensioners from the Regular Army?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that the Question which he has raised was considered and decided in the negative by my Predecessor on an application by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) in 1879. I will communicate with the Admiralty on the subject; but I cannot hold out much hope of so recent a decision being altered.

  PARKS (METROPOLIS)—PADDINGTON PARK.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, looking at the great importance of preserving the land forming part of the Paddington Estate, and at present unbuilt on, as a Park for the people, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will for a reasonable time withhold their consent to any operations which may lead to the erection of buildings on the land and thus to the prevention of any possibility of its preservation as an open space; and give such other facilities for the carrying out of the project in the way of the price of the land and otherwise as may be in their power?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, everybody must approve the object which the Committee over which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder presides has in view—namely, securing a public park for Paddington; and although I have been unable, owing to their dispersion for the Recess, to communicate with my Colleagues since this Question appeared on the Paper, I feel sure, from my knowledge of their sentiments, that, assuming the pecuniary interests of which they are guardians to be duly protected, they would be most desirous to give all proper facilities for attaining it. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have already informed the Paddington Park Committee of their readiness to part with their interest in the land on certain named terms per acre; and I feel sure that if an agreement, whether conditional on the money being raised within a specified time or otherwise, be come to on behalf of the Paddington Park Committee, the Commissioners would be quite ready to afford a reasonable time for carrying out any proposed arrangement.

  UNITED STATES—CONSULAR CONVENTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What progress he has made towards completing a Consular Convention with the United States?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in reply, said, his hon. Friend was doubtless aware that this question had been for the last seven or eight years sleeping; but Her Majesty's Government were, at the present moment, engaged in waking it. They had taken the initial step of asking the Foreign Office to do something in the matter. He was sanguine that during the Recess they would be able to report a successful issue.
  MR. GOURLEY: Will my hon. Friend place the Correspondence on the Table of the House so far as it has gone?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: There is no Correspondence with the Foreign Office on the subject.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MILITIA UNIFORMS.
  MR. ROUNDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Field Officers of Rifle Regiments of Militia, who have retired with permission to wear their uniform, may continue to wear such uniform, although their Regiment is to be changed into an ordinary Regiment?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—TECHNICAL EDUCATION—THE REPORT.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Vice President of the Council, If Professor Leone Levi has sent in a Report on Technical Education in Italy and elsewhere, and what course is to be taken with it?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; Professor Leone Levi has made a very elaborate Report upon the state of technical education in Italy and elsewhere. He has spent three months of this year abroad, and I purpose to refer the Report to the Royal Commission which is about to be appointed.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE MAGISTRACY—MR. R. P. LAURIE.
  MR. PEMBERTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he has any ob-
  1198
  jection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and R. P. Laurie, Esq. late Member of this House for the City of Canterbury, with reference to the removal of that gentleman from the Commission of the Peace for the county of Kent?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he understood that the Lord Chancellor had no objection to the production of the documents referred to in the Question; but he put it to the hon. Member whether it would be justifiable to incur the large expense that would be incurred in the publication of them as a Parliamentary Paper.

  FIRES (METROPOLIS).
  MR. FIRTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that on July 21st a fire broke out in Ladbroke Grove Road, Notting Hill, but that no water could be obtained from the Water Company's main; whether it is the fact that in case of a London fire it is necessary to invoke five separate authorities having no unity of action:—1. The Police, controlled by the Home Secretary; 2. The Water Companies; 3. The Salvage Corps, controlled by the Insurance Companies; 4. The Fire Brigade, controlled by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and 5. The Streets, controlled by the Vestries; and, if he will consider whether these authorities might not be amalgamated for the purpose of fire extinction?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had seen a report on the subject, from which it appeared, not that there was a scarcity of water, but that it was not at high pressure, owing to an accident to the main. With reference to the second part of the Question, he had to say that the police were not directly concerned in extinguishing fires, having merely to keep order; that the Salvage Corps was employed in the private interest of the Insurance Companies; while the Vestries were not concerned at all. When the question came to be determined on whom the duty of supplying water to the Metropolis should devolve, it would certainly become necessary to consider whether the Fire Brigade should not also be placed

  1199
  under the same control as the water service.

  METROPOLITAN VESTRY ACCOUNTS— THE PADDINGTON VESTRY.
  MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the Auditors of Paddington Vestry have entered on the account boobs of such vestry a statement to the effect that, having in view the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board to the effect that no method exists for enforcing a surcharge of Metropolitan Vestry Accounts, they regard the examination of the parochial accounts of the parish of Paddington as useless; whether he is aware that such accounts contain heavy charges for refreshments which ought to be surcharged; and, whether it is proposed to leave the London Vestries to expend ratepayers' money in any manner and for any purpose they think fit, or what remedy he intends to apply to this state of things?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I have received a communication from the auditors of the Paddington Vestry that they have appended to the accounts of the Vestry a statement that, under the existing condition of the law, the examination by them of the parochial accounts is practically of no effect, as the Act gives them no power to enforce payment of the surcharges. I have, however, no information from the auditors whether or not such accounts contain charges for refreshments; but I perceive from a newspaper extract that in the accounts for the year ended the 25th of March, 1880, the auditors disallowed £57 15 s. 6d. for refreshment, of which £26 appears to have been for the erection of a tent in which a dinner was given at the opening of a slop tank. If such expenditure had appeared in the accounts which are audited by the auditor of the Local Government Board, he would have had power, not only to surcharge these illegal payments, but to recover the amount summarily from the persons by whom they were authorized. Unfortunately for the ratepayers, the auditors, under the Metropolis Management Act, have no such power; but the question as to how the present defect in the law should be remedied is rather for the consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the
  1200
  Home Department, as I have no jurisdiction under the Metropolis Management Act.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. PARNELL)asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting of the Cork telegraph clerks, held on Saturday the 2nd July, the object of which was to act in conjunction with the clerks at the various offices throughout the United Kingdom; whether the postmaster of the Cork office, upon seeing a report of the proceedings of the meeting in the Cork papers on Monday the 4th instant, gave instructions that any clerk who had taken a prominent part in the meeting should not be engaged in the performance of special or relief duties, which involve extra pay; and, whether it is with his sanction that these instructions have been issued?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, his attention had not been called to this matter previously; but he had made careful inquiry, and was convinced that no such instructions as those mentioned in the Question were issued or acted upon.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE MAGISTRACY—MR. A. E. HERBERT, J.P.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the language of Mr. A. E. Herbert, J.P. in the following Report from the "Kerry Sentinel," of 28th July, in the case of parsons charged at Brosna Petty Sessions with attacking a bailiff. Constable Carroll deposed:—
  "That, on account of the attitude of the people, they went back to one of the houses, escorted by the police, and took down one of the writs which he had posted.
  "Mr. Herbert—And no stones thrown?
  "Witness—No stones thrown.
  "Mr. Herbert—I may tell you if I was there I'd know what to do.
  "One of the defendants cross-examined Constable Carroll, who admitted that he and men were supplied with plenty of new milk by the people on whom the writs were served.
  "Mr. Herbert—I think the police on that day were like a flock without a shepherd; I think they were all the time drinking milk from this riotous and terrible mob. I always speak for myself, and that is my opinion of the Royal Irish Constabulary on that day. Drinking new milk from this riotous and dig-orderly mob;"

  1201
  whether, in a cross case against the police, Mary Cahill and Ellen Cahill were examined, and deposed that, when the police fixed swords protecting the bailiff, Constable Carroll stabbed the complainant in the thigh; whether Mr. Herbert dismissed the case with the remark that
  "He was sorry the police acted with so much forbearance. If he himself was there he would order the mob to be 'skivered,' and he would have buckshot used on them. There would be no peace in the Country until such people were 'skivered;'"
  whether such language was used; and, if so, whether he has made any representations to the Lord Chancellor on the subject, or has taken any action in regard to it?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have seen the report in the newspaper to which the hon. Member refers; but I have no means of verifying it. The whole of the cases in which Irish magistrates are concerned are under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and I have communicated with my noble and learned Friend upon the matter.
  MR. HEALYwished to know if there was any proper authority in the House to which hon. Members could appeal in reference to the conduct of magistrates?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Lord Chancellor is the official whose business it is to consider these questions; and if, after allowing sufficient time to elapse, the hon. Member will ask me what the Lord Chancellor has done in this case, I will tell him.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would ask the Question on Friday. He also wished to know if this same magistrate was arrested some time since for drunkenness and disorderly conduct at Farranfore?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is only justice to Mr. Herbert to state that I never heard of that charge being brought against him.

  WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS)— THE GRAND JUNCTION WATER COMPANY.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has received Colonel Bolton's Report on the Grand Junction Water Company; and, whether he will lay a Copy of it upon the Table?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that he had only just received the Report re-
  1202
  ferred to, and had not had time to examine it. As far as he was aware, there was no objection to laying a copy of it upon the Table; but he must consider the matter before he gave any undertaking on the subject.

  SMALL-POX (METROPOLIS)—HOSPITAL SHIPS ON THE RIVER THAMES.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that the smallpox hospital ships now moored off Greenwich are so close to the shore that there is great danger of their causing the epidemic to spread to the adjoining districts; that before they were placed in their present positions, thereby greatly impeding the free use and value of the wharves in front of which they are moored, no notice was given to the owners of those wharves; and that, owing to the serious inconvenience caused by the presence of these ships to the free navigation of the River Thames, the Thames Conservancy Board and the Metropolitan District Asylum Board of Managers were and are in favour of their being moored lower down the river; if so, whether any steps are to be taken to remove these vessels from their present positions, and thus to obviate the danger of the epidemic spreading among the numerous workmen employed in the various shipbuilding and other yards abutting on the shore?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I cannot admit that it is a fact that these ships are so close to the shore that there is great danger of their spreading small-pox to the adjoining districts; in fact, I was distinctly advised by one of the Medical Inspectors, who has had great experience in these epidemics, that no such danger need be apprehended. No direct notice was given to the owners of the wharves in front of which the ships were moored; but the preparations for their removal were publicly known for some time before the ships were placed there, and no objections were made against the course proposed. I am not aware of any serious inconvenience to the navigation; and, so far from the Thames Conservancy Board objecting to the position, the spot was adopted on their suggestion. The Metropolitan Asylum Managers did propose to place the ships much lower down the river,

  1203
  but not for the reason suggested. I was, however, advised that acute cases could not without serious risk and danger be removed to such a distance; and, therefore, the ships were moored off Greenwich, close by the spot where the Dreadnought hospital ship lay on a previous occasion, and, as far as we are aware, without any ill effect. With respect to the removal of the vessels, it is only intended that they shall remain there during the pressure of the present epidemic.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would state the distance which the ships were from the shore, and whether he was aware that the sewage passed into the river there?
  MR. DODSON: Not having measured it, I should not like to say what the distance is; but I have been on board the ships myself.

  MALTA—PETITION FOR REFORMS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the Colonial Office has had before it the Petition presented by him to this House, from the Committee of Inhabitants of Malta; and, whether Her Majesty's Government means to grant its prayer, or to concede to the Maltese any of those reforms recommended by Mr. Rowsell and Sir Penrose Julyan, and some of which were about to be conceded by the late Government?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, a copy of the Petition has been obtained and is under consideration, as well as a Memorial transmitted to the Secretary of State; but it is not possible to state at present the answer which will be returned. The administrative changes recommended by Sir Penrose Julyan have been in considerable part already carried out.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870—THE ROYAL COMMISSION —THE REPORT AND EVIDENCE.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, By whose authority and direction it was that the dates were expunged from all the rebutting statements which were sent in writing by the Irish Landlords to the Bessborough Commission, and which had been inadvertently stated and incorrectly supposed to have been printed
  1204
  in Appendix C when the Report wag signed, and what was the object sought to be attained by expunging the dates in question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no means of giving an answer officially to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, nor do I think it very desirable that the Government should institute an examination into the matter. I would rather recommend the hon. Member to communicate with the officers of the Commission, who, I have no doubt, will give him the most accurate account of the matter. At the same time, if the hon. Member wishes, the Government will ask for the information he requires.

  ARMY—VOTE OF THANKS—SIR EVELYN WOOD.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that Parliament have from time to time passed Votes of Thanks to Generals of the Army for successful triumphs in War, he will propose a Vote of Thanks to General Sir Evelyn Wood for the distinguished services which he has recently rendered to this Country in South Africa by peaceful means?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in answer to this Question, I must say that General Sir Evelyn Wood is not the only person who has rendered service, and excellent service, to the Crown and the country in South Africa; but the time has not yet arrived when we can regard the important transactions in which they have been engaged as being altogether concluded; and, therefore, the time has not yet arrived for considering any such matter as that indicated by the hon. Member's Question. I ought also to say, as my hon. Friend probably knows, that the Votes of this House, although not absolutely limited to military services, yet are by precedent in every case limited to military service or to auxiliary services in connection with military service. But, as the hon. Member has referred to the name of Sir Evelyn Wood in particular, I think that it is only right that I should state that Her Majesty's Government have the highest sense of the zeal, the ability, the judgment, and the tact, as well as right feeling with which Sir Evelyn Wood has conducted the matters intrusted to his control in circumstances of very great difficulty indeed.

  STATE OF IRELAND—RELEASE OF MR. JOHN DILLON, M.P.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the announcement made in the morning papers that Mr. John Dillon had been released from Kilmainham Gaol was correct?
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he wished to ask him whether Mr. Dillon had been released unconditionally, or whether he had been obliged to sign some conditions?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; it is true that Mr. Dillon has been released from Kilmainham, and I suppose the House would wish me to give the grounds of that release. A letter was sent yesterday to the Governor of Kilmainham, in the following terms:—
  "I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to inform you that a representation having been made to his Excellency that Mr. John Dillon's life would be endangered by further confinement, his Excellency has been pleased to order his release. Therefore, upon the receipt of this letter, discharge Mr. Dillon, and give him a copy of this letter."
  That letter was written for this reason—On Thursday last I received a Report from Dr. Carte, the medical officer of the prison, stating that he believed Mr. Dillon's life would be endangered by further confinement. I was surprised to get that letter, because, although the health of Mr. Dillon is not strong, the last information I received was from the Inspector of the prison, Mr. Barlow, who, on the 8th of July, reported that he had seen Mr. Dillon, who told him that he was well, and that he did not think his health had suffered since he entered the prison. Mr. Barlow said that Mr. Dillon seemed to him to be very delicate, but did not appear to be more so than when he first saw him in prison three months ago. On receiving that Report, I telegraphed at once to two independent medical gentlemen, of undoubted standing, to go down to Kilmainham and, after consultation with Dr. Carte, to make a Report. They saw Mr. Dillon; but he politely, but firmly, refused to allow himself to be examined. After consulting with Dr. Carte, and after seeing his Report and obtaining all the information they could, they saw the Report of Dr. Kenny, Mr. Dillon's private medical
  1206
  officer, which entirely confirmed Dr. Carte's statement that life would be endangered by further confinement. That being the case, I thought, and my Colleagues agreed with me, that our duty was to do what we should have done with any other prisoner under the circumstances—order his immediate discharge. We did not think it a case in which we ought to make that discharge dependent on the signing of any conditions.
  MR. HEALY: Does the doctor say that his life has been endangered through the confinement he has undergone?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have given the exact statement I received, and it was the first intimation I had. The doctors would have been failing in their duty if they had not informed us of the facts.

  LAW AND POLICE—DEATHS FROM DROWNING.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has seen the Return of Loss of Life issued at the instance of the honourable Member for Manchester, showing the number of deaths from drowning in mercantile and non-mercantile waters of the United Kingdom to have been in 1879, 3,690 lives; if this includes the loss of life from sea-coast bathing, if not, if he can state what this was for the same year; and, if he can state what measures he intends adopting for the purpose of compelling local inland and sea-coast authorities at all public bathing places to provide boats, life-buoys, and watchmen during the bathing season?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, the Return does not, as I believe, include the loss of life from sea-coast bathing; and there is not, as far I can ascertain, any information collected to show the extent of loss for the year to which the Return refers. At present there is no power to compel local inland and sea-coast authorities to provide boats, life-buoys, and watchmen during the bathing or any other season. These authorities can make bye-laws, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, with respect to public bathing and the regulation of bathing machines; but they are not authorized to make any provision of this kind from the local rates, or to require that the proprietors of the bathing machines shall do so. This defect has been brought

  1207
  under the notice of the Board, who contemplate dealing with the matter whenever a suitable opportunity offers for amending the law.

  AFGHANISTAN—CANDAHAR.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he had seen the telegram from Lahore in The Times of the 6th instant, in which the Correspondent of that journal, after stating that the Ameer's Envoy passed through Lahore on his way to Simla, went on to say—
  "I am assured that he comes at the suggestion of the Viceroy, and hears a message in which the Ameer reminds the Viceroy that he had earnestly and repeatedly hegged the Government to hold Candahar for one year, in order to enable the Ameer to make his position secure. It is clear from the Envoy's account that the Ameer began to lose heart at hearing of the news of the evacuation of Candahar;"
  and whether he was in a position to contradict the truth of these assertions?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not received from the Government of India any information respecting the position of the Envoy from Cabul to Simla. I am, therefore, unable to say what message he may have been charged to deliver, or what statement he may have made. But I have referred to the Correspondence which has passed between the Ameer and the Government of India, and it certainly is not the case that the Ameer had earnestly and repeatedly asked the Government to hold Candahar for one year, in order to enable him to make his position secure.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: Was a request ever made to that effect?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir; nothing of the kind.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREwished to ask the Prime Minister a Question with regard to the position of Mr. Bradlaugh. For himself, he might explain that he had a Resolution on going into Committee of Supply, which practically was to rescind the Resolution come to in April last. He believed that that Resolution precluded Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the Oath, together with a subsequent Resolution passed precluding Mr. Bradlaugh from coming within this House, were both Sessional Orders, and
  1208
  that they would lapse at the end of this Session. The result, of course, would be that at the commencement of next Session Mr. Bradlaugh would present himself at the Table of the House and endeavour to take the Oath and his seat, as he believed he had a right to do. Now, what he would ask was this—whether, when Mr. Bradlaugh took that course, he might hope that he would be supported by the Government, in what he believed, and some in this House believed, to be his Constitutional rights? In that case, as it was near the close of the Session, and he had no wish to inconvenience hon. Gentlemen opposite—for it was quite possible his Motion might inconvenience them, as they did not know when it might be brought on—he would withdraw his Motion and leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government for next Session.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I understand from my hon. Friend two things—that he has investigated the matter, and ascertained that the Resolution which forbids Mr. Bradlaugh taking the Oath at the Table—I do not mean the Resolution debarring him from access—is a Sessional Resolution which expires with the Session. I understand, that being so, it is possible, according to my hon. Friend's view, that Mr. Bradlaugh may again present himself and claim to take the Oath at the commencement of next Session. I take these two propositions simply as given by my hon. Friend, and I assume them to be correct. If he should so present himself, and so claim to take the Oath, and should opposition thereupon arise, undoubtedly Her Majesty's Government would deem it their duty to consider the question with a view to the termination of the controversy.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Speaker whether it was the fact that the Order forbidding Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath did expire at the end of the Session, and would require to be renewed at the beginning of the next?
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand the right hon. and learned Member to refer to the Resolution of 10th May. That is not a Standing Order, and would terminate at the end of the Session.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether the Resolution of the 20th of April, which precluded Mr. Bradlaugh from

  1209
  taking the Oath, would lapse at the end of the Session?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not made a Standing Order, and therefore would expire with the Session.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Prime Minister, in reference to the answer he had given to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), whether, when he brought in a measure dealing with Mr. Bradlaugh, he would take means to secure the attendance and the vote in its favour of the Liberal Members of the Liberal majority by whose defection Mr. Bradlaugh had been excluded?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not know if I have gone too far in answering the Question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere); but I did it simply on the ground that everyone must feel desirous, at a time when we are beginning to hope we may very soon disperse, to know whether they are likely to be called upon again to vote on a subject of Mr. Bradlaugh during the present Session. But as the Question of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has a reference to a future Session, and a contingency only supposed to arise then, I hope he will kindly exercise his patience until the future Session arrives.
  MR. PULESTONasked the hon. Member for Northampton whether, after the statement of the Prime Minister, he would go on with his Resolution?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Certainly not, Sir.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Prime Minister if he could give the House any information respecting the course of Public Business, and specially the Navy Estimates?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it was intended to take the Irish Votes in Class IV. to-night?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: It is our intention to take the whole of Class IV., including the Irish Votes.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think it is already understood—and what has happened since I last spoke on the subject would rather sustain and confirm the impression—that the proceedings in the House of Lords may terminate to-night with respect to the Irish Land Bill, and,
  1210
  therefore, that we shall be in a position to consider the question of the Lords' Amendments to-morrow as the first and principal Business for Tuesday evening. How long they will take I do not know; but we shall propose to proceed with the Navy Estimates immediately after the conclusion of the question of the Lords' Amendments.
  MR. HEALYasked if it was impossible to get the Lords' Amendments that night, so as to give time to consider them prior to the meeting of the House on Tuesday? He presumed there would be no Morning Sitting.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Lords' Amendments, I understand, will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. There will be no Morning Sitting. I do not entertain any doubt that any Member can, as a matter of courtesy, obtain a copy of the Lords' last print of the Bill; but we have no power to make an order requiring copies of that print to be furnished to Members of the House of Commons generally.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE REVISED CODE.

    DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
    MR. MUNDELLArose to make his Statement on the Education Vote.
    MR. J. COWENrose to Order. He wished to know whether, after the right hon. Gentleman had made his Statement on going into Committee of Supply, any other hon. Member could speak on the Motion on going into Committee of Supply?
    MR. SPEAKER: It will be open for any hon. Member to speak on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I beg to thank the House for allowing me to make my Statement with the Speaker in the Chair. My reason for asking this favour of the House is two-fold. Not for the sake of the Estimates which I am

    1211
    able to submit to the House, and which I should be quite prepared to submit in the usual way. But it will be in the recollection of the House that in the other House of Parliament, when the Code under which the conditions of the grant for education are made was carried, a distinct pledge was given to both this and the other House of Parliament that before the close of this Session we would submit proposals for the reform of the Code, and it is upon that ground, before going into Committee of Supply, that I shall make a double Statement—the one relating to the ordinary business of the past year, and the proposed financial statement for the coming year, and the principles on which we propose to revise the Code. All that relates to the expenditure of the past year I shall endeavour to condense into as short a space as possible, in order not to trespass upon the time of the House. The expenditure in 1880 was as follows:—The sum granted was £2,535,967, and the expenditure £2,525,769, the result being a saving of £10,308 upon the Estimates. The charge for annual grants, which was estimated at £2,217,348, reached £2,213,673, an increase of £120,231 on the previous year, the details of which are as follows:—The estimate of average attendance was 2,800,480 children, and the actual average was 2,814,000; the estimated grant was 15 s. 8d., and the grant really made was 15 s. 7½d. The estimate for the evening schools for the average attendance was 52,530 children and an estimate of 9s., and the result was 41,500 at 8s. 6¼d.., a falling off in numbers of 11,000, and in the grant of 5d. in the year. Now, Sir, I come to the Estimates that the House will be asked to vote tonight for the current year 188–12. The sum required this year is £2,683,958, as compared with £2,535,967 granted in 1880–1. This is an increase of £147,991, and it produces a difference of £93,000 increase on the Estimates of 1880–1. Although at first sight this difference will appear to be considerable, it will be understood that the increase in the expenditure was really an over-estimated expenditure in the year 1879–80. The increase on the Vote for 1880–1 would have stood £140,000, instead of £55,000 on the Estimates; therefore, the increase on the Estimates 1881–2 is £144,794, and it is a little more than an increase in the last year, which was really £140,000. The increase on the com-
    1212
    ing year 1881–2 occurs almost entirely under the head of annual grants. The amount of the Votes is £2,362,142, an increase of £144,794 for the grant. It will be necessary that I shall show the House the expenditure for annual grants, and the comparison of this special head for the past three years shows that the increase asked for is not an extensive one. The annual grant made to the elementary schools in 1878–9 was £1,961,000, or an increase of £267,000 on the preceding year. In 1879–80 it was £2,093,000, or an increase of £132,000; in 1880-1, £2,213,000, or an increase of £120,000; and in 1881–2 it is £2,362,000, or an increase of £144,794. It will be noticed by the figures set forth that there is a very large increase in 1878–9, and that was occasioned by the passing of the Act of 1876, which only came into practical operation in 1878–9. Amongst the other items, there is an increase of £7,670 for expenditure this year, caused by the addition of six Inspectors and nine Inspectors' Assistants, and by the usual number of Inspectors being entitled to the increment. The Inspectors were appointed after the details of the Estimates had been made for last year, and they come into the present year. There is only one more item in reference to the expenditure that I ought to trouble the House with, and that is the building grant on the Act of 1870 for £670, and it is the last year of that grant. I now invite the House to consider the real educational progress of the past year. I may say, before going into that part of the question, that there is no new or striking feature in the course of the year. There have been no new forces brought into operation during the year; we have been working steadily and quietly under the Acts of 1870 and 1876, and, as the Act of 1880 as to general compulsion did not come into operation until the 1st of January this year, the statement of progress that I have to make is the more gratifying, because the same steady, continuous, and unbroken progress of education has been going on since the passing of the Act of 1870. The principal features which I have to mention are as follows:—Accommodation is now afforded 4,240,000 children, showing an increase of 98,000 school places during the year; the scholars on the register, 3,895,000, showing a remarkable increase of 185,000

    1213
    scholars in average attendance, 2,751,000, being an increase in attendance of 156,000 for the previous year; the scholars individually examined, 1,904,000, being an increase of 144,000 in one year. The percentage of passing in the three R.'s, which is one of the real tests of the work done, is 81·2 as against 80·4 last year. They have now touched the highest point they have ever reached in the history of the Department. The proportion of scholars examined in Standard IV. and upwards, which is very interesting to several Members, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who, I am glad to see in his usual place, is 24·61 as against 22·1 of last year—a very large amount indeed. We do not bring the children up to the higher standard; we are doing very little in the arrears of thorough education. I am as dissatisfied as any man in this House about them; but still it is gratifying to find this year that the proportion of scholars examined is increasing. Well, we have 41,426 masters, being nearly 3,000 more than heretofore, and we have 33,733 pupil teachers, and that gives an increase of 538. The cost for maintenance for scholars in Board schools is £2 1s. 11¾d., being a decrease of 1d. per head; and voluntary schools, £1 14 s. 7¾d., or an increase of 1¾d. per head. The rate of the grant earned is, for Board schools, 15 s. 7¾d. per head, an increase of 4¼d. on the previous year; and for voluntary schools, 15 s. 5d., or an increase of 1¾d. per head. It is the first time since the passing of the Act of 1870 that the Board schools have shown any substantial increase over the voluntary schools. Now, in these figures there are two or three points we have of interest, and the first is the number of scholars on the registers. Although these have gone on increasing year by year from 1,693,000 in 1870 to 3,895,000 in the past year, it shows a substantial increase of 185,000 during the past year. Now, the normal increase according to the growth of the population will be about 70,000 in the year; but we continue to receive into our schools nearly three times that increase every year, and, at this moment that I am addressing the House, the probability is that there are over 4,000,000 of children on the registers of the schools, and we have every reason to expect that within the next 10 years, when the Act of last year comes into full
    1214
    operation, the numbers will not be far short of 5,000,000 children. The next question to which I must call attention is that we have gone from 1,793,000 to above 4,000,000; and we are calculating on something like, after this year, a continual increase of 200,000 children a-year. The average attendance has now reached 70·6, and this includes infants—the vast number of children who only attend half-time, and who are permitted by the School Board when they pass the Standard to be employed half-time. If they were full time they would not detract very much from the average of the whole, and it must make a difference in the average of the year. Considering that every year we are passing in more of the children of their regular class, and that the compulsion reaches the more neglected of the lower classes, it is more satisfactory to find that the average attendance is higher to-day than it has ever reached before. That is an indication of real and substantial progress. We have not reached, by any means, what we hope to, and may, attain, and the best proof of that is what Scotland has already done. Scotland has already reached 76 per cent average attendance, including half-time; and there is this to be said about Scotland, that the Scotch children go to school later, but stay later than the English children. That is owing to climate, and that infant schools are not so general as in England; and it is a most satisfactory result in the School Board in Scotland that they have already brought up the average attendance to 76 per cent. Now, compulsion has done this. It has succeeded in bringing a larger number of children to attend schools for at least a portion of their time, and has improved the average attendance to the point to which I have stated. I have a table here which shows that it has had the effect of causing a very considerable increase of the number of scholars who attend sufficiently regular to bring the grant to the schools. Out of every 100 scholars on the register in England and Wales there were 62 per cent, and they were qualified by attendance in the proportion of 40·2. In 1880, at the same stage, 68·3 on the register, and they were qualified by attendance to the extent of 52·2. This shows a number of children who get the grant in Scotland. I am bound to say the result is much better. They had been in 1874

    1215
    64·9, and, at the present moment, they have reached 73·6, who make full school attendance. I am approaching that which I regard as the most satisfactory feature of the year, and that is the result of last year's examinations, and it is to this point I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. The children examined did better in the three It's than in the previous year, the percentage of passes having risen from 80·4 to 81·2; whilst the proportion of scholars examined in Standards IV. to VI., compared with the total number of scholars individually examined, rose from 22·1 per cent to 24·61 per cent. Now, in order to show the change which was gradually coming over our educational experience, I will ask the attention of the House to this fact—that the percentage of passes to the number of children examined fell steadily during the first six years after the passing of the Act of 1870. The number of ignorant and neglected children brought in, and the number of elder children who were unable to pass the Standard, was so large that there was a steady fall in the percentage of passes through England and Wales. In 1872 the following were the percentages:—Passes in 1872, 81·1; in 1873, 80·8; in 1874, 80; in 1875, 79·7; in 1876, 78·8; and here in 1877 we ended the trouble. There had been a steady fall; then came the rise, and the recovery was due to this, that more attention was paid to the teaching of the infant children. The interest taken in the schools had begun to effect a great change in the children's passing in the upper Standards, and the number of backward children grew less and less. In 1878 the number rose to 79·5; in 1879 to 80·4; in 1880, 81·2. This is the highest point at which the number has ever stood in Standards IV. to VI. Now, the test is, what do you pass in the upper schools? There are bye-laws and Factory Acts which affect these. The bye-laws and the Factory Acts take half our children in the Fourth Standard out of schools every year. That is to say, that 50 per cent of the children who pass the Fourth Standard in any year pass at once out of school. That is one reason why we cannot pass our children to the higher Standards, because the Standard of the Factory Act is the Fourth Standard, and the Standards throughout the country, especially the rural districts,
    1216
    are from II. to IV., or III. to V., for half-time and full time respectively. The progress which had been made in the higher Standards was one of the features in the year the most gratifying. I have made out statements which show the number of children presented in the higher Standards since the passing of the Act of 1870. In 1870 the number who passed under the Old Code was 191,663 to all schools. Practically, it was 102,630, taking it as compared with the Code, as we have since that time raised the Standards. In 1871 we have no record because the Code changed. Then in 1872, 118,000; in 1873, 131,000, being an increase of 13,000; in 1874, 155,000, being an increase of 24,000; in 1875, 194,000, an increase of 39,000; in 1876, 234,000, an increase of 40,000; in 1877, 270,000, an increase of 36,000; in 1878, 324,000, an increase of 54,000; in 1879, 388,000, an increase of 64,000; and last year 468,000, an increase of 80,000 children in the upper Standards. The increased number passed through the upper Standards IV. to VI. since 1870 was more than 400 per cent. That is the best test of the work that is really being done. However well we may be doing with the English schools, the Scotch are doing better; and in Scotland this is much more remarkable than among ourselves. The numbers for Scotland—where they have had the compulsory system in full operation since 1872, while ours has just come into full operation—shows that in 1872 they passed 35,502 children, and they finished in 1880 by passing 102,259 in the upper Standards—that is to say, out of 304,000, the average attendance was one-third of the whole, or 33 per cent in Scotland, as against 24 per cent in England. I should like to give a single illustration of the way the Scotchmen manage their schools, showing the wonderful results that are accomplished. I was struck with the case of a school which was placed in my hands some few months ago, and it gives an illustration of what could be done under the most adverse circumstances. It was a school in the village of Easdale, in the Island of Seil, in the county of Argyll. The chief industry of the place is slate quarries. Well, in 1874 the Report was exceedingly unfavourable. In 1875 the School Board began a new school, and they appointed a new teacher, and this is the sort of progress

    1217
    which has been made since. In the first year only six out of 134 could be presented in the higher Standards. In 1876 the school had an admirable Report; in 1879, when the Inspector came, he said—
    "This is one of the best schools I know. There is no failure in reading and writing, and only two out of 116 failed in arithmetic, and when I visited the place some years ago the education of the children was in a lamentable state. Thanks to the wise policy of the Board and the ability of the teacher, it is now the best school in Argyll."
    Out of 134, only seven failed, and the Inspector said it was, in all respects, a model school. I think that a school and school board making such marvellous progress as that shows ought to be brought under the notice of the House. Now, Sir, I have given the statistics for England and Wales as to the number who have passed the upper Standards. The grants earned in 1879-80 had risen from 15 s. 3½d. to 15 s. 7¾d., an increase of 4¼d., and the voluntary schools to 15 s. 5d., an increase of 1¾d. I said that this is the first time that the board schools show an advantage over the voluntary schools; but the grant is not always the measure of success, and I say this irrespective of this circumstance in reference to board schools and voluntary schools. It depends upon the number of infants in the respective schools on the list, for the infants bring down the average, and the real test is the children in the upper Standards and the upper ages. Now, the average cost in the London School Board schools was £2 17 s. 7¾d. per head, and in the voluntary schools £2 0s. 10¾d. The board schools in the Provinces are only £1 17 s. 5¾d. I am bound to say that the heavy cost of the London Board schools raises the average of the board schools throughout the country. The London Board school average was £2 17 s. 7¾d., and the London voluntary school £2 0s. 10¼d., against £1 14 s. 2d. in the country. I am not going to be the apologist for the London School Board; there is no need for me to take up the defence of the London School Board, as it possesses able Representatives in this House. I am bound to say that I was very much struck with that, and I made it my business to institute inquiries as to the cost of the London Board schools as compared with other
    1218
    schools. Now, it is only fair, whatever may be said in favour of voluntary schools or Board schools, that it should be fairly and honestly stated. I find that the London Board schools are increasing at the rate of 23,000 a-year for the last 10 years; that for every year they have to furnish schools and charge that upon the current year's account. Then, again, unlike any other board schools in the country, they have to bear the expense without the grant for this 23,000; so that really, to take the proper average, we believe that it would be impossible to get the cost of the London Board schools until the London Board schools have supplied all this deficiency of education and the children are in average attendance. Then the grant for salaries is very considerable. Then, taking the average of the country schools, no allowance is made in the salaries, but a residence is provided for the masters; whereas, in London, the residence of the masters is to be paid out of their salaries. That is only fair to be borne in mind; but to show the vast work which the London School Board has yet to do—for it is a vast work, for the deficiency is not nearly supplied, and the new Census has shown us that Lambeth alone has increased nearly 250,000 during the last 10 years—there is the population of one of our great towns, and the London School Board have to keep up with the growth of the population, and this growth represents something like 1,100 persons a-week; and, in order to make provision for the population, they must open one school a month. That is the only way in which the population of London can be provided for. The only wonder is that, looking at the vast work already done, and yet remains to be done, how we could have remained content with such a state of things as must have existed. The total expenditure on education for last year amounts to £5,078,259; to this sum the endowment has contributed £143,000, the voluntary contributions about £731,000; the rates £726,000. Though it is fair to notice that the contributions are still in excess of the rates, it is a most creditable feature. The children's pence contributed £1,431,000, and the Government grant £1,982,000, and the receipts from other sources were £55,000. I am bound to quote these figures to consider what

    1219
    would be the grant, and what must be the rate to make up the enormous deficiencies which would result from these two sources—the Exchequer and the ratepayers. I have now stated everything which relates to the educational work of the past year, and I hope that the House will be satisfied that we are really making progress. I may say that the highest grant, taking the schools in their denominations, was made by the Wesleyan schools. There are one or two points with respect to the working of the Act that I should like to say a few words upon. I believe that those great results which I have been able to lay before the House, and which I hope will be still greater, have been the result of compulsion; without it we could never have achieved such results. I am sorry to say that there are still serious obstacles to the future working of that Act. Only this day I had a letter from a School Attendance Committee that less than half the children in the district were not in attendance, and the reason of only half the children being at school was that when the cases were brought before the magistrates the magistrates had resolved not to convict, and these people set the law at defiance. In many instances—and this was most surprising in London—the magistrates seem to think that they were almost above the law, and they do absolutely set the law at defiance in hundreds of cases. It is remarkable when we consider with what general assent both Houses of Parliament passed the Act last year. Both Houses of the Legislature had allowed the Act to make compulsion general throughout the land to pass without the slightest sign of amendment or opposition, and I think it was a very good omen, and it showed the general assent of the Legislature to the compulsory working of the Education Acts. At the time of passing the Act there were about 16,500,000 in England and Wales under the bye-laws, and by the 1st January it was required that every Union and every local authority should make an application for bye-laws. I am glad to report that on the 31st December last the whole of the Unions and local authorities throughout England and Wales, except a small remnant numbering only about 260,000 inhabitants, had applied for bye-laws, and now there was no district throughout the
    1220
    land where those bye-laws have not come fairly into operation. But still there are some things that must be amended if the compulsory system is to be efficiently worked. One is the cost and difficulty of proceeding under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. The cost to the locality of taking out summonses, and the difficulties which have been unexpectedly imposed, have raised very serious obstacles to the working of compulsory education. I do think that parents who are so neglectful of their duty as those who will not take the trouble to send their children to school, and, worse still, those who have come under the operation of the Industrial Schools Act, should be punished. There were cases recently where the man has neglected his own family and allowed them to run in the streets till they were sent to an industrial school, and was, at the same time, getting good wages and keeping another family, and not contributing a farthing. They set the law at defiance, because they had no goods to distrain upon. I do trust that something will be done in order to overcome this difficulty. A great deal has been said about taking out summonses. I am bound to say, from the cases which have come under my notice in the Education Department, that the school boards make very few mistakes. I have had particulars furnished me of the amount of summonses taken out by the London School Board with a view to enforcing compulsory attendance. There is a periodical published which makes it a subject of censure, and says that the London School Board is very harsh with parents. Under the bye-laws, the well-known "B" notice, where the parents are admonished for not sending their children to school, there were 79,715 notices sent out last year, and out of that number only 7,722 were summoned, and the number of cases dismissed was only four. Under Section 11—that is, to meet the case of habitual neglect—there were 3,871 summonses, and the cases dismissed were only 11. The employers summoned were 22, and only one case was dismissed. I think that is a fair illustration of the working of compulsion, and this disproves the constant allegations of the hardships undergone by parents at the hands of the school boards. We are asked what are the moral results of the

    1221
    education on which the country is spending £5,000,000 a-year. We hear a good deal of declamation against our present system as being irreligious. I am quite sure that neither the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) nor the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who have presided in the Department, will say that they are irreligious. I know in the town of Liverpool, which the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) represents, that both the school board and the voluntary schools work heartily together, and prizes are given in religious instruction in that town, and the results have astonished some of the opponents of the school boards when they come to see the answers of the children. The same thing was told me in Manchester of the papers submitted to the school board, and one who is well known for his opposition to school boards admits he was taken quite aback by the examination papers, and had no conception of the amount of Biblical knowledge which had been attained by the children in school board schools. If I wanted to disprove the statement about the decline of religious teaching, I could bring a few facts to the notice of the House. The total number of children in voluntary schools in 1870 was 1,449,000, the total in 1880 was 2,759,000, showing that the numbers receiving very distinct religious instruction in voluntary schools had increased by 811,000 children. Of these there was an increase in the Church schools of 627,000; in the Roman Catholic schools of 79,000; in the British and Wesleyan schools of 127,000; and in the Board schools of 1,085,000, showing a total of 1,900,000, or a total increase of nearly 2,000,000. This total increase of nearly 2,000,000 of children in the schools of the country, and a very large proportion in voluntary schools of the country, are, except a small number, receiving religious teaching. Then in Scotland the school boards adhere to the old system. After that statement, who can say that there is no religious teaching given to the children? On the contrary, I think that there never was so much religious teaching given to the children of the country as at this moment, and that it was never so well taught and so well understood as since the Act of 1870 was passed. As to the moral results of the Act, we have abun-
    1222
    dant evidence of them. I have heard from the Chief Inspector of London Police the wonderful change that he believes to be brought about by the vast number of wretched children taken from the streets. In the town of Birmingham Major Bond says that the effect has been to get rid of the young ruffians who used to stand at the street corners, and whose coarse language and coarse manners caused a scandal in all our large towns. There was a great diminution in that respect and in juvenile crime, and the same thing was reported from all parts of the country. We have been going on during the last 10 years making progress towards civilizing and humanizing those who have been neglected in the past. I should like to say a few words as to the devotion of hundreds and thousands of noble men and women who have taken part in the cause of education. It is extraordinary, and the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon) will bear me out, that in towns like Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and elsewhere, when they take up this work they become absorbed in it, and they devote their lives and their energies and a great deal of their money to it. The voluntary effort brought into the school board system has astonished me. In Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and elsewhere, we find men and women who are doing honour to themselves and sacrificing their time and means to the educational interests of the rising generation. Having concluded what I have to say in that respect, I proceed now to that part of the Statement which refers more immediately to the Papers which I have laid on the Table. The House will be aware that a year ago, when I made my Annual Statement, we were somewhat under the censure of the Upper House. The subject had scarcely been a month before the country before Resolutions were made in the other branch of the Legislature denouncing the Code as ambitious and entirely uncalled for. My noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer) promised the other House of Parliament, and I promised this in my Statement, that during the coming year we would make full inquiry into the operations of the Code; and if we found that it was not for the advantage of education, and not calculated to bring out the best possible results for the expenditure and the devotion

    1223
    given to it, that we would come down to the House and frankly state what was the result of our inquiry, and I have now here fulfilled that pledge. I may say that we have had complaints as to the Code from, I think, everybody who takes an interest in education. The teachers complain that it gives too little freedom to teaching, that it gives unnecessary clerical labour, and that it does not distinguish between good and bad teaching and good and bad schools, that schools that display no skill get as much as those where the work is thoroughly well done. From that time to this we have been receiving suggestions from all quarters, and obtaining evidence to enable us to arrive at a wise solution. I cannot enter upon this subject without speaking of the great assistance we have received, and the ability and zeal shown by the officials in the permanent branch of my Department. Personally, I cannot but express my obligation for what they have done in this matter, and the way in which they have set themselves to accomplish this reform. I should have been unable to make such a statement, or to have laid it on the Table in the shape I now place it, had it not been for the intelligence and ability of the permanent staff with which I have been associated. It is due to them that I should acknowledge the assistance they have rendered in getting out the scheme which I have laid on the Table. In the first place, we had Memorials from school boards and from persons connected with education who made suggestions for the improvement of the Code. We found ourselves able to agree upon certain principles, and then papers were prepared by 20 or 30 of our principal Inspectors, and we elicited from them the freest possible criticism, and asked them to give suggestions as to the best system which their long experience enabled them to give. Having received those Reports, we were enabled to make a draft Report, and we agreed further that the matter should be thoroughly sifted and the detail worked out by a Committee. The House would like to know the process by which we arrived at that. Sir Francis Sandford, Mr. Sykes, and Mr. Cumin represented the three chiefs of the Education Department; Mr. Warburton, Mr. Sharpe, and Mr. Fitch, the three Inspectors representing the great Training Colleges—
    1224
    Mr. Warburton for his experience in smaller schools, and Mr. Sharpe for the larger schools. I presided over this Committee myself, and Mr. Hodgson acted as Secretary, and we had many a long and laborious day's work in arriving at the scheme which we have now submitted to the House. When we had accomplished that, we felt that we must put our work through a finer sieve and must call in additional critics, and we added to the Committee Mr. Matthew Arnold, Mr. Moncrieff, Mr. Oakeley, and Mr. Blakiston, and Lord Spencer himself presided over that Committee, and the result is that which I have laid on the Table. I must say, in laying it upon the Table of the House, that I do so with great hope and great confidence. But we do not ask, and we shall not ask the House to assent to it as it stands. We simply submit it as the proposals to form the basis of the future Education Code of the country. We ask that it shall receive, not only the fullest criticism, but we hope that it will receive fair consideration. It is not to be made a Party question. But we must all assist in the good work. It is not a Party question with us. We will take good care that we deal with all schools on an equality, treating them all alike, whether voluntary or board schools, and they will come under the same regulations and receive the same grant if they have the same capacity. What we wish to arrive at is sound educational principles, and if we arrive at sound educational principles we can deal with the money payment afterwards. We do not want to go into the question of whether we pay 3d. too much for this or 6d. too much for the other; but what we want to know is what will present the best results and the most thoroughly sound education. I can only say that I trust that during the Recess I shall receive suggestions from all parts of the House, and I can promise, on behalf of the Department, that they shall receive our candid and careful attention. Now I shall submit a few heads of the scheme. Under the first head we deal with the attendance. It is proposed to adopt the average attendance in each school as the basis of the grants which have hitherto been made on account of individual scholars, whether infants under seven years of age presented to Her Majesty's Inspectors for collective examination, or children above seven presented for exa-

    1225
    mination in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The next is that—
    "Two hundred and fifty attendances will be no longer required as a condition of examination; but all scholars who have been on the register for six months will, unless there is a reasonable excuse for their absence, have to be presented to the Inspector."
    Now, with reference to that, I have to say that this is the fairest measure of the work of the school. The grant now depends too much upon chance circumstances and accident over which teachers and managers have no control. For instance, a wet day for inspection, or a snowy day, or the absence of some of the principal children, immediately affects the grant, and the school suffers for one year in consequence of these circumstances. Another reason is that it will keep the work of the school equal. The failure in any part will affect the whole school; and it will tend to make the teachers take an interest in the good and bad scholars alike, and will lead them to take as much interest in the proficient and non-proficient, and in the quick and the dull scholars. The change is in the interest of the children generally. There are constantly cases coming before me of loss to teachers from the causes I have indicated. There was an event which came before me the other day of a loss arising from the removal of a battery of artillery. These are hardships which are constantly arising; but there is something more serious. We shall remove the temptation to tremendous fraud. It was the most painful part of my duty to have to sit in judgment on teachers who had been tempted to make one or two strokes of the pen which had brought them under the charge of fraud, and the inevitable consequences following, that their certificates are suspended and their characters blasted, and their careers blighted or ruined. I had a case on Saturday last where it only required one single stroke of the pen to complete the number of attendances of one boy. He attended 249 times, and the schoolmaster made that one stroke. What was the difference in that school? That single stroke made £16 difference to that school, because it just brought that boy into the list of boys to be presented. It brought them within the 20 per cent, and it made just £16 difference. We have had cases where two strokes have made £10 and
    1226
    £20, and even £30 and £40 difference to the school; and when the master has done all he can, and the boys fail him at the last moment, I must say that the temptation is very strong to bring up the attendance of the school, and I think that that temptation ought to be removed. Abolishing those 250 attendances will remove the strain on the teacher's mind; and it will be the fairest way to obtain payment by results, and I am quite satisfied that it will give great elasticity of teaching and improve the whole system. Now we say, under the 3rd clause, that grants will be so assessed that the present average rate of aid will, as far as possible, be maintained. The fair school will receive nearly the same grant, the bad school will receive a little less, and the good school a little more; and thus we discriminate between the various schools. Then there will be grants common to all schools. As to music, we propose that the full grant will be paid if the singing is satisfactorily taught from, notes, or according to the Tonic Sol-fa system. Only one-half will be paid if the singing is taught by ear. Then there is a sewing schedule, which we felt we might make a little lighter for the younger scholars. We felt that it was too much for the younger scholars, and the fancy sewing was not exactly what we wanted. Clause 6 is also common to all schools; and this is called the Special Merit Clause. This is a clause which will do more, perhaps, to lift the tide of education than any other in the scheme.
    "The Inspector shall have regard to (a) the organization and discipline; (b) the employment of intelligent methods of instruction; and (c) the general quality of the work in each school, especially in the standard examination; and shall have power to recommend an additional grant on the average attendance, varying in amount according as the school is, in these respects, fair, good, or excellent."
    There will be a special merit grant on these three heads. Now, I think the House will say—"You are placing great powers in the hands of the Inspectors." Well, I will show how that is proposed to be done when we complete the organization for inspection; and by it we hope to insure greater economy, and greater efficiency, and much greater uniformity than hitherto. I now come to infant schools; these also have an average attendance, and where the infants in a school amount to 40 a separate adult

    1227
    teacher will be required for their instruction. For more than 60 infants a certificated teacher will be required. We cannot have infants committed to the charge of monitors or young pupil teachers. We must insist upon better infant school teaching—the foundation of all teaching—and we propose also that part of the grants will be made to depend upon the infants being taught by special methods, something akin to the Kindergarten, giving appropriate and varied occupations; suitable instruction in the rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic; and a systematic course of simple lessons on objects—and we want that carried right through the school—and on the phenomena of nature and of common life. Then infants between six and seven may, at the discretion of the Inspector, be examined individually according to Standard I. of the Code of 1870; and if any scholars in an infant school are taught in Standard I., they will be examined and paid for as in schools for older children. Then we come to boys' and girls' schools. Payments on the passes of individual scholars will be abolished, and 250 attendances will be no longer required as a condition of examination. Then we stipulate that—
    "All scholars on the register shall be present at the inspection, unless there is a reasonable excuse for absence; and all such children who have been six months and upwards on the registers are to be presented for examination."
    Then, as to the mode of assessing the grant—
    "The grant will be calculated on the results of the examination of these scholars. It will be based upon the proportion of passes actually made to those that might have been made by the scholars examined."
    I cannot claim credit for this invention; it is one of the simplest, and it saves an immense amount of labour. Let me explain it. It states the proportion of passes actually made to those that might have been made. Now, supposing you had 100 children; the maximum they might make would be 300 passes. Supposing they make 270 passes, that is 90 per cent; and supposing they make 240 passes, that is 80 per cent, they will be paid for thus—10 s. when they make 100 passes per cent; then 9s. and 8s. when they made 90 and 80 passes per cent. But the House will see that there will be no longer that temptation to push
    1228
    forward children who can make a certain percentage; it will be based upon the work of the school, and upon the special merits of the school; and I believe in that respect we may expect a vast improvement, and get better results out of the teaching. In Standards I. and II. we propose, unless either of them is a Standard for half-time labour, that instead of examining every child—and there are 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 children scheduled in the Education Department—instead of examining them individually, the Inspectors will examine such a number of scholars as will enable them to estimate the quality of the instruction in each of the three elementary subjects. The Inspector may take 10, 20, or 30 children, just as he pleases. When you get to Standard III., where the passes are important, and where the parents like to know how their children are getting on, then, for the present at least, all scholars presented in Standard III. and upwards will be examined. More than 1,250,000 of the children are examined in Standards I. and II., and the examination of those little children under seven years of age in the very simplest elements imposes upon the Inspectors an amount of labour perfectly unnecessary, and this amount of drudgery we propose to relieve the Inspectors of. Well, then, we propose to add a Seventh Standard. We had six Standards; but what was the result? In many a rural school, when a boy has passed the Sixth Standard and wants to stay a little longer, the teachers are anxious to get rid of him. I have complaints saying—"My boy has passed the Sixth Standard, and I want to keep him at school, and they say that they cannot keep him unless they double his fee, because he does not earn a grant." We believe now that we must have seven Standards. We say that if any scholar, over 10 years of age, is, after the 1st April, 1883, presented in the First or Second. Standard, the passes made by such scholar will not be reckoned in calculating the percentage of passes for the purpose of a grant. Then I come to a very difficult question—the question of class subjects. I have satisfied myself that specific subjects in the Fourth Standard lead almost entirely to cram. They are simply used for the purpose of getting a grant, and we have little physiologists and little geologists of nine or ten years of age who get up

    1229
    some technical words which they do not understand, and that has done very much to the neglect of thoroughness in other subjects. Now, there are some things that children should know, some common facts that children ought to be made acquainted with. I want the House to bear in mind we have to work and take the condition of the labour market into consideration, and the state of the Acts, and the fact that the majority of our passes are in the Fourth Standard, and the children who pass the Fourth Standard we want to learn something more. There are some things that they ought to learn, and they ought to have some standard work, and acquire a knowledge of certain specific subjects in addition. I think it is better to remove the specific subjects to the Fifth Standard. The school will be regarded as made up of two divisions—in the lower division, Standards I. to IV.; and in the upper, Standard V. and upwards. Two class subjects may be taken in each division. English will be taken as a class subject—that is to say, grammar and recitation. A boy ought to know something of his own language, and something of the poetry and literature of his own language, and we insist that it shall not be the commonplace stuff that is to be found in the school books; but we propose that they shall learn good English, and get them to learn 100 lines of Milton or 100 lines of Shakespeare; and instead of taking a fourth or fifth-rate obscure poet, we intend them to read Milton and Shakespeare in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Standards. We say that geography, including physical geography—in fact, the two subjects must be taught together. Mr. Fearon, who represents the physical geography, has a proposition. He proposes that in the First Standard they shall know the meaning and use of the map. A plan of the school and the playground will be given, and he desires that they shall know the four cardinal points. Then they shall go on to the size and shape of the world; geographical terms will be explained and illustrated by reference to the map of England; and physical geography, with reference to rivers, and so on. "What they do learn they shall learn not merely from books. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin said that
    1230
    he never meant that they should be taught merely from reading books, but that they should have illustrations. We propose that they shall have illustrations. Then we pass on to what we call elementary science. English—grammar and recitation; geography—including physical geography—and elementary science will alone be recognized as class subjects in the lower division, and if only one class subject is taken in the lower division, it shall be English; if two are taken, the second shall be geography or elementary science. The upper division may take as class subjects any of the three subjects to which the lower division is restricted, or history, or a specific subject, treated and examined in as a class subject. The grant for class subjects will be made, as now, on the average attendance, and an increased grant will be paid if 20 per cent of the scholars examined are presented in Standard IV. and upwards. We propose that one of the reading books in each Standard must be an historical reading book, adapted to the ages of the scholars in the Standard. Now, I do' not know why children who read something should not have historical reading books, so that a child may know something of the history of his own country. Then there are specific subjects. We say that no scholars shall be examined in specific subjects if the percentage of actual to possible passes in the elementary subjects of the previous inspection was less than 75—that is, unless 75 per cent of them pass in Standards; we say that they shall not take up specific subjects until they have done this. I now pass on to the night schools. They are thoroughly on the decrease. Their decline is something like from 70,000 or 80,000 to 40,000 in this year. The teaching of merely the three R's in the night school has ceased to be attractive. Children are taught them in the day school, and then the condition of boys who have been presented in a higher Standard in the day school has gone a long way to ruin the night schools, and I think our night schools may be said to be in a most miserably declining condition. Now, we propose to do this. We are anxious that a boy whose short school life in the Fourth Standard ended at 10 or 11 years of age may have some chance of carrying on his education during the evening.

    1231
    We do not propose to make his attendance compulsory; a boy who has worked eight or ten hours cannot be compelled, he must be attracted. We have laid down three simple clauses for the night schools.
    "Grants will be no longer confined to reading, writing, and arithmetic, but will be made also for proficiency in class subjects."
    As something more than reading and writing will be taught hereafter in the night schools, grants will be paid in respect of those children only who, having passed the Standard fixed by the bye-laws of their district for total exemption, are under no obligation to attend school, and are not day scholars. That is to say, a boy who has passed his full time Standard, and leaves the day school before he can receive the grant, may attend a night school. There is another clause which I hope the House will agree to—it is that a teacher in a night school need not be a layman. I know that the Nonconformist ministers may help the teachers of the night schools, whose burden is heavy enough. Often in the rural districts the only intelligent person who can assist the schoolmaster might be the Nonconformist minister, and I ask that he shall be allowed to assist the schoolmaster. At present we allow none but laymen to teach in the day schools; and I see no reason why a Christian brother, or a local preacher, should not assist at a night school. I see no reason why a clergyman who wishes to be useful cannot be allowed to assist in a night school. But if there is any blame or any merit due to that suggestion it is due to me. I am prepared to take the full share of discredit, if any, for that suggestion. I know from my experience in my earlier youth that all the knowledge of natural history I obtained was at a night school taught by a clergyman, who, at the same time, taught a friend of mine, now one of the greatest naturalists living, and the Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, Dr. Bates. At the last meeting of the British Association at Sheffield there were several clergymen who desired to teach botany to children; and those men found that they were excluded from the schools, and they had to take the children to their own houses to give them lessons. I think that the House will not misinterpret my desire to utilise all those forces. Special grants to pupil teachers
    1232
    will be continued. Not more than three pupil teachers will be allowed in any school or department, whatever number of certificated teachers may be employed. The number of pupil teachers to be employed as teachers are now in excess considerably, and there will be some 76,000 school teachers without hope of employment when they have finished their apprenticeship. We also abolish the stipendiary monitors. They have not been a success. Candidates for apprenticeship as pupil teachers will be required to pass Standards V. and VI. Then, as to the staff in the school, an assistant teacher will count as sufficient for 60 scholars instead of 80, as heretofore; and no teacher examined at or after Christmas, 1882, will be allowed to have pupil teachers who has not passed in papers of the second year. We wish to raise the status and qualification of the teacher. We are closing a side-door by which incompetent persons enter the profession, and I shall tell you how we intend to open another door. By Clause 38 we make a fair and right concession to the schoolmaster. The annual entries made by Inspectors on teachers' certificates will be discontinued after they have been raised to the first class. We often have complaints that a young Inspector will endorse the certificate of an old teacher in a way very disheartening to the teacher in his work. If a man has once attained his first class, he can always get from the Department a record of his services, and he will be entitled to claim from the managers of his school a certified copy of the Inspector's yearly Report when it is entered in the log book. We propose to open another avenue to the teaching profession. In my experience in the Education Department I have applications by the dozen—almost by the hundred—from University men who want some occupation. We are multiplying very largely the number of men who attend the University. All our grammar schools have scholarships. That bridges the gulf between elementary schools and the Universities. In the town of Birmingham the system is so complete that you have a perfect network of elementary schools. Then you have the higher schools for those who have to pass out in the 14th or 15th year; and, further, you have your middle-class scholarships founded by King Edward's foundation.

    1233
    The same thing takes place in Manchester, Liverpool, and Nottingham, and if we can only get the endowments of the country applicable to their proper objects, if we can only get the endowments dealt with with any degree of rapidity, we shall have a complete system of middle-class education which will meet the wants of, and gives a stimulus to, the elementary schools. This brings, moreover, more men to the Universities. A man going to the University in Scotland carried his University teaching into business; but in England a man who had been at the University thought he must be a professional man, or a servant of the Government, or have some employment that is not in the ordinary line of common employment. We propose to open the doors to those who come from the University, and to make them teachers. We say that graduates of any University in the United Kingdom, and women who have passed certain of the higher examinations held by the Universities, may be recognized as assistant teachers, and will be admissible to examination for certificates after serving as assistants for one year in a school under inspection if the Inspector reports favourably of their skill in teaching and reading, and, in the case of women, of needlework. We require them to come to work for a year, and offer them a fair field, and it will be a field through which they will pass to the schools. It will bring up the whole profession, and raise the tone of the teachers of the elementary schools by the qualifications which these teachers will possess. I am now about to conclude. Certificates will be no longer granted without examination; and no certificate will be cancelled, suspended, or reduced until the Department has informed the teacher of the charges against him, and has given him an opportunity of explanation. Now, I have two questions about which my noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) has some difficulty, and as to which I know that whatever merit there is in them is due to my noble Friend; but I believe they were made to meet a state of things that is now passing away. The payment of honour certificates will be discontinued. The noble Lord thought the honour system stimulated the attendance of children, and that it was one of the means of indirect compulsion. He expected that it would be largely availed
    1234
    of, and it was thought there would be a payment of £50,000 a-year; instead of which, owing to the objection that it was always to be a reward in the future, and that it was prospective and not retrospective, the honour certificate has caused a great deal of heartburning and a great deal of difficulty, and I know of nothing that has caused so much trouble to the Department. A person feels that the child at the end of the year, if he does not receive his payment back, is in some little difficulty, and that it is a wrong done to the children. Now, there is no need of this stimulus any longer, and I think it can be better employed in bringing them into the night school than in spending £50,000 a-year, which goes mainly to the children of the lower middle-class. Then there is another question. The production of a Child's School Book will no longer be required as a condition of the payment of annual grants. Now, the school book was meant to keep a record of the age and attainments of [the child, so that it might be a record for all purposes, whether as a record for labour, or on passing from school to school. I was very sanguine myself, and I know I spoke very strongly on this, and I am bound to say that nearly all over the country it is a complete failure. In a town like Birmingham not 2 per cent of the school books have been used. Some of the children have three and four, and as many as 11 school books, and I find a statement here where a child has been found with three school books with a different age in each school book, that each of the ages was a wrong one, and the Factory Inspectors refused to accept the school book as the real proof of the child's age. Therefore The Child's School Book must go, and we no longer make the production of the school book necessary. I am almost ashamed to look at the clock. I have only one more topic to speak upon, and I have no doubt I will be asked what are we going to do with the system of inspection, for if we are going to give special money grants to schools, how are you going to deal with individual Inspectors who make grants on mere caprice? Well, now, our system of inspection is somewhat overgrown. The whole Department has grown up so rapidly, and inspection of every individual student has been considered so important, that we have a

    1235
    large number of Inspectors—120 or 130—and an equal number of Inspectors' assistants, and if we continue to examine them we must increase this staff every year. We have complaints from various parts of the country as to the laxity in some cases and the want of indulgence in others, and these complaints cause a great deal of trouble and anxiety. What we propose to do is to divide England and Wales into districts. We shall take from amongst our very best and most trusted Inspectors a certain number of men to be Inspectors of those districts, and we shall place them at the head of those districts. Under those Inspectors there will be other Inspectors who will be subordinate in the district, and with that Inspector they will have to communicate, and he will be held responsible for their work. We propose by that to diminish the higher grade of Inspectors, and to call into existence another class of Inspectors. We have no freedom. Some of our ablest and best Inspectors' assistants, who have taken University degrees, men of high character and ability, who have spent a dozen years in the service of the Department, cannot earn any considerable addition to their salary, and, after doing good service, perhaps only receive £175 per annum. We propose to get an Inspector between the Inspector and the Inspector's assistant, and we propose to have sub-Inspectors recruited from the ranks of the Inspectors' assistants and from the ranks of the schoolmasters. The salaries of those sub-Inspectors would have to be fixed by the Treasury; but they would only be called into existence as sort of supernumeraries, when others retire or drop off; but we propose that the Chief Inspectors of the Department—and there are 12 or 15 of them—shall once a year meet at Whitehall, and lay down a regular system of examination for their respective districts. They shall agree upon a plan and upon their tests as to good, fair, and excellent, and shall then enforce that uniformity upon the Inspectors below them. We hope by this means to achieve much more uniformity throughout the country. I do not intend that any Inspector shall be employed who has not had ample preparation and experience in the schools; but we do intend that there shall be some test exacted from Inspectors as to their capacity to inspect, and as to their ability
    1236
    to descend to child-life. I must apologize to the House; and although my Statement must be rather dry, and have no charm about it, yet I do feel that the Department with which I am connected is as much associated with the honour and the greatness of England as our Army and Navy.

  ART AND INDUSTRIAL MUSEUMS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS, in moving the following Resolution:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, grants in aid [of Art and Industrial Museums should not be confined to London, Edinburgh, and Dublin,"
    said, he congratulated his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council on the real and substantial progress in education he had shown in the able Statement which he had just made. They must, however, moderate their satisfaction by the fact that, after all, with all their machinery, only 24 per cent of the children examined had passed in the Fourth Standard and upwards. He wished to urge on the House the necessity of declaring that grants in aid of Art and Industrial Museums should not be confined to London, Edinburgh, and Dublin. The subject involved in this Resolution was one of great and increasing importance. It was one which concerned every constituency in the Kingdom. It was occupying in a larger and larger degree the minds of those in the Provinces who were interested in the question of industrial and other art, and of their bearing on the prosperity of their great national industries, and, therefore, on the prosperity of the country generally. A Conference of representatives of Municipal Corporations was held in Birmingham in 1877, to consider the claims of the Provinces. This Conference met again in London later in the same year. About 60 Municipal Bodies were represented, and deputations were appointed to wait on the Commissioners of the 1851 Exhibition, the Trustees of the National Gallery and of the British Museum. It was understood that the Commissioners of the 1851 Exhibition had nearly £1,000,000 of surplus at their disposal; but the result of the interview was an impression on the deputation that nearly the whole amount would go to the benefit of Lon-

    1237
    don, and very little to the Provinces. From the Trustees of the British Museum and of the National Gallery unsatisfactory official replies were received. The matter contained in the Resolution was now ripe for discussion, and would come up again and again with renewed force till it was settled. A similar Resolution was moved in the House in 1878. On that occasion the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon), who then occupied the position of Vice President of the Council, made a speech in which he fully recognized the importance of the question, spoke of the advantages that would come from Museums of Science and Art in the Provinces, and said that he hoped during the following Session to make some statement on the subject. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the present Vice President of the Council would give some equally satisfactory assurance that the matter would receive the attention of the present Government, and that some steps would be taken next Session in the direction indicated by the Resolution. He did not wish to complain of the aid given to the Provinces as far as art and science teaching was concerned. He wished that the grant for that purpose was much larger than it was; but of the amount granted the Provinces received a considerable share. He did not, however, regard this as any concession to the Provinces, but simply as receiving that to which they were fairly entitled. The question involved in his Resolution was one referring to Art and Industrial Museums. The Motion was not made in antagonism to the grants made for these purposes to London, Dublin, and Edinburgh. Those who were acquainted with the unrivalled collection to be found at South Kensington would not begrudge the money spent there. They would rather regret that the funds placed at the disposal of the managers of South Kensington had been of late years decreased rather than increased. In making such collections it was now or never. The field for the purchase of original specimens was getting narrower and narrower, while the collectors from all countries were more and more alert. What might be bought to-day for £1 would, in a year or two, cost £20, or, what was more likely, be absolutely unattainable. What they wanted was to establish in their prominent centres those appliances which
    1238
    were admitted to be absolutely necessary if they were to maintain their manufacturing supremacy. To illustrate the position, let him refer to the town of Birmingham, which was the centre of the great manufacturing district in the Midlands. He referred to that town simply because, being for many years Chairman of the Free Library and Art Gallery Committee, and also intimately connected with the manufactures of the district, he was, in a measure, familiar with its position and needs. But that which applied to Birmingham applied in the same degree to other towns, such as Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Nottingham, Sheffield, Bradford, Leicester, and others. There were writers and lecturers on art, rectors of Colleges, and superior persons who, while disagreeing among themselves in many things, seemed to unite in lecturing, and sometimes in libelling, the English workman. They were evidently unacquainted with the workshop, or with the difficulties and disadvantages under which the workman and manufacturer lay. Some time ago an important branch of industry in the Midlands, giving employment to many thousands of workmen, was threatened with serious injury by competition on the part of the Americans. An American manufacturer called on him, and he was enabled to place before him samples of the English and American work side by side, and on examination the American gentleman frankly admitted that he could not compete. The English work was produced by men, some of them scarcely able to read and write, with no aid except from their natural skill, industry, and perseverance. The conclusion of the American manufacturer was, that if they—the Americans—had workmen with equal natural powers and perseverance they could, with the addition of the teaching and help they could give them, beat the world in these manufactures. The fact was, that the English workman, for natural capacity and perseverance, was the best in the world. But they did little for him. The Midlands was the seat of the iron and metal industries, giving occupation to thousands. Yet Birmingham had no collection of iron and metal work, no illustrations of what was done in olden times, or what was now being done in other countries competing with us. Birmingham was the

    1239
    seat of the jewellery trade. Most of what was called, and sold as London jewellery, was made in that much-abused town. Yet there were no illustrations to speak of, no examples of the manufacture for educational purposes. It was true that in a quiet room, in a secluded part of the British Museum, there existed some splendid specimens of the goldsmith's art in the shape of the Cartellani jewels. The last time he visited them there were six persons present, two ladies, two gentlemen, a child, and the policeman or keeper. He was glad that the nation possessed them under any circumstances; but were these specimens subject to the view and to the study of the jewellers in Birmingham, it was probable that improved taste in manufacture would be the result. He might go on and speak of the position of the glass, japan, ornamental, and other manufactures; but the illustrations he had given were sufficient. Now, they were familiar with the argument which the upholders of centralization were fond of using—namely, that railway communication was now so complete that anyone could run up to London and see splendid examples of ironwork at South Kensington, jewellery at the British Museum, and so forth. But the utmost working men could expect was to go by a day trip to London once or twice a-year. The great majority did not do that. Besides, it was an argument which cut both ways. Suppose, for example, that the finest collection of cutlery existed at Sheffield, and the finest collection of lace at Nottingham. The railway arrangements were the same and the distance the same in going from London to Nottingham as from Nottingham to London. With regard to loans, the authorities at South Kensington were showing a wisdom and liberality in that direction which could not be too much commended. They were, by this means, showing their willingness to extend the advantages of these collections to the nation at large, to whom these collections belonged. But loans, while of great use, were not sufficient. There must be permanent collections. There were fresh workmen coming of age and coming forward every day. It was necessary that a workman should examine again and again a piece of work of high excellence in order to catch the spirit of it, and the trick of
    1240
    the hand by which it was produced. They were not asked for large sums of money to be sent down to the industrial centres to be spent in making a formless collection of articles and curiosities. Nor were they asked that localities should receive assistance which had shown no disposition to help themselves. But they asked for grants to assist local efforts in the formation of Art and Industrial Museums; in the formation of special collections, illustrating certain branches of industry, and meeting the special requirements of the locality. For instance, pottery from Staffordshire, lace from Nottingham, iron, metal, glass, jewellery from Birmingham, textile fabrics from Manchester, Leeds, &c. This could be best done with the cooperation or through the agency of the authorities of South Kensington, whose means of collecting and general experience gave them far greater facilities than local bodies could possess. He would like to quote a few words of a gentleman of the highest authority on this question, Mr. J. C. Robinson, formerly Art Superintendent of South Kensington Museum. He wrote last year as follows:—
    "The pecuniary resources of the State must, then, in some shape or other, be brought in aid of local resources; in other words, it is for the State to concern itself with the nature and constitution of the typical Provincial Museum, and to assist in shaping such collections as already exist in forms of practical, yet, at the same time, elevating influence."
    Mr. Robinson further remarked—
    "They (Provincial Museums) have a great and special work to do, very complex and difficult in itself, and which nothing but liberal and far-reaching assistance on the part of the State will enable them sufficiently to carry out."
    He was glad to find in the Estimates for the year a small sum of £2,000 for casts, electrotypes, and reproductions of treasures existing in foreign countries, the originals of which could never be seen by the mass of the people. He congratulated his right hon. Friend on this movement in the right direction. The sum was very small; but he hoped another year that it would be largely increased, and that these reproductions of works of art might form part of the grant demanded for the Provinces. He contended that it was a mistake to suppose that it was only necessary for workmen to study industrial art. The men who

    1241
    had opportunities of seeing and studying paintings, drawings, and other examples of what was called "high art" would be likely to have their tastes so cultivated and their ideas of beauty so developed as to be the better able to produce shapely and beautiful things in the branch of industry in which they happened to be engaged. The right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, say that the towns should do all that was necessary by themselves out of the rates. But he must remember that these localities were, and had been, rating themselves to the utmost of their powers. Further, that they were supplementing their rates by individual efforts and sacrifices of the most liberal character. It was not sufficiently known to what a large extent the various towns were taxing themselves and what efforts they were making for the purpose in question. Only a week or two ago, in the borough he had the honour to represent, he assisted at the opening of a museum which had cost about £10,000, and this in addition to the maintenance of free libraries and other work in the same direction. They would take Birmingham simply as an example of what Provincial towns were doing. In that borough they were raising above £6,000 per annum from the rates; but this was barely sufficient for the free libraries and left nothing for art purposes. On the security of this rate they had spent since 1868 above £80,000 in building, furnishing, and maintaining their libraries. They had provided a small art gallery at a cost of £15,000 by private subscription. In 1878 they raised nearly £16,000 by subscriptions. They had just laid the foundation stone of a new art gallery, at an estimated cost of £50,000. Towards furnishing this gallery they had raised subscriptions to above £17,000. The Midland Institute stood on land now worth £30,000, given by the town. The Council of the Institute had purchased additional land, and were enlarging their buildings at a cost of £45,000, for which they had to rely on private subscriptions. While the people of Birmingham were making these earnest but insufficient efforts to supply their own needs, they were actually taxed to the extent of above £4,000 per annum for the support of parks, museums, and other institutions in London, towards which the people of London were paying
    1242
    nothing whatever from their rates. As an example of how these art galleries and museums were prized and used in the Provincial towns, he would state that in the year 1877, the year before the fire which destroyed the building, there were 394,645 visitors to the Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum. The number of visitors to the general departments—excluding reading-room—of the British Museum in the same year was but 539,281. Adding the libraries and reading-rooms in both cases the number of visitors to the Birmingham Institution was 538,135. To the British Museum 699,511. The right hon. Gentleman might ask them to go for powers to increase the rates for these purposes. But it was useless in the present depression to attempt this, nor was it fair to do so. It was overriding the willing horse. So long as the present method of rating and taxation existed he thought it would be impossible to get all they needed without liberal grants from the Imperial taxes. The rates bore heavily on shopkeepers and others, who at these times found it often difficult to make ends meet, while many who were far more wealthy got off comparatively easy. Besides, in the great centres of industry there were often more people outside in the districts around than inside the boroughs. These all used the institutions of the borough, and it was well that they should do so; but they paid nothing to the rates, and could not, therefore, contribute to the support of the institutions which they enjoyed except through the general taxation. He found from the Estimates of 1880–1 that the total amount given from the taxes to support institutions in Dublin was £34,174, in Edinburgh £22,648. For London the total amount was £369,329. Of this sum above £100,000 was for the support of London parks, £254,757 for the museums. Not a farthing from the London rates went in support of these institutions. If the right hon. Gentleman disputed the claims of the Provinces, how would he defend this expenditure in London? What defence could he make, for example, of the £7,000 per annum granted for the Bethnal Green Museum, a purely local institution? The growth of population in and around such towns as Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and Glasgow was so enormous that it seemed to him absurd to apply the term national

    1243
    exclusively to institutions maintained in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin. This question was not a local one, but one involving a principle of great public policy, one affecting the trade of the country generally, a matter in which the whole nation benefited, and towards which the whole nation should pay. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and on this side who represented counties and country interests were as much interested in it as were the Representatives of towns. If the trade of the towns was lost or diminished then the country must suffer in consequence. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be satisfied by saying that they could get examples, casts, &c, from South Kensington at a great reduction on the cost price. He did not deny those advantages, and was grateful for small mercies. But they were considering a far larger question than that, and they could not remain contented with the crumbs which fell from the rich tables of London. He thought that when millions could be found for other purposes—often for very doubtful purposes—there should be no difficulty in granting, say, £200,000 or £300,000, for a work on which the happiness and prosperity of the country so largely depended. He would not detain the House by referring to the social advantages of these institutions, and to the extent to which they added to the happiness of the people. He believed that it was to institutions like these that they must rely in a large degree for the solution of many of these serious problems which affected and injured the social life of the people. He had only one thing more to allude to before sitting down, and it was this. This subject had occupied his mind very closely; but he had been always met with a great difficulty in the fact that the management of their National Institutions was in such a confused and unsatisfactory. state. The British Museum was under one management, the National Gallery under another, the South Kensington Museum under a third. In the first two Institutions were many treasures stowed away which would give great pleasure and be of much educational value in the Provincial towns. This confusion of management was such a difficulty that early in the Session he drew up a Resolution affirming the necessity of placing these and similar National Institutions under
    1244
    one responsible Parliamentary management. But this would not be sufficient. All their educational institutions were, or ought to be, connected and co-operating, and he believed that nothing would meet the case but the placing of all educational work under one management. The Vice President of the Council had under his care elementary education, the importation of cattle, endowed schools, South Kensington Museum, the foot-and-mouth disease, and 50 other matters. In next Session, if the House would permit, he would venture to propose that in this country, where the subject of education in all its branches was taking a position of more and more importance, there should be a "Department of Public Instruction" receiving the whole attention of a "Minister of Education." The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. SLAGG, in seconding the Resolution, said, the present was a very opportune moment for discussing the important question which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Ipswich. When foreign countries were running us so closely in the industrial race; at a time when such nostrums as Reciprocity and Protection were dragged from their graves and presented in their ghastly cerements to the living generation as cures for the evils under which the country was now suffering, the time of the House might be very well occupied in considering how best to provide a remedy to meet the competition which British industries had now to face. There was no doubt that foreign nations were paying a great deal of attention to the promotion of those arts and sciences which related to industry, while we in this country were doing very little that was practical in the same direction. He did not for a moment wish to minimize the efforts that wore being made in education, art, and science; but the question which had been so very ably spoken to that night by his hon. Friend. (Mr. Jesse Collings) was one which he thought had not hitherto received the due consideration of the Government. He would not underrate the efforts made by the South Kensington Museum, and would, with the permission of the House, confine himself to a section of the subject which, he thought, might have the practical attention of the Education Department.

    1245
    He referred principally to the reproduction and distribution of articles in our large museums. Those who visited South Kensington would, he was sure, be immensely gratified with the collection of reproductions not only of English, but also of Continental objects of art workmanship from the studios of Elkington and Franchi of Paris. These objects had been reproduced by the electrotype process in a manner so authentic and artistic as to be for all purposes, except those of connoisseurs, quite as good as the originals. At any rate, for art purposes they were so. He wished that the idea he threw out last Session that it was possible to reproduce these and distribute them among the museums of the country without cost, or, at all events, at the smallest possible cost, should now be carried out. He was aware that at present the art schools obtained reproductions at a reduction on cost price of 50 per cent; but that was not enough. The art schools which were teaching drawing were doing comparatively little towards teaching industrial art. He believed it was within the scheme of the Vice President of the Council to put the art museums of the Provinces on the same footing as the art schools; and he observed in the Estimates a sum of £1,500 which appeared to be intended towards this purpose. He believed the Education Department had done a great deal during the Recess in reproducing several important works of art, a large amount of the best college plate and the plate of foreign countries, especially of Russia, having been copied and added to our National Collection. But he must say that, although these articles were very beautiful and rare, they were more interesting as curiosities than as objects which could be usefully copied or advantageously applied to industrial art. All artists and authorities on this subject would agree that nothing was so useful for training the eye in the most perfect manner and for the guidance of taste as the antique model, and no country possessed such a splendid and abundant collection of antique models as existed in the British Museum. Not only did artists consider these objects to be the very best for training the eye and judgment in design, but on the Continent, and especially in France, it had long since been discovered in their
    1246
    industrial schools that when copied by casts they were the best and surest means of teaching the students in matters of design and form. There were also in the British Museum unique and magnificent collections of drawings and engravings of the old masters, of coins, and also of medals. Many of these coins and medals had been already copied in an admirable manner by the electrotype process. He had no hesitation in saying that for all practical and educational purposes these copies were quite equal to the originals. The copies of the antique models were even better than the originals for the practical purposes of the art student. The two museums of London were, he agreed, the fittest home for all the original works; but, at the same time, he was firmly convinced that it would be an inestimable benefit to the country if a systematic process of reproduction were entered upon, so that every institution and school and even every individual in the Kingdom should know where to apply successfully for a copy of each object of interest in our National Collection. He would not attempt to underrate what had already been done at the British Museum; but many articles were, as yet, not reproduced. The magnificent old engravings had not been copied as far as he knew. As to having a Minister of Education, he was not in favour of multiplying the appointments of Ministers. He would rather define their existing appointments a little more and develop their functions. He did consider, however, that it would be a very great advantage to have a responsible and independent head of all Art Collections, who would be enabled to command, in an intelligible manner, objects which were now scattered in a most puzzling way. Such a gentleman should be responsible for the reproduction scheme, and. in his functions he should be assisted by the best artistic power of the British Museum and the National Gallery, in order to guide his operations. This was not a dilettante scheme, or one that emanated from painters and sculptors, because he had no intention of facilitating the increase of indifferent sculptors and painters, of whom there were too many already. His idea was purely an industrial one, as he wished to give every possible assistance to the development of industrial arts and sciences. He would briefly allude, in conclusion, to another

    1247
    aspect of the case. In the large over-populated towns there were many quarters where men and women lived unlovely and squalid lives, apart altogether from all influences of beauty and refinement. While they complained that their lives were to some extent degraded, their tastes debased, and that they had little aptitude for the enjoyment of refined occupations, he thought they were apt to forget how few opportunities these people had of being brought into association with that which was elevating and refining. He spoke for those who lived in those slums, to whom such associations would be of inestimable value. They would appreciate them, and that they did appreciate them was shown by abundant evidence, for when these collections were sent down from the South Kensington Museum to the large towns people went in crowds to see them. His hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had pointed out what had been done in Birmingham to provide habitations for such collections. In his (Mr. Slagg's) own constituency a very handsome and commodious art museum had lately been acquired by the Municipality. It was impossible that they could fill it themselves. Original objects were daily becoming more difficult to acquire; and those not purchased already would, it seemed likely, very soon be bought up by the South Kensington Museum. They must, therefore, look to the reproductions of which he had spoken. They wanted systematic collections, and complete series of these objects issued in such a manner as to suit the especial trade or industry of the district. The House was aware that a Royal Commission had been appointed to investigate the art schools on the Continent. He had the honour to be placed on that Commission, and he looked forward with extreme interest to its proceedings. He believed it would put the House in possession of facts which they were not aware of in regard to the efforts of foreign nations. The subject before the House would grow in importance, and he hoped the Department of his right hon. Friend would take time by the forelock and bring forward some scheme for filling the museums in the Provinces, as the time was very near at hand when the Provincial people would demand such aids to their industry and manufactures.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, grants in aid of Art and Industrial Museums should not be confined to London, Edinburgh, and Dublin."—(Mr. Jesse Collings,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the proposition of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). He was strongly in favour of giving such instruction to our artizans, who were, at the present moment, unable to compete with their more highly educated competitors abroad. Very strict limits, however, must be placed upon the aid so given, as it was not possible to extend it beyond the great cities and the large towns, which were the real centres of our important industries. Such an education would have, he was convinced, a most important social and political bearing on the minds of the people. Whatever was done to encourage a knowledge of art in great cities and towns must be done at once, and would be perfectly justified; and he had no doubt that the results would more than repay the cost of the aid given. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Ipswich as to the admirable intelligence and industry which the English workman threw into his work with such success, uneducated though he might be, in the technical sense of the word, as compared with those who had enjoyed greater advantages. He was glad that the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had supported the Resolution, although he thought it was quite unnecessary that he should have dragged into the discussion this matter of Reciprocity. He must confess himself that he did not know what Reciprocity meant; but those who were high authorities upon great commercial questions and the conditions of manufacturing industry attached the greatest importance to Reciprocity, and Mr. Cobden himself held it out as an inducement to the country to adopt a Free Trade policy. The hon. Member for Manchester, however, appeared to have seen a great deal further than his master, Mr. Cobden, ever saw; but he did not think he would ever succeed in

    1249
    convincing the country that Reciprocity would be affected by the proposal before the House. In so far as such technical education could help them in their home trade, it would, he readily conceded, be productive of the greatest good. At the same time, it would never enable the hon. Member for Manchester to send calicoes to India in competition with Germany in face of duties of 50 per cent. He felt great interest in the statement the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had made, and he hoped that these alterations in the Code would be productive of very great advantage to the country. As far as he could understand them, they seemed to be made in a right and reasonable spirit, and he had no doubt they would be carefully examined by all those interested in regard to education. He hoped that nothing would be done to injure voluntary schools. He had no doubt that the subscriptions in aid of the work of voluntary schools represented on the part of the givers a personal interest in education which could never be replaced by grants made by the State. He might allude very shortly to the question of compulsion.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Question before the House is "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and that the more convenient course would be for the House to dispose of the Amendment before the general subject of Education is discussed.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he recognized the right hon. Gentleman's ruling, and would only add, in conclusion, that he felt great interest in the Motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Ipswich, and he sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to meet the desires of the great constituencies referred to.
    MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich would understand that in going counter to his proposition to expend public money to help Birmingham he was not without sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's objects. He did not in the smallest degree underrate the advantages of the institutions of which the hon. Member had spoken, whether from the point of view of technical education or from a higher aspect as civilizing agencies promoting the culture of the people. At the same time, he should like
    1250
    to know how the proposition he made was to be limited. How were they to select the towns to which it was to apply or to keep the expense within due bounds? Was the hon. Gentleman going to give to the House a schedule of those towns to which his benevolence would be applied? What would he do with regard to the question of free libraries? If it was right to spend the national funds on Provincial museums, simply because they were beneficial institutions, it would be equally right to assist in providing every small town in England with a free library out of the public funds for the same reason. His constituents lived round the head waters of the Thames. They had to contribute to the restraining and civilizing that river in places some way from their abodes; and because the dredging of the Thames helped to drain some of their lands they had to bear the cost. They did not ask the people of Birmingham to do this for them. Why were they then to pay for the civilization and higher education of Birmingham and its neighbourhood? Should not the same principle apply at Birmingham as in the Thames Valley? Why should not Birmingham provide a Museum for itself? Was Birmingham too poor to do what Manchester had done? A half-penny rate levied on the Black Country would yield all that Birmingham desired, and why did not the hon. Gentleman ask for powers to levy such a rate? On all the rest of the points he was at one with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he did not rise merely to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, but to show how, in his opinion, the great National Museums could aid those in the Provinces. They could aid them with very uncostly but very valuable reproductions, and they could aid them by training good men to look after their museums. Nearly every work of art in metal in the British Museum and South Kensington could be so reproduced that, for all educational purposes, the copy would be as good as the original; and those which could not be copied might, from time to time, be sent down to Provincial towns for exhibition. His own experience justified him in saying that a really good curator of a museum could not be made in a day; and in setting about establishing museums, they must remember that it was the man who made the collection, and not the collection which made the

    1251
    man. A collection was of no use whatever without a man who understood and arranged and catalogued it. When he was an officer of the British Museum he often wished there had existed some solidarity between the department of which he was keeper, and similar departments in local Museums. He could have kept them informed of opportunities as they arose for purchasing mineral specimens, and all the more economically because on a more considerable scale, when the purchases might be made for several institutions simultaneously. While the National Museums could thus put the authorities at Birmingham or elsewhere in the way of buying things for their museum economically and well, he thought that such great towns ought to spend their own money for purposes of that kind; and, therefore, if the hon. Member went to a division he should vote against him on that point.
    MR. CAINEsaid, he had felt very strongly on this subject for many years, and he should have very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich; and if anything were needed to prove that some intimate connection existed between the great National Museum in London and those minor galleries and kindred institutions in the Provinces, it had been supplied by the hon. Member for Crick-lade. He had spoken of the difficulty in limiting these centres of population, and as to whether the grants should be given in money or in kind. For his own part, he thought more valuable articles could be given in kind. There seemed to him little difficulty about the limitation. The Government might support by such grants any town whose Town Council had already erected or acquired premises in which such collections could be suitably stored and exhibited, provided those authorities, whether Town Councils or otherwise, undertook the entire responsibility of their care and safe return, insuring them while there. He ventured to say a word in support of using the present collections for the purposes of the Provinces. He appealed to the Government for some assistance in the shape of loan exhibitions for the valuable institutions which the Earl of Derby, Mr. Mayer, and others had so munificently given to Liverpool. He had taken a close interest in everything connected with
    1252
    science and art education in Liverpool for many years, and he had noticed how all students in science and art, especially in art, were handicapped by the want of works of art by great masters which they could study. Duplicate etchings and engravings could be taken out of the collections in the British Museum without interfering with the efficiency of National Collections, and these might go on loan to the various art galleries throughout the country, to encourage and foster one of the most growing arts in the country. The hon. Member for Preston had drawn attention to the great amount of foreign competition interfering with their trade and commerce. He did not intend to enter upon the question; but there was one branch of reproductive art—that of etching—in which competition from France completely extinguished all native talent. He attributed this to the difficulty that art students had in getting full opportunities, even in the British Museum, of studying it. He had always held that it was the first duty of the British Museum to take suitable premises to display a series of educational engravings and etchings, showing the art from the very earliest date down to the present day. That could be easily done, he believed, and many artists in Manchester, Birmingham, and Liverpool, who were giving great attention to this reproductive art, found it impossible to study as they would wish to in consequence of the difficulty of getting access to subjects. Liverpool had made rapid strides within the last 10 years in this respect, and the Art Galleries there had been of very great service to young artists, entirely owing to the great energies of the members of the Corporation. In establishing a permanent Art Gallery in Liverpool, there had sprung up a School of Art that was known as the Liverpool School of Painting, especially of water-colours. He thought a selection might be made from the collection of etchings and engravings in the British Museum that might be framed in strong frames, and sent on circuit throughout the country. He did not say the British Museum should part with its treasurers; they should always keep a hold of and constant watch over them. But they might spare them on loan, and do a great service to art and every artistic manufacture throughout the country. It was impossible for young Provin-

    1253
    cial artists to come up to London to go through their art education in the Metropolis on account of the expense it entailed. Throughout France there were local collections of art, which were of the greatest value technically; and if they were to maintain their supremacy in art manufacture, the Government must take the matter up and attempt to settle it on the lines of the Motion of the hon. Member for Ipswich. It was most important that the curators of all the departments of these great museums should have distinct instructions given them that when collections came into their hands at fixed prices, as they generally did, and for a given time, those offers should not be parted with until those in charge of Provincial museums and Art Galleries had been communicated with. Liverpool devoted £3,000 or £4,000 a-year to the purchase of works of art, and those in charge would be only too glad if the authorities in the British or South Kensington Museums would communicate with them when anything came into their hands. There was a general impression in artistic circles that in the National Gallery—in the cellars and garrets—there were hundreds, if not thousands, of etchings and water-colours by Turner, rolled up and never seen, simply because there was no room to exhibit them. He trusted if that were so, the authorities of the National Gallery would unearth these invaluable works of art and have them properly mounted, and lend, if not give them, to some of those great institutions spoken of in that discussion. The committee of the Liverpool Corporation would only be too thankful to have a loan of a number of Turner's works, and he was quite sure that artists would take large advantage of them.
    MR. G. HOWARDsaid, he was sorry the hon. Member for Cricklade (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) found it necessary to oppose the Motion. He (Mr. G. Howard), however, rose to correct the erroneous statement made by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine), that there were great stores of Turner's drawings hidden in the cellars of the National Gallery. There was a large collection of such drawings, which had been mounted, and were exhibited in a room on the ground floor, the only place available for the purpose, but which was fairly lighted. The drawings were kept on shelves, from which they could be
    1254
    conveniently taken when anyone wanted to examine them. It was considered better to keep them in this way on shelves, as they would be liable to fade if exposed to the light; but a certain number of them were always open to public view. Three loan collections of Turner's drawings had been formed, and they were from time to time sent on loan to Provincial museums. The Trustees of the National Gallery were anxious to do all in their power to make their art treasures generally available for the public benefit. At the same time, he would recommend that the South Kensington Museum, which possessed a valuable collection of moulds made for the casts exhibited there, should distribute, as they might do, at a comparatively slight cost, a number of the best casts throughout the country.
    MR. WIGGINsaid, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich. It was impossible for persons in the country to come up constantly to London to visit the Metropolitan museums, or attend the professorial art and scientific lectures. On this ground the Central Art Department ought not only to supply the Provinces with proper examples of art manufacture, but, further, ought to constitute the Professors at South Kensington peripatetic, in order that they might visit the large centres of industry in the country. The Government ought not to hesitate for a moment, considering the importance of the matter, to vote a large sum of money to the Education Department that these objects might be carried out.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, that although a strong opinion had been expressed by his hon. Friend in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), he trusted that it would not be adopted, because he feared it would interfere with the question being dealt with in its entirety. The fact was that they had not got a really National Museum. They had instead a congeries of museums, each being more heterogeneous in its collections than the other. Their Governing Bodies were selected on the most extraordinary principles. The British Museum had 15 Trustees, nine of whom were elected on the ridiculous principle that they were the descendants of particular families, while the balance were selected because it was supposed they possessed a quasi-

    1255
    dilettante knowledge of art. Owing, however, to the system they had to administer, the institution was in a state of stagnation. It was not doing the work which it was intended to do, and, from its constitution, it could not do so. It was managed under an old Act of Parliament, which the Trustees had never sought to have altered. Only last week he asked one of the Trustees whether it was contrary to law that they should lend for exhibition some of the works of art which the museum contained? In reply to that question he was told that it would require an Act of Parliament to enable them to do so. But that was a matter which ought to have been remedied long ago. It was, he believed, the absolute duty of the Trustees to have had a Bill brought in to put an end to that state of things, and he could not doubt that the House would pass such a measure. Then they had the National Gallery, which he believed was even more conservative than the British Museum. What he meant was that there was even a greater absence of power to act in the Governing Body of the National Gallery than there was in that of the British Museum. The institution had six Trustees, one or two having been Trustees for many years. One was a Colonial Governor; and if he could manage the affairs of the National Gallery while in a distant Colony, it was evident that there could not be much to do, or else that everything was managed on the drifting principle. Another held an office in the Foreign Service, and he had been absent for a long time from England. The Curator, by some strange and anomalous arrangement, was almost invariably a past Royal Academician. Then they had the South Kensington Museum, where his hon. Friend could find an exemplification of the principle which he desired to have extended. But though the Governing Body were able, active, and zealous, they could not do all the good they might do, and which the country not unreasonably looked for from them. He was not able to give the figures for the last year, as the Report of the Museum for 1880 had not yet been presented; but he saw by the Report of 1879 that through the agency of the circulating department of the South Kensington Museum no fewer than 1,670,000 persons had been enabled to visit exhibitions of art objects sent from South Kensington to the large Provin-
    1256
    cial towns. That which was the case with South Kensington ought to be the case with the British Museum and the National Gallery. His hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich proposed by his Amendment to give grants of sums of money to Provincial museums to purchase works of art for themselves. But he should remember that every acquirer looked upon every other acquirer with feelings of hate and mistrust; and he feared that those feelings would not be absent from the minds of the conductors of the Provincial museums, who would thus be enabled to go into the market and bid against each other.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, his suggestion was that the South Kensington authorities should make or sanction the purchases.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, there was one real remedy which ought to be adopted—namely, the establishing of a central department to govern all those bodies. This was certain, that it was impossible things could be left much longer in their present state—some suffering from stagnation, some from incapacity, and others from uselessness. The first thing the Central Body should do would be to classify all the existing collections. At the British Museum, for example, there was a magnificent collection of etchings, engravings, and drawings by the great masters; while many of the originals were in the National Gallery. They ought to be together, for the object of all collectors was completeness; and the same observation applied to South Kensington, which had recently entered on the domain, one not its own, of classical antiquities. That very day he had seen in the National Gallery three of the most deplorable specimens of pictures that had ever been placed there. Probably they never would have been placed there at all if we had had a governing authority which was competent to put its foot down on purchases of this kind. The appointment of such an authority would also be a remedy for the state of chaos in which some of our museums were placed by bequests and gifts of objects of classical and mediæval antiquity, and objects of art and of natural science, which were left or presented on the condition that they should all be kept in one place. Probably the objection of testators to the unnecessary dispersal of their collections would be removed if they knew that the objects they

    1257
    bequeathed would be distributed in suitable quarters by a responsible central authority. In conclusion, he would express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would find time to deal with this question. No method of making grants in aid, however well meant, could effectually grapple with the subject, which ought to be dealt with in the manner he had indicated.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was very sorry to interpose in the discussion, which, he admitted, had been productive of great advantage; but he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) to withdraw his Motion. He (Mr. Mundella) fully recognized the importance of the question, and entirely sympathized with the desire of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that Municipal Museums should be established in the principal towns in England and should receive some assistance from the central authority. But assistance in the shape of lending valuable works of art could not be given by the Government to all the museums in England. To the existence of the South Kensington Museum was due the fact that every considerable Provincial town was desirous of having a similar institution of its own. Increase of appetite grew from what it fed upon. The question was, how the desired object was to be attained? Was it to be attained by means of grants from the Imperial Exchequer? He asserted that that would be impossible. Even if the thing were possible, it would be wrong to come to the Exchequer and say—"You must set up a museum in every great town in England." The thing was impossible owing to the rarity of the objects—even the duplicates—to be exhibited, and they were becoming more scarce and costly every day. It would be utterly impossible, for example, to collect another South Kensington Museum. His hon. Friend asked that grants for these works of art should not be confined to London, Dublin, and Edinburgh; and another hon. Member (Mr. Wiggin) said your Science Professors and your mining engineers should not be confined to London, but should be peripatetic. "They ought to go into the mining districts, and teach those engaged in mining and other industries their business." Now, what did the Mining
    1258
    School in London exist for? There was no mining business in London; but the school was there because it was a great centre, and it existed solely for the Provinces and other districts in England. His hon. Friend seemed to think the South Kensington Museum existed exclusively for the benefit of London. He (Mr. Mundella) was only responsible for one portion of that Museum—the Science and Art Department. That Department existed infinitely more for the Provinces than for London. His hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) expressed surprise. Let him point out to him that, although he put a Notice on the Paper, asking the House to declare that these grants should not be confined to London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, but should be more equally distributed to the Provinces, that was exactly what was done in the case of those grants. Of the Science School and Science grant, £33,842, or 84 per cent, went to the schools in the Provinces, while £6,386, or 16 per cent only, went to the schools in London, Dublin, or Edinburgh. Again, of the aid grant to art schools, £22,510, or 78 per cent, went to the Provinces, and only £6,461, or 22 per cent, to London, Dublin, or Edinburgh. The sum of £8,594 was given to the School of Mines, practically for instruction entirely for the Provincial industries. He would now take the art training schools in London, Dublin and Edinburgh, which trained nearly all the teachers in the United Kingdom. Of 150 and odd art schools in the country, the teachers in about 130 schools had been trained at South Kensington Local Schools, also, had the privilege of purchasing works of art and necessaries at prime cost. Surely that was encouraging art in the Provinces. A special Report had been published of the circulation of art objects belonging to South Kensington Museum. Every Member of the House could ascertain what had been done. They had a large staff, working at its fullest strength, engaged in circulating the South Kensington works of art. He had no wish to reflect on the British Museum or the National Gallery; but he would say, if there was one institution which did its work effectually, and which had been worked to the very fullest stretch of its capacity, it was the South Kensington Museum. Indeed, his own friends were in the habit of

    1259
    complaining that whenever they went to that Museum to see some particular work of art the case was empty, and a label announced that it was lent, to Birmingham or some other Provincial town. The number of art objects, paintings, and drawings, estimated at five years' purchase, alone circulated in the Provincial towns in 1880 was 9,437; of scientific apparatus, 1,970. Examples were circulated in 55 institutions. The cost of circulation amounted to £4,659. He thoroughly agreed with the Mover and the Seconder of the Resolution in reference to our local industries. He believed the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), who was about to serve on a Technical Education Commission, would find that no country in Europe was doing as much for art, as applied to manufactures, as was being done in this country at this moment through the medium of the South Kensington Museum. How they could assist these museums was in the matter of reproduction. His hon. Friend seemed to overlook the fact that for the first time this year a Vote of £2,000 would be taken for reproduction of works of art, ancient and mediaeval, and Votes of £1,500 under sub-head 4. Objects which would cost £3,000, and whose value would be more than double that amount, would be given for the small contribution of £1,500 from the localties. If the sum was not larger it was not his fault; he had done his best to make it larger. His hon. Friend hoped that he would not fall short of the promises made by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) in 1877; but he thought he had gone a good deal beyond the noble Lord. The noble Lord said, on the occasion referred to, that the present was a time when the resources of the country were strained, and a strict economy was very properly exercised by those who had control of the public expenditure, so that the hands of Ministers in charge of the various Departments were much tied. The noble Lord added that the Government would not overlook the matter, which would receive careful consideration, and when it came under discussion next year he hoped the Government would be able to give an opinion one way or the other. That was what was said by the noble Lord; but this year the Government were prepared
    1260
    to give £3,000 for reproductions, which the Provincial towns might have for half the cost if they would only begin, to help themselves. When he sat below the Gangway, for three years in succession he brought in a Bill to enable every locality to rate itself under the Free Libraries and Museums Act to the amount of 2d. in the pound. The Municipalities ought not to be fettered in the way they were at present. This House unduly exercised a controlling power when it said that for free libraries and museums only a rate of 1d. in the pound would be allowed. A second 1d. would pay for the museums; and, what was more, local liberality would be developed to an enormous extent. In Birmingham one person alone had subscribed £8,000, and a few others £7,000 more. That was only a beginning, and he was as sure as he was of his existence that in a few years Birmingham would have a fine museum. Such institutions were, of course, not built in a day. The collection at South Kensington was the laughing-stock of the country for a long time; but now the public had come to appreciate its value. It was rather discreditable to us that we had no gallery of the finest casts. At South Kensington they had resolved to have a gallery of casts. They were prepared to have Votes year after year for the purpose, and if those Votes went on increasing he should be the better pleased. His hon. Friend ought to be satisfied with what had been already achieved. It was due to the persistency and eloquence of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) that they had a Vote on the Estimates this year. Let his friends in Manchester and Birmingham and elsewhere accept what the Government were doing this year, and next year he should be happy to see what the Treasury would do for those most useful institutions. The cultivation of the love of beauty and the feeling for art workmanship would be of the greatest benefit to the Provinces. If the matter was once set on foot, local liberality would come to the aid of local rates, and with such, duplicates as the Department was prepared to give the towns would have splendid museums. He must remind the House that it was not by grants from the State that the great towns of Italy, Germany, and other countries created their museums; but it was by

    1261
    the spirit and local patriotism of their citizens which made people proud of their towns. He did not think that Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham was deficient in that local patriotism which characterized Florence and other cities which were distinguished on the Continent for their devotion to and cultivation of art.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he begged the House to distinguish between what the Trustees of the British Museum could do legally and what they could not. Several things which had been alluded to on the present occasion were entirely beyond their powers. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) wished that the Trustees should hand over their prints to the National Gallery. The Trustees had no more power to hand over those prints than his hon. Friend. They were strictly tied down. He was sure he might say that the Trustees were ready to consider any suggestions which might be thrown out; but it was hardly fair to blame them for not doing what they had no power to do. Then his hon. Friend said that the Trustees might have brought in a Bill to enable them. He did not think it was for the Trustees to do so. In 1878, an Act passed through that House enabling the Trustees to give away duplicates, and from that moment they were endeavouring to carry out the object of the Act as faithfully as they could. They had in the British Museum, perhaps, the very finest collection in the world, of which the nation might well be proud. He hoped that his hon. Friend would for the present be contented with the discussion that had been raised, and would not go to a division. There was evidently so much to be said in favour of reconsidering the position of the National Museums, that the whole subject might, perhaps, be discussed with advantage another year.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was quite willing to bear testimony to the readiness with which the authorities of the South Kensington Museum had assisted the efforts which had recently been made to establish a local museum at Bradford. His right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had cheerfully complied with the request which had been made to him. His hon. Friend the Member for East Cumber-
    1262
    land (Mr. E. S. Howard), with equal readiness, when an application was made to the National Gallery, undertook, on behalf of that institution, to do all that he could, and the result was that a valuable collection had been lent to Bradford. It was not known or anticipated at Bradford that these liberal concessions would be made, and the grants had been received with the greatest gratification and surprise. He suggested to his right hon. Friend the importance of letting it be generally known that these collections at South Kensington and elsewhere were available for the use of localities even if it were only for a short period. But he confessed that he was not altogether satisfied with the position of his right hon. Friend. He had said that it was necessary to keep the great originals in London, where they would be sufficiently guarded. He thought that some of these great pictures and objects of art would be a great ornament to local museums, and it would be a relief in many instances to overcrowded galleries in London to send them away. He thought that, so far as educational results were concerned, the Provinces would receive as much benefit from these exhibitions as the people of London did. He might go further, and say that it was of the greatest importance, in regard to the industries of many parts of England, that there should be higher education in arts and science. He quite agreed that the National Exchequer should not be liable for the whole of the attendant expense; but wherever districts had shown a desire to have these collections, and to establish a course of art studies, such as Manchester, Liverpool, or Birmingham, he thought the Department should deal with these localities in a liberal way. His right hon. Friend had pointed out that a sum of £1,500 for this year had been set aside for the distribution of art objects, in addition to £2,000 for their reproduction; and he held out that as an earnest of better things to come. He must say that to him the sum appeared to be contemptible. An hon. Friend sitting near him had said the figure must be £150,000. He should have been satisfied, too, if that had been the figure. The sum of £1,500 was altogether inadequate, and almost an insult to the country. He must ask his right hon. Friend to bring greater pressure

    1263
    upon the Treasury; and he suggested that if economy were to be practised, as he argued was desirable, it should be carried out in the direction of saving the tons of gunpowder that were blown away in gunnery experiments and such like. It had been said that London was a convenient centre for these collections, and that the art objects there exhibited were accessible to persons from all parts of the country. But there were many struggling young men throughout the country who would be eager to avail themselves of these treasures if they were within a short distance of their homes; but the expense of a journey to London and of remaining there for such a time as to make their studies valuable was a very serious matter.
    MR. ANDERSONwished, in the first place, to acknowledge in the strongest terms the manner in which the South Kensington Museum authorities assisted with loans and articles for exhibition those localities which desired such assistance. He had occasion recently to go with a deputation from Glasgow to the Department on this subject, and he could assure the House they were met more than half-way. The Department was now engaged in making a selection of most valuable articles of Oriental art to be sent down to an exhibition in Glasgow. He did not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had really met the question before the House. There was a want of management in connection with the great museums—the National Gallery and the British Museum—which was very much to be condemned. Only the other day, two pictures by David Roberts were bequeathed to the nation; but the National Gallery, having already pictures by that artist on its walls, refused to accept them. Why could not these pictures have been taken by the nation, put into a circulating department with others, and sent round the country? Simply because the National Gallery happened to be crowded, valuable pictures of this kind were declined as a bequest. The main point of his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) was the treatment of the Provinces as compared with London, and that was a complaint which he (Mr. Anderson) had been making ever since he came into the House. London had everything done for it, and did nothing for itself; whereas Provincial cities did everything for them-
    1264
    selves, and were left to do so. At present, grants were only given to London, Dublin, and Edinburgh. They were given, he believed, to Edinburgh and Dublin because they were considered as Metropolitan; but the industrial museums were misplaced. There was an industrial museum at Edinburgh supported by the State; but Edinburgh was not an industrial city. Glasgow and Dundee were the two chief industrial towns in Scotland, and they, if any, ought to receive such assistance from the State. Some hon. Members objected to anything being done for industrial towns; but urged that grants should only be given for the Metropolis. But they seemed to forget that the prosperity of the Metropolis depended upon the prosperity of the Provincial towns, and the prosperity of those towns was only to be kept up by doing everything we possibly could to promote the technical education of the people of those towns. It was from that point of view that he ventured to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTwished to point out that the British Museum had a valuable collection of engravings which no one hardly ever saw. Some time ago, when an exhibition of engravings was held at Burlington House, the British Museum did not come forward and contribute to that exhibition, so that the public had no opportunity of seeing what engravings the nation possessed.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The Trustees of the British Museum have no power to lend their collection of engravings.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTthought if that was the case it would be a good thing to give the Trustees that power. Those engravings, if they could be seen by the public, would do much to improve the artistic taste of the people.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, most of them who had experience in museums must know that what was wanted was not merely permanent collections with which people became familiar and in time very weary, but that which was continually fresh, suggesting new lines of thought; and it was because it accomplished that particular end that he wished to tender his strong acknowledgments of the very great value of the circulating department of South Kensington. That system of circulation where local museums were

    1265
    established had worked very well for a number of years with very contracted material, and it was only within comparatively recent times that works had been taken out of the museum proper and sent circulating round the country. With the encouragement of the House, and such pressure as the House could exercise upon the Government, strengthening them in that Resolution, he saw no reason why the whole of the South Kensington Museum should not be made available throughout the Provinces. It appeared to him that their aim should be to encourage, strengthen, and extend this system, rather than to ask for aid for the purchase of a permanent collection, to be kept in the local museums. He might mention that in his own borough there were three museums at that moment which were aided by grants from the circulation department. Recently, when they wanted a collection of Japanese examples a certain sum of money was subscribed in order to secure the 50 per cent aid given by the Department. The result was they obtained a very valuable collection; and while this could be done, it was unreasonable to ask the House to pass a Resolution to the effect that grants in aid of Industrial and Art Museums were not to be confined to London, Edinburgh and Dublin. He would only ask that in granting this aid the Department should abolish the distinction which had been a little embarrassing in limiting the aid to Museums in connection with Schools of Art.
    MR. MUNDELLA: That has already been done.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he was glad of that. Where localities had provided free libraries and established museums, they gave the Department an assurance that objects sent to them would be cared for, and proper facilities afforded for the public seeing them. One other suggestion was that the value of these objects of art sent down from time to time would be largely increased if a system of lectures were organized for the purpose of giving an exposition of the objects themselves.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 85: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 360.)
    Main Question proposed, ''That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT, SOUTH KENSINGTON—UNITED WESTMINSTER SCHOOLS OF ART— CASE OF MR. GOFFIN, THE HEAD MASTER.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, who had the following Resolution on the Paper:—
  "That the retention by the Governors of the United Westminster Schools of Mr. Goffin as head master of that public institution, after he had, by a Select Committee of this House specially appointed in 1879 to inquire into his conduct at the request of the Governors of the Schools, been found guilty of a systematic course of fraud, falsehood, and subornation, is a public scandal, and as such demands the immediate attention of the Education Office and Charity Commissioners,"
  said, it was with great regret that he was compelled, in the interest of public morality, to call the attention of the House to this case; but the issues involved were so grave, and so affected, not only the whole system of science instruction provided and paid for by the State, but so directly impugned the honour and authority of the House of Commons, that he had no alternative, even at this period of the Session, but to bring the matter before the House. He was afraid, however, that if he had been able to put his Resolution it would have been regarded as couched in strong language; and, therefore, unless he laid before the House the full details of the accusation it might appear so incomprehensible as not to be worthy of credit. It was necessary, in the first place, that the House should remember the principle on which these science and art examinations were conducted and the method of payment consequent thereon. All moneys paid through the Education Office or the Art and Science Department to managers of schools for the support of schools or classes were dependent upon the results of certain prescribed examinations. In elementary schools these examinations were conducted in person by the Education Inspectors and they ranged over the whole year. For art and science there was a different system. The examinations were conducted by printed papers issued at a certain given date to all the schools and classes in the Kingdom; the examinations were held simultaneously, and all the papers were then sent back to the Art and Science Department, were examined by the various Professors at

  1267
  South Kensington, and for every child or individual who passed a certain test in any one or more given subjects a payment of £1 per head for each subject so passed was paid to the school or class in which he had been taught. A certain interval must necessarily elapse between the date at which these examination papers were distributed by South Kensington and the day upon which the examination was held, and during that period the secretary or committee of the School of Arts were specially responsible for their safe custody. As an additional precaution against fraud, two members of the committee were requested to personally vouch by their signatures that the regulations and conditions of the Department had in every sense been complied with. Upon the faithful fulfilment of these duties depended the whole system of examination; if the committee thoroughly performed their self-imposed duties, nothing could be simpler and more satisfactory than its working; if they neglected them, the examination might become a fraud of the worst description, inculcating deceit and dishonesty into the minds of the children examined. The payments made for teaching science far exceeded those paid for elementary instruction. Few elementary schools obtained for all the subjects taught under the Code a payment of £1 per scholar, whereas every pass in science brings in £1, and many students take up several science subjects at a time. During the time he was at the Education Office, a good many instances of fraud in connection with these art and science examinations came before him; in almost every instance they were the result of negligence on the part of the committee or governing body of the school. Of the unhappy cases by far the worst were the frauds of Mr. Goffin, the present head master of the Westminster United Schools. These schools were established by a scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and were supported by funds previously administered by the Corporation of London. They were among the largest middle-class schools in the Metropolis, containing over 600 boys. Being secondary schools, they were not under the Education Department, and the only authorities having any indirect control over them were the Charity Commissioners. Mr. Goffin, an elementary certificated teacher, was
  1268
  in 1874, at a salary of £500 per annum, appointed head master of the schools by the Governing Body, of whom the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was the chairman. Mr. Goffin proceeded to establish art and science classes in connection with South Kensington, and the payments made for such teaching through the Governors were, in 1875, £86 to Mr. Goffin, £8 to an assistant; in 1876, to Mr. Goffin £355 10 s., to the assistant £41—total, £396 10 S. In 1877, to Mr. Goffin £386, to the assistant £65—total, £451. These payments were all made upon the certificate of the Governors that all the precautions and regulations of the Department had been fulfilled to the letter. Very shortly after he (Lord George Hamilton) was appointed Vice President of the Council. In May, 1878, two days after the science examination, Colonel Donnelly, the head of the Science Department, was visited by a man, who said, that, as a matter of duty, he felt compelled to inform him of what was going on in the Westminster Schools. Though not a master himself, he had a brother in that Institution, who told him he believed that by some means Mr. Goffin got hold of the papers before the examination, as the "tips," which was the term given to his lessons just previous to the examination, were undeniable answers to the questions set. His brother, to test the nature of these "tips," got the notes of a boy taken at a chemistry lesson just previous to the examination. These notes were given to a master of the name of Hall, who was going up for the same examination, but had not been present at this lesson, as soon as the chemistry examination was over. On comparing the notes with the examination paper, Colonel Donnelly's informant discovered that they were eight direct answers to eight of the questions set, the number of questions to be answered at this examination being limited to eight. The name of the boy who took the notes was unknown to him. Colonel Donnelly was much startled by this information. If the notes were authentic, Mr. Goffin's guilt was clear; and if one master had knowledge of the contents of the examination papers, it was not unlikely that others might have obtained similar information. Colonel Donnelly immediately took with him to the schools two experienced Inspectors, Mr. Iselin and Captain Abney, and they informed Mr. Goffin of

  1269
  the nature of the charge they had to make without mentioning the name of their informant. Mr. Goffin denied that he was guilty. An examination of the boys took place, characterized by much shuffling and prevarication on their part, and certain of their note-books with difficulty were secured. The evidence thus obtained was, in the unanimous opinion of the officers, conclusive proofs of the authenticity of the notes; for the note-books corroborated the notes in all particulars. Colonel Donnelly expressed himself in strong terms with regard to the shuffling answers of the boys, and sent the notes to him (Lord George Hamilton). When he said that he submitted this matter to experts at South Kensington, he hoped the House would recollect that there was a combination of talent there such as there was, perhaps, not to be found in any other Department, including Professors Huxley, Roscoe, and others, whose names were of European celebrity. Throughout the whole of this painful case complete and absolute unanimity prevailed among these gentlemen concerning the charge against Mr. Goffin; while, on the other hand, the opinion of men of immense practical experience in the Education Department at Whitehall had been equally clear. He (Lord George Hamilton) went through the case with the utmost care, and in his opinion the internal evidence was overwhelming; but before coming to any final decision, the Department communicated with the Governors, asking for their views; they, in turn, asked for a more detailed charge, which was given them, though he declined to part with the evidence and note-books of the boys; but, at the same time, suggested to the Governors a visit to South Kensington to enable them to see the nature of these documents. The Governors then held a perfunctory inquiry of their own, and, endorsing all Mr. Goffin's statements, they forwarded the result of their labours to South Kensington, threatening the Department with a legal action if the charges were not withdrawn. He went through the defence of the Governors, and he found that, so far from overthrowing, it most conclusively established Mr. Goffin's guilt. He declined in any way to withdraw the charges. A protracted correspondence ensued. Finding that the Governors
  1270
  were impervious to anything the Department could say, its decision was made absolute; and all Mr. Goffin's certificates were withdrawn. The threatened legal action was not brought. In the course of that year Mr. Goffin became one of the committee of the National Union of Elementary Teachers, and, in consequence, the whole power of that very influential body was used on his behalf. Petitions were sent to almost every Member of Parliament with an elaborate defence of Mr. Goffin, and when Parliament met in the ensuing year the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) gave Notice of a Motion on behalf of the Governors for a Select Committee to investigate the case. In the meanwhile he received so many communications from persons whose opinions he respected, that he went with the utmost care into the whole case more than once, and the evidence began so to accumulate, both as regards Mr. Goffin's antecedents, as well as his conduct at these schools, as to induce the belief that for many years past he had carried on a system of wholesale fraud. In 1865 he was master at Exton, Oakham. Heavy payments were made to him for passing small children through a number of science subjects. Doubts were excited in the minds of the Examiners from a curious identity of mistakes in certain papers. The suspicion was indignantly repelled at first by the committee; but on the 16th of October, 1865, they admitted the charge in the following terms:—
  "Inasmuch as you wrote to the committee, through me, questioning the fair dealing of the main examinations, though the points referred to were honourahly carried out, yet they direct me to inform you a communication was made last week by the boys—viz., the questions contained in the working paper, and laid before them on the night of the examination, were all known to them, and learnt by heart. I have further to acquaint you that the teacher has resigned his post as schoolmaster here, and the class consequently has broken up."
  Mr. Goffin next attracted attention at a school at Woking. Children of tender years were taught from six to 12 subjects of science at a time, and succeeded in passing in many of them. Again the suspicions of the Department were aroused. Seven separate Inspectors' Reports were made commenting on the complete ignorance of children under viva voce examination compared with their uniform mecha-

  1271
  nical answers at the written examinations. Constant cases of copying occurred. Mr. Goffin still contrived to baffle discovery by the adroitness of his replies, and in 1874, mainly on the recommendation of the managers of this school, he was appointed head master of the Westminster Schools. He had letters which he would not read from managers both of the Working and Exton schools. Both were much to the same effect, pointing out how Mr. Goffin had deceived them, how thorough their confidence in him had been, and how he had concealed his faults by a most extraordinary power of lying. But that after he was gone his system of fraud had become the talk of the place. By a mere accident he (Lord George Hamilton) received information which induced the Department to believe that if an inquiry on oath were instituted such an exposure would ensue as would open the eyes of the blindest, and accordingly he moved for a Select Committee, as it was the only means by which he could institute such an inquiry. It was appointed in July, 1879, and Mr. Lowe (now Lord Sherbrooke) became its Chairman, and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) representing the Governors. The constitution of the Committee was perfectly impartial, and, with the exception of himself and the hon. Member for Gravesend, no one knew beforehand of the nature of the evidence to be brought before the Committee. They determined to examine witnesses on oath, because they believed that if either party were disposed they could raise the question in a Court of Law by bringing an action for perjury, for whereas the evidence given before a Select Committee was privileged so far as libel was concerned, jet the witness was subject to the same penalties for perjury as in a Court of Law. Mr. Goffin from the outset had always asserted that he was the victim of a conspiracy, into which teachers, pupils, inspectors, clergymen, and school managers seemed all to have entered. The Committee, therefore, determined to allow no one but the witness under examination to be in the room, and thus, by subjecting every witness to the most rigorous examination, prevent the possibility of the conspiracy, such as Mr. Goffin complained of, from accomplishing its purpose. The course of procedure thus adopted by the Committee
  1272
  was especially favourable to the special line of defence of Mr. Goffin, that he was the victim of conspiracy. He should, in the interest of the Department, have preferred an inquiry open to the public, at which the skilled, experts of the Department could themselves have conducted their case. As it was he was placed at great disadvantage. The hostile attitude of the Governors precluded him from making the necessary preliminary inquiries by which he could before this Committee have ascertained what teachers and boys were willing to speak the truth concerning Mr. Goffin's practices. He, therefore, summoned such witnesses as he thought were likely to speak the truth, though several, he knew, were hostile witnesses. The oral evidence extracted from them was overwhelming; but the documentary evidence was even stronger. Teacher after teacher admitted that when unfit for examination they had been taught the answers to questions set to enable them to pass; document after document in Mr. Goffin's own handwriting was produced giving direct answers to questions set, and only to such questions; and letters in Mr. Goffin's handwriting even more criminating were produced. Boys came up who had passed from three to six subjects in science when under 12 years of age by being taught the answers by heart overnight to the questions set, while it was a matter of physical impossibility that they could have made the attendances necessary to qualify them for the subjects they passed in. But it was not merely the nature of the evidence, but the manner in which it was given, that carried conviction. Every witness was severely cross-examined, yet the information obtained from the reluctant fitted with a nicety and accuracy in unforeseen details that no premeditation could have insured. He had no hesitation in saying that if they could have gone at much greater length into the case they could have obtained revelations far more startling. But the evidence they obtained during the two or three days when they examined witnesses was deemed so conclusive and so far more than sufficient for the purpose in view, that they did not consider it necessary to take further evidence. The whole of the evidence was sent to Mr. Goffin, and he had a week to prepare his defence. On one point alone the

  1273
  evidence was slightly defective, for, although the authenticity of the notes given to Colonel Donnelly was distictly proved by several witnesses, the Committee were unable to find the boy who took them. Mr. Goffin came up and was examined all day. They were reluctant to examine him on oath, but he insisted. With characteristic audacity, he selected what he believed to be the weakest point in the case against him, and upon it hinged his whole defence. He alleged that he was the victim of a conspiracy, and that the outcome of that conspiracy was the concoction of these notes by certain of the conspirators whom he mentioned by name, and it was because he could not by fair means have given the information which they contained that they were concocted to ruin him. These assertions were made on oath. He further said that inquiry ought to be made for the boy. If the boy was in the school why was he not forthcoming? If not, he was entitled to assert that the notes were not authentic. He made these and other statements; but he did not get any direct evidence to rebut the charges brought against him, though he gave us a long list of witnesses, the inferences from whose evidence, he said, would, in his belief, disprove what had been said against him. It would have been the duty of the Committee to have examined all these witnesses so long as any doubt remained on their minds; but the next day, by the merest accident, the authors of these and other notes were discovered. In looking through the examination papers of the chemistry class, which had been in the hands of the Department since the examination, an officer belonging to South Kensington was so struck with the extraordinary similarity between the symbols, formulas, and writing of one paper and the notes in question as to make him think that the boy whose name was on the paper was the author of the notes. The boy was sent for, and he at once admitted that the notes were his, and taken at a lecture given by Mr. Goffin just previous to the examination. They compared his notes with his examination papers. It was absolutely impossible for these notes to be similar to the examination paper by accident, for the answer to every single question on the examination paper was in these notes. It was impossible for anyone to have concocted them who had
  1274
  not seen the boys' examination paper. He (Lord George Hamilton) was examining the boy, Jones by name, and he had a suspicion that the name of the boy was known to some of the masters who had taken these notes. So he said to this boy—
  "(Question 2,046.) 'After you had given these notes to Mr. Hall did anybody ever talk to you about them? Did you ever hear anything more about them?'—(A.) 'I forget now.' (Q.) 'Try and think. Did anybody ever send to you about these notes? '(A.)' I was in the class one day—in Mr. Kent's class—and he said to the boys—"Have any of you given any notes to anybody?" and I said "Yes, sir, I gave notes to Mr. Hall." He said, "That is nothing;" and that is all.' "
  Another boy in the same way identified notes which were almost as remarkable as those he had just referred to. It might seem to the House a serious matter to convict a man upon the evidence of a small piece of paper; but the House must understand what these notes were. Of course, any practical teacher could anticipate with more or less confidence the class of questions which might be set; but no one could guess the exact terms of the questions. In arithmetic it would not be difficult to anticipate that a Rule of Three sum might be set; but no one could anticipate what the exact terms of the sum would be. In the examinations on chemistry anyone might fairly anticipate that a question relating to the active atomicity of certain substances might be asked; but the substances of which this question could be asked numbered many hundreds. The Examiner named five; and not only were the selected five hit off in the notes, but they were arranged in the identical order in which they occurred in the examination paper. On the theory of probabilities, the probability of such a feat being honestly performed was a thousand billions to one. Stating it in a material shape, it was about the same as hitting on a particular drop of water out of all the water that passed Teddington Weir in a month; or, to put it in sporting phrase, like "spotting" the winner of the Derby for the next 10 consecutive years by giving his number on the card, assuming that there were 30 starters each year. The authorship and authenticity of these notes having been established to the satisfaction of the entire Committee—who in this case were judge and Jury combined—they were unanimously of opinion that the case was

  1275
  over, otherwise they would have heard every witness Mr. Goffin wished to call. Sir Sydney Waterlow, as representative of the Governors, acquiesced in this decision, and moved a Report expressing his conviction that Mr. Goffin was guilty; but the majority of the Committee were of opinion that it did not go far enough, and, after some discussion, the following Report was agreed to. If Sir Sydney, on the part of the Governors, had shown any reluctance or doubt as to Mr. Goffins guilt, the Committee would have prolonged the case until he was convinced. The Report was as follows:—
  "Your Committee are satisfied from evidence taken on oath and from documents laid before them—(a) that Mr. Goffin, the head master of the United Westminster Schools, did disclose to his pupils in certain science classes, just previous to the examinations, the answers to a largo number of questions in the examination papers; (b) that the information which he thus gave was of such a nature that he must, before imparting it to his classes, have known the contents of the examination paper; (e) that the registers containing the attendance roll of the pupils of Mr. Goffin were, in certain cases, falsified by Mr. Goffin and his assistants to obtain payment of pupils who had not made the necessary number of attendances; (d) that the statements in the petitions signed by pupils and teachers on Mr. Goffin's behalf, and presented to the governors of the United Westminster Schools, were false, and were known by some of the signatories to be so. Previous to his appointment in 1874 as head master of the United Westminster Schools Mr. Goffin was master of St. John's School, Woking. Tour Committee have taken evidence as to his system of teaching science there, and from that evidence it is clear—(a) that a large number of pupils, including mere children, were enabled to pass examinations in a great number of science subjects, of which they knew scarcely anything, by being systematically taught by heart on the day of, or the day previous to, the examination, answers to the questions set; (A) that fraudulent fabrication of the attendance registers was systematically practised in order to obtain payment upon the pupils, who, by another fraud, had been enabled to pass the examination. The investigations now held, have disclosed the fact that Mr. Goffin has carried on a course of fraud in a manner and to an extent which must have greatly lowered the tone of morality among a large body of scholars and teachers. Your Committee record their emphatic opinion that fraud thus reduced to a system and almost elevated to the dignity of an art, requires the immediate attention of the Education Department with a view to the adoption of such further precautions as will prevent a repetition of these disgraceful practices. Your Committee further express a hope that the Department will deal as leniently as their public duty will allow with the teachers who, in the course of this inquiry, have by their evidence exposed themselves to the charge of complicity with some of Mr. Goffin's proceedings."
  1276
  He should like to know whether a stronger Report could be made against anyone than the Report he had read? During the discussion of the Report, there was some difference of opinion amongst the Members of the Committee as to the punishment to be awarded, some Members being of opinion that Mr. Goffin should be committed for perjury, and that a recommendation to that effect should have been made to the Speaker; but, ultimately, another view prevailed, and it prevailed on this understanding alone—first, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) should dismiss Mr. Goffin as soon as he could assemble the Governors, and he (Lord George Hamilton) undertook to consult the Legal Advisers of the Government as to whether or not it would be possible to bring an action for fraud against Mr. Goffin. He accordingly consulted the Law Advisers of the Crown, and he found that there was an insuperable obstacle to such a course, as all the money ultimately received by Mr. Goffin had been paid to the Governors of the Schools, upon their certificate that all the regulations of the Department had been complied with, and he (Lord George Hamilton) was told that there was a technical plea which could be set up which would preclude Mr. Goffin being prosecuted for fraud. In October, to his amazement, he received a letter from the Governors, in which it was stated that at a meeting, with the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) in the chair, they unanimously came to the conclusion not to abide by the Report of the Committee, but requested the prosecution of Mr. Goffin in a Court of Law. He (Lord George Hamilton) then pointed out that it was not possible for them to do it; but that if Mr. Goffin wanted to go to law he had only to bring an action for perjury against the witnesses whose veracity he impugned. But what did Mr. Goffin do? There was one course which he might adopt, which everybody knew would be futile except for the purpose of throwing dust into the eyes of the public. If he had brought an action for perjury against any of these witnesses, he would have been cross-examined, and the case would have been tried on its merits. He might have brought an action against Colonel Donnelly or the other officers for Reports

  1277
  which, they had made to him (Lord George Hamilton) as Vice President of the Council. But he did not do that; he brought an action for libel against Colonel Donnelly, not for Reports made to Mm (Lord George Hamilton), but for the evidence which he gave before the Select Committee. The case was almost laughed out of Court; but it served Mr. Goffin's purpose. For 18 months he (Lord George Hamilton) was prevented from bringing his case before the public, and the Governors accepted the excuse and rehabilitated Mr. Goffin in his position. Then came the blackest part of the case, to which the House, he was sure, would pay very great attention. The Committee were very painfully impressed—and he hoped the Members of the House who were Governors of the School would excuse him—by the immense power which Mr. Goffin had. To use the words of a witness—"he was king of the school." A letter was put in, written by the secretary, in which he naively remarked—"The Governors will not do or order anything without first consulting Mr. Goffin." He could appoint whom he chose, dismiss whom he chose, and the rise of salaries was altogether dependent upon his opinion. The manner in which Mr. Goffin exercised his power was shown in the evidence. The Committee were very painfully struck by the terror these witnesses had of Mr. Goffin. One of them had a question put to him, and he said—"Must I speak the truth?" Another witness, who was a material witness, was asked to explain how he came to sign a petition which he knew to be false, and he replied—"I have a wife and two children dependent upon me. I did it under fear; I did it under protest." It would be recollected that all these witnesses were forced witnesses—reluctant witnesses. They had orders served upon them to attend the Committee Room; and he was sorry to say, in consequence of the Governors of the School allowing Mr. Goffin to remain as head master of the "Westminster School, all the witnesses who had given evidence against him were under his thumb, and a very heavy thumb it was. There was a letter from one of these witnesses, named Thompson, and he wrote to Colonel Donnelly to the effect that, since the Select Committee, he had been subject to a great deal of annoyance, both in school and
  1278
  out, at the hands of Mr. Goffin, and he wanted to know how to stop "this intolerable persecution?" It seemed to him (Lord George Hamilton) that the House was bound in honour to redress these grievances. Another witness swore on oath that Mr. Goffin had told him that, if any master gave any evidence concerning the lessons given previous to examination, the Governors would at once dismiss him. He (Lord George Hamilton) did not know whether the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) would be able to repudiate that charge; but he was informed on good authority that the salary of almost every one of the masters who stood by Mr. Goffin had been raised since the inquiry. Thompson, the man who wrote to Colonel Donnelly for protection, was one of the best teachers in the school, and he had looked at the reports of various examinations, and he saw that the boys in his form had done better than a good many other boys. He had made more than one application for an increase of salary, had been referred to Mr. Goffin, and refused. He had also been threatened with the loss of his lodging, and lately Mr. Thompson had been relegated to the lowest form. It was the knowledge of these facts which had induced him to bring this case before the House. Lord Sherbrooke had urged him for some time to bring the matter forward, and to take the first opportunity he could. As soon as Lord Sherbrooke saw that there was a chance of doing so, his Lordship wrote to him to say "He was very glad that at last an opportunity had occurred of bringing forward the scandalous case of Mr. Goffin, and the scandalous conduct of the Managers of the School." The Governors of the Schools, he believed, relied very much upon the results of some examinations which had taken place since the Report of the Committee, and he had seen the Report of the Examiner upon these examinations; but if they took the results of those examinations, and compared them with the number of passes which his pupils obtained previously when the "tipping" system was in force, they would see that there was great difference between the two. He was very much obliged to the House for so patiently listening to him, and he could assure the House that a more unpleasant duty than that which he had

  1279
  performed it was impossible to conceive. If he could have induced the Governors to have co-operated, his task would have been very much easier, as it was with extreme regret that he had been compelled to deprecate their conduct, as some of the Governors were his personal friends. He had no doubt that they wished to discharge their duty; but it appeared to him that they had lamentably failed. They were entrusted by Parliament with the guardianship of a great public educational institution. How had they performed their functions? They had allowed a wholesale system of rascality and fraud to be carried on under their very noses by their head master. When he was detected they sided with him, and they allowed themselves to be made parties to an inquiry which almost amounted to a sham, which whitewashed this Mr. Goffin. When a Select Committee of the House of Commons, at their special request appointed to inquire into the case, report unanimously Mr. Goffin to be guilty, they rejected that decision; and when, later on, Mr. Goffin deliberately shirked his right of raising an action in a Court of Law, they deliberately supported him in his shuffling. Without one syllable of the sworn testimony of 14 witnesses being disproved, with documents, letters, and notes in his own handwriting conclusively proving his guilt, the Governors deliberately re-instated Mr. Goffin in his position as head master of the School, where, under the œgis of their protection, he was able to bully those who gave evi-against him, and increase the salaries of those who stood by him, or were convicted with him. There were 700 boys in this school, and the great majority of them were intended for commercial pursuits. Could the Governors think that these boys would have any other fact impressed upon their minds than that if there was one policy in this world which it was not advantageous to pursue, it was that connected with honesty and truth? These were the facts, clear and uncontroverted, on which he asked the opinion of the House; and he hoped that in the discussion which ensued the speakers would make it clear that the House of Commons did not consider the fraud, falsehood, subornation, and perjury were the proper qualifications for the head master of a great middle-class school.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he never addressed the House under circumstances more painful to himself. This subject was brought forward by one of the foremost of the Conservative Party, by one from whom he had received personal kindness; but the interests of what he believed to be truth and justice required him to take the line which he proposed to take, regardless altogether of the immense authority and departmental experience of the noble Lord, and of the very strong prejudice which must at this moment exist against Mr. Goffin. The noble Lord had not told the House who Mr. Goffin was. He was a man of preeminent ability, a man of most unusual scientific knowledge. When he said of pre-eminent ability and scientific knowledge, he meant he was a man who had taken the highest distinction in eight different sciences. Not only that, but he had unusual aptitude for teaching. There were many sound scholars in the world; but the gift of teaching was very rare. They all knew very well that if in their great public schools there was any man who stood out amongst the list of untrained head masters, distinguished by this gift, how his memory was cherished for many years. That capacity of teaching Mr. Goffin had, in addition to very great scientific knowledge, which he (Mr. Warton) believed no living man could equal; he had a rare faculty of impressing his pupils with a wonderful love of knowledge, which led them to prosecute their studies with great devotion and ardour. The House must bear in mind that this was a school which was distinguished for science, and therefore it was not unusual for a man of such ability, with such apparatus at his command—it was not at all surprising that these boys, taught by him, really succeeded in a way likely to astonish people who were accustomed to boys taught by more ordinary men. Let them take a specimen in other fields than the examination at Westminster. He would take the examination for the Oxford Local Examination; on one occasion there were only 31 boys sent up altogether from the different schools; of these 31 boys seven passed, and of these seven, six were pupils of Mr. Goffin, and that number was all he sent up. In 1880, again, in the January Oxford Examination, there were 40 boys sent up, and out of those 40, 11 boys passed,

  1281
  seven were pupils of Mr. Goffin, and that number was all he sent. They were told about the way in which this case ended before the Committee; he was not there to say one word against the Committee. He was not prepared to say that as the evidence was presented to them, so worked up by the Department that they could very well have come to any other conclusion, and the case looked black—very black indeed. They were told that there was a previous case at Woking, and they might trace the very same agency there. It was quite possible for men of pre-eminent ability to have enemies who, perhaps, did not scruple to take revenge. Mr. Goffin was a man of a highly delicate organization, and of a nervous temperament—a man on whom the advancing years had worked very great injury to his health and happiness; and when a man like Mr. Goffin was brought in contact with Lord Sherbrooke, they could imagine there would be very little sympathy for Mr. Goffin, who came before the Committee faint and ill, with this charge hanging over him. Those who had read the evidence would remember that Mr. Goffin was asked, in the tone of a Judge addressing a criminal, whether he desired to make any statement. He replied that he had been forbidden by his medical advisers to appear at all, and he wished to be excused. Lord Sherbrooke said—"We do not call upon you to give evidence; but I understand that you wish to make a statement." Mr. Goffin replied in the affirmative. Mr. Goffin was tried not as an ordinary criminal would have been, in which case the prosecutors would first have to make out a case. He was called upon for a defence before the case of the prosecution was made out. Four or five times had this Motion been likely to come on, and on two of those occasions, if it had been brought forward, it would have been brought forward as a substantive Motion; and on those occasions he put down a Notice of the Previous Question, and he had a similar Notice down that night, although, of course, he could not move it. It was no part of the duty of the House to interfere with the wish of the Governors of the School. The evidence of the Committee had not turned away the love and affection of those who esteemed Mr. Goffin; it had not turned away that affection and that feeling on the part of
  1282
  the Governors of the School. What took place after the condemnation of the Committee? There was a meeting held in the school, at which some 600 or 700 boys were present, and 400 parents, and 14 of them addressed the meeting, and they all of them expressed their confidence in Mr. Goffin, and resolutions were passed in his favour. If that was the feeling of the parents and of the boys, if that was the feeling of the Governors of the School, it was not for the House to say whether or not they should continue to give their support to Mr. Goffin. It was not a question, he contended, for that House. The Governors of the School did not wish, and the parents of the boys did not wish, to have anything more to do with the Department; they were convinced of Mr. Goffin's innocence, and under Mr. Goffin the school had acquired a reputation for science. He held in his hand an examination of the boys in the upper sixth form in practical chemistry, not an examination which was seen before, and out of a class of 31 boys, 23 passed, getting the maximum marks, and the average of the 33, although reduced by one boy, who was backward, was 91. After such examination as that the school could afford to dispense with the Department. He did not ask the House to judge; but he said the parents were right and the Government were wrong. The House had nothing to do with it; and he asked the House not to give a vote, but to suspend its judgment until some proceedings were taken which would show what ought to be done.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, that, with the permission of the House, he would, in the first place, say a word personal to himself. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had stated that, as a Member of the Committee, he had, with others, assented to their Report. The noble Lord had also told the House that he had proposed a Report of a very different character. A division was taken on his Report, showing the effect which the evidence had on his mind. The Report prepared by him expressed the opinion that the evidence laid before the Committee justified the Department in suspending the certificate of Mr. Goffin. That was as different from the Report prepared by the Chairman of the Committee (Lord Sherbrooke) as light from

  1283
  darkness. Now, he was willing to admit, and he thought all the Governors admitted, that Mr. Goffin had been guilty of "cramming" to an extent which was an injury to the school, to the Department, and to the system under which money was paid for results, and that the Department was therefore justified in taking away his certificate. But the Governors were of opinion that Mr. Goffin had not been guilty of any worse practice, and that there was not a tittle of direct evidence that he had had in his possession a copy of the examination papers beforehand. No single witness was called to show that. The whole tenour of the evidence against him was to show that because the boys gave certain answers they must have been "coached" up by someone who had seen the questions. There were 30 witnesses outside the doors of the Committee Room waiting to be called at Mr. Goffin's request to show how men practised in "coaching"—a better word, he thought, than "cramming"—could prepare their pupils; and yet the Committee would not allow any one of those witnesses to be called in Mr. Goffin's defence. He felt it only right to say those few words in justification of the course pursued in relation to the Committee.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON (interrupting): May I ask—
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he did not interrupt the noble Lord when he was proceeding with his argument, though he made statements with which he could not concur. He did not propose to follow the noble Lord over the course of the examination which took place before the Committee, because, if he did so, he should have to give question after question, and answer after answer; but he ventured to say that if the Committee itself was an unfair tribunal, it would be very difficult indeed, in a House like this, at this period of the Session, to bring evidence on the one side and evidence on the other, to enable the minds of Members of this House to be in a condition to judge which side was right and which side was wrong. The Board of Governors came to a resolution that the decision in Mr. Goffin's case by the Parliamentary Committee could not be regarded as final, owing to the fact that the inquiry was conducted with closed
  1284
  doors; that Mr. Goffin was not allowed to be present, except when giving evidence, nor to be heard by counsel, nor permitted to cross-examine the witnesses against him; and that while more than 20 witnesses were ready to give evidence on his behalf only one of them was allowed to be heard. They, therefore, requested the Department to give Mr. Goffin an opportunity, as he desired, of vindicating his character. The answer to that resolution, contained in a memorandum, said that if the Governors were dissatisfied with the unanimous decision of the tribunal to whom they appealed, it rested with them to carry Mr. Goffin's case to another Court. The charges had not been withdrawn; on the contrary, the suspension of Mr. Goffin's certificate had not been made absolute, and yet legal proceedings had not been taken. The noble Lord said Mr. Goffin had obtained nearly £400 as fees by fraud. Surely, if that was the case, the person who so obtained the money ought to be punished. The Governors were advised that the Department had had ample opportunity to prosecute Mr. Goffin in a Court of Law, where the examination would have taken place in public, and witnesses would have been called for and against the defendant, whose counsel would have been able to cross-examine the witnesses. He (Sir Sydney Waterlow) moved a distinct Resolution in the Committee that the proceedings should be open. The noble Lord had said that was a great public question. He admitted it. It would raise the very grave question whether the present system of payment by results, or practically offering almost a bribe to the masters of large schools, by the temptation of nearly doubling their salaries, to "coach" a small number of boys and to give them marked attention, to the prejudice of the great mass of the scholars, was justifiable. Since Mr. Goffin's certificate was taken away the Board had seen a marked improvement. Attention was more evenly distributed, and the condition of the mass was immensely improved. It would, he repeated, raise the question of the system of almost bribing the masters to do that which was undoubtedly to the prejudice of any large school. But he would proceed. The answer of the Council went on to say that if, with a view of justifying their conduct in retain-

  1285
  ing Mr. Goffin at the head of the institution, it should prove that he was guilty of the grave charges that were Brought against him, it would be for the Board to take such steps as they considered advisable. The Governors of the School gave Mr. Goffin to understand that unless he should commence legal proceedings in order to have the charges that had been made against him properly investigated, he must expect to be dismissed. Mr. Goffin took the advise of a most learned counsel, and was advised to take action against his prosecutor, who, he might say, was his persecutor. What did the House think the Department said? They did not merely refuse to prosecute the man themselves, but when the man turned round to prosecute, with the assistance of his friends from one end of the country to the other, the Department turned round and pleaded privilege, so that all possibility of trying this question in the manner in which it ought to be tried was lost to Mr. Goffin. Therefore, the Governors felt they ought to throw back the onus on the Department of proceeding against him for obtaining public money by false pretences. The noble Lord had told the House that in the beginning he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) raised a discussion as to whether the Committee should be conducted with open doors. He put on the Paper of Business of this House a Notice of Motion, asking the House to believe that, from beginning to end, the Governors were anxious to have an open and fair trial of this man. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and Mr. Lowe (now Lord Sherbrooke), who were defending the Department, were virtually in the position of judges and prosecutors at the same time. Medical testimony was given that Mr. Goffin was lying on a sick-bed, and he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) appealed to the Committee to allow him to appear by counsel. They refused absolutely, and declared that he should not be represented by counsel, nor should he be in the room when the witnesses were called against him. He asked hon. Members would they like to be deprived of their power of defence and of cross-examination? He was sure they would not. They refused to hear from any one of the witnesses that were called to give evidence any statement on the particular fact on which everything turned—namely, whether it was pos-
  1286
  sible for the boys to have given the answers they gave without having seen the papers. There was not a tittle of evidence that these papers had ever got out of the hands they belonged to. The noble Lord had discussed the question of payment by results. That was not the question before the House at all, though he hoped the time might soon come when they should have to discuss that question. The more the noble Lord insisted, as he did insist, that the case was so clear that it was quite impossible for anybody to have any doubt about it, the more willing he ought to be to allow the case to be tried in a Court of Law. The noble Lord also said that there was the strongest possible evidence that it was absolutely impossible that the master could have made the notes he did without having had supplied to him the printed examination paper. There were a score of men to be called—men of experience in these matters—not one of whom was called. Well, then it had been urged that Mr. Goffin should have appealed against the decision of the Court on the question of privilege. Let any hon. Gentleman present who knew anything as to the state of the law on the question give his opinion, and he thought he would agree with the learned counsel in the case that it would have been useless to have appealed against the decision of the Court on that point. He should not be wrong in reading a few lines from the judgment of Mr. Justice Field about the case. He said the Court was of opinion that the plea of privilege was a good one, and a perfect answer to the plaintiff's case. That was to say, it shut up the plaintiff entirely, and gave him no opportunity of going on. The plaintiff, no doubt, suffered from that which, on the face of it, was a serious libel upon him, and it was desirable he should have opportunity of investigation. Further on the Judge said it was a bad thing and a hard thing for individuals that anyone should be at liberty to say that a man was committing a crime, and that the law could not call upon him to prove what he said. Now, he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) should like to ask the noble Lord whether he proposed next Session to bring in an Act of Parliament to alter the Act relating to this school? If he did, then discussion would take a larger range than it could at present. The Governors took the

  1287
  greatest possible care before they appointed Mr. Goffin as head master. His testimonials were of the highest character, some of them being from Inspectors connected with the Education Department. The school rapidly filled, and, at the present moment, there were 690 boys in a school only built for 600. There were applicants far exceeding the number of vacancies that arose. No doubt, the school possessed many advantages for giving a sound education to boys intended for commercial life. The best way to judge of a school was to consider whether the boys were properly educated and were sought after; and he might say that there was scarcely a public company seeking clerks that was not asking for these boys. Mr. Goffin passed 92 per cent of the boys sent up for examination. In order to test the qualities of the school, the Governors last year appointed Examiners of the highest character, and of the greatest possible talent and ability, and they took care that the masters should have nothing to do with it. Let him read a few lines from the Report of the Examiners as regarded the written examination in chemistry. They found that 23 boys out of 31 had determined a difficult matter correctly. The whole Report was of an eminently favourable character. What he asked for, and what he asked of the Government, was that they should proceed with their accusation that Mr. Goffin had been guilty of obtaining nearly £400 of public money. He could not do more than ask the Government either to prosecute the man, or allow Mr. Goffin to go on with his action for libel and slander. He therefore asked the Government to bring up an action in such a way as might be best calculated to bring to light these charges.
  MR. ERRINGTONsaid, that as he was the only Member of the Committee which inquired into the charges against Mr. Goffin who had not spoken, he wished in the strongest manner possible to corroborate the statement made by the noble Lord, who had done a great service in bringing the subject before the House. He had supported his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Sir Sydney Waterlow) in the Amendment he proposed to the Report of the Committee; and his hon. Friend now declared that that Amendment simply expressed an opinion that the evidence laid before the Committee
  1288
  justified the Department in suspending the certificate of Mr. Goffin. He (Mr. Errington) confessed that this was the first time he had ever heard a suggestion that that was the sense in which the words of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were intended to be taken. He thought the interpretation hardly just, because the subsequent words of the Amendment were that the Committee desired to record also an emphatic opinion that the declaration made by the masters required the serious attention of the Education Department, with a view to the adoption of further precautions in order to prevent the examination papers from becoming known outside the Department before the examination took place. That meant that the papers had become known outside the Department before the examination. He (Mr. Erring-ton) had supported that Amendment with the distinct understanding that it condemned the conduct of Mr. Goffin quite as strongly as the Report of the Committee did. The question really was whether a man of the skill and experience of Mr. Goffin, by mere experience, could have guessed and interpreted the questions in a fair and legitimate manner, and taught them to his pupils accordingly. The hon. Member for Gravesend said the Committee refused to listen to certain witnesses who were in waiting to prove that what Mr. Goffin had done might have been done, more or less, merely by skill and experience; but the Committee had got far beyond that. He agreed with the hon. Member that if that question had been opened the Committee ought to have listened to the evidence Mr. Goffin proposed to call. He (Mr. Goffin) had denied the authenticity of the notes which formed the accusation against him. He denied them categorically, and said they were a forgery, and the result of a conspiracy against him. The noble Lord the then Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lord Francis Hervey) pinned him exactly to that declaration. He asked him if the notes were authentic, and whether he agreed with the conclusion of Professor Roscoe that it would be impossible to have framed the questions in a particular way without access had been had to the questions of the Examiners. Mr. Goffin said he thought so, and that he should have agreed with that. Therefore, Mr. Goffin's own admission was that the answers could not

  1289
  have been given through any mere experience and knowledge of tuition. It must be remembered that at that time there was no direct proof, although there was internal evidence, that the notes were authentic. That link in the evidence was still wanting. Therefore, Mr. Goffin thought himself perfectly safe in adhering to his old line of defence, and in saying that the notes were not authentic. If they were authentic, then the case against him would have been conceded. A remarkable point was that, having narrowed the issue down to that, the missing link was in the end obtained, and the Committee got evidence which convinced them that the notes were, beyond all question, taken at the lecture given immediately before the examination, and for the purpose of teaching the pupils the questions that were to be asked. They had obviously the assurance of Mr. Goffin that if the notes were authentic he could not have given the answers without having a copy of the Examiners' questions. That brought the question to a very narrow issue. The question, as far as the public out-of-doors were concerned, regarded the form of procedure. The noble Lord admitted that many of the Committee at first sight were reluctant to accept the particular course of procedure proposed by the Chairman of the Committee; but the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, and who had condemned that course very strongly, ought to remember that strongly as he felt against it he was not inclined to divide the Committee against it. Although reluctant to assent to the form of procedure, which was not, perhaps, usual, but which was forced upon the Committee by the necessities of the case, the hon. Baronet, like all of the Members of the Committee, had on consideration agreed that it was the most expedient course to adopt. He (Mr. Errington) was sure the Committee adopted it with regret; but they felt on consideration that it was the best and most satisfactory course they could take. He agreed with the noble Lord that that course had a most satisfactory result. It enabled the Committee to come to a conclusion which they could not have come to as certainly, or without the greatest difficulty, if they had adopted any other course. The hon. Baronet had repeated the charge against the Education Department, that they had not
  1290
  brought an action against Mr. Goffin for having obtained by fraud a large sum of money. No doubt, the Committee were of opinion that the money was obtained by fraud; but it was paid over to the trustees, and, therefore, an action for fraud would not lie. If these were the only grounds that could be urged in defence of Mr. Goffin, he thought the case of that gentleman was a very weak one indeed. No doubt they must all feel pained in joining in a vote of censure against a body which was so much respected as the Governors of Westminster School; but he must say that he thought that every word contained in the proposal which the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex had placed on the Paper was fully justified. It certainly appeared to him to be a scandal that, when an inquiry of this kind was asked for, and after it had been concluded in the way it had, the Governors of Westminster School should think themselves justified in absolutely ignoring the decision of the Committee, and in maintaining Mr. Goffin in the important place he occupied, notwithstanding the gravity of the charges against him. At any rate, they ought to have suspended Mr. Goffin, or have insisted upon some practical course being taken by that gentleman for the vindication of his character. The Governors called upon the Department to prosecute Mr. Goffin; but the last decision having been against Mr. Goffin, that gentleman was bound to take action against the Department. It was quite true that Mr. Goffin did commence an action; but it was of such a nature that everybody knew beforehand it would be ridiculed when it came into Court. He thought it was a great pity that, owing to the Forms of the House, they had not now an opportunity of affirming, by their decision—
  " That the retention by the Governors of the United Westminster Schools of Mr. Goffin as head master of that public institution, after he had, by a Select Committee of this House specially appointed in 1879 to inquire into his conduct at the request of the Governors of the Schools, been found guilty of a systematic course of fraud, falsehood, and subornation, is a public scandal, and as such demands the immediate attention of the Education Office and Charity Commissioners."
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEsaid, he had yet to learn that it was the duty of honourable men placed in such a posi-

  1291
  tion as the Governors of Westminster School to act contrary to their consciences, whatever decision a Committee of that House, acting in a different manner from that upon which other Committees usually acted, and ending in the examination and condemnation of a man with closed doors, after forbidding him to be present during the whole of the inquiry, and not allowing him to call the witnesses who were in attendance to speak in his favour—might have arrived at. He had heard with surprise some of the language which had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) in regard to the Governors of the School. Perhaps the House would scarcely believe that the man who proposed the resolution read by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) that day, who had gone through all the evidence, who was not prejudiced in favour of Mr. Goffin, but rather prejudiced against him—that the very man who moved that Resolution, after hearing and considering all the evidence, was that eminent scholar and Divine, Canon Farrar. It was after becoming acquainted with all the facts that Canon Farrar, at the first meeting of the Governors, called to consider the question, proposed the resolution which had been read by the hon. Member for Gravesend, and it was passed unanimously by the Governors. The statement made by the noble Lord would have conveyed an impression which he thought, upon reflection, was not the impression the noble Lord desired to convey; but, undoubtedly, the impression produced on the mind of any stranger who heard the subject now for the first time would be that Mr. Goffin was a kind of charlatan, who, by means of fraud and underhand practices, had obtained a position he was not entitled to, and that therefore the Department, for a long series of years, had been endeavouring to entrap him. Now, reference had been made by the hon. Member for Gravesend to the position Mr. Goffin had occupied for many years. It was well-known to anyone who knew anything about teaching that Mr. Goffin was the first teacher of technical science in the country. That was admitted by every person connected with education in the country. It was difficult to find a man who held a different opinion, and they had evidence adduced in the course of the debate that when all the privi-
  1292
  leges previously enjoyed by Mr. Goffin were taken away from, and when the greatest care was taken by the Governors that no special examination should be held in the school, the boys educated in the school still continued to take the very highest position. He was not there to defend either the action of Mr. Goffin or the course of his life; he was there simply as one of the Governors of the School to defend the action of the Governors; and he declared in the most positive terms that, as honourable and conscientious men, they dared not dismiss a man to ruin and degradation until they were satisfied in their own minds of the truth of the charges made against him. The Governors were not in any degree partial to Mr. Goffin; but they were animated by one feeling—namely, that they ought not to absolutely ruin a man until they arrived at a satisfactory conclusion that there was no doubt as to the truth of the case preferred against him. He was anxious to trace the early part of the case. The noble lord had told him himself that he had made up his mind that Mr. Goffin was guilty.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had never said anything of the kind. He might have told the hon. Gentleman that he was satisfied of Mr. Goffin's guilt after the proofs had been produced. He had certainly never said that he had made up his mind before the proofs were produced.
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEsaid, that what the noble Lord had said had certainly conveyed that impression to his mind. He would withdraw anything as to the actual words used by the noble Lord; but undoubtedly the impression conveyed to his mind was that the noble Lord had made up his mind as to Mr. Goffin's guilt. Perhaps the noble Lord would remember that his (Sir James Lawrence's) reply was—"I cannot condemn a man until I have got at all the facts." But it was not only the noble Lord, but the Department, which appeared to have made up its mind to crush Mr. Goffin long before the whole of the evidence came out. The first inquiry was conducted by Colonel Donnelly, and, to say the least of it, it was conducted in a most extraordinary manner. Instead of approaching the boys in a conciliatory spirit and

  1293
  in a gentle manner, as if he were really anxious to obtain the truth from them, to each answer given by the boys Colonel Donnelly said—"You are a liar; you are all liars." That was the course taken by the gentleman sent down by the Department to ascertain the facts of the case. The noble Lord said that the boys were in fear and trembling when they came before the Governors. That was quite untrue, and the Governors were able to obtain very clear statements from them. He was quite aware of the difficulty of getting any Government Department to confess itself in error, or that it had done injury to an individual. An instance occurred to him which he might mention to the House. When he first came into the House he was waited upon one day by a man who was one of the most trusted of the porters connected with the South Western Railway. The man said he wished him (Sir James Lawrence) to do him a favour. He had been a member for many years of the police force, and he had injured himself very severely in struggling with a burglar, the consequence of which was that he was laid up. The doctor made up his mind that he was malingering, and gave evidence before the Home Secretary to the effect that when he examined the man's leg he found traces of iodine upon the foot which he had not prescribed. The consequence was that the man lost his pension, and he was taken into the employment of the South Western Railway, and became one of the most trusted servants they had. Some years afterwards, on some alterations being made in the chemist's shop in which the prescription was made up, the original paper was found signed by the medical man who gave evidence against this poor fellow, in his own handwriting, and in the document appeared the very article "iodine," the prescription of which he had forgotten. He (Sir James Lawrence) went to the Home Office and laid the facts before them; but the only answer he obtained was that they could not undo what they had already done. The man did not ask to be reinstated in his position, but simply to have his character cleared. But an English Public Department knew nothing of that rehabilitation of character which other Governments and nations were always anxious to under-
  1294
  take, and until our Government adopted the course pursued elsewhere he feared that very much injustice would be done. He had detained the House much longer than he ought to have done; but he felt warmly in regard to some of the expressions which had fallen from the noble Lord, and which he considered to be quite unjustifiable. He held that no man had a right to impute motives or talk about a public scandal in regard to the action of men who held honourable positions. He thought that greater care should be taken by the heads of Departments, and by the officials under them, as to the manner in which the public conduct of other men, as conscientious as themselves, was construed. MR. RATHBONE said, he never rose with more pain to address the House upon any subject than he did on the present occasion. Many men whom he sincerely respected were among the Governors of the Westminster School; but it seemed to him that this was one of those cases on which it was most important that the House should express a clear opinion. A great deal of the arguments they had heard went to prove Mr. Goffin's great ability. There was no doubt that he was a man of wonderful ability as a teacher; and one of the most remarkable proofs of his ability was that he should have been able so to mislead the Governors of the School. [Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW dissented.] His hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) shook his head; but he really thought if his hon. Friend would only try to carry his mind back to the time when he proposed his draft Report, he would see at once that the line he had been taking to-night was absolutely inconsistent with that Report, and what must have been the state of his mind when he proposed it. Mr. Goffin swore positively that no such information ever came into his possession, and yet, in the Report proposed by the hon. Baronet, the Committee desired to record their emphatic opinion that the declarations made by the witnesses required the serious attention of the Education Department, with a view to the adoption of further precautions in order to prevent the examination papers from becoming known outside the Department before the time of examination. If that meant anything, it meant that Mr. Goffin

  1295
  had had the papers. It could mean nothing else; and, if so, Mr. Goffin was guilty of clear and deliberate perjury, and it was the duty of the Governors to have prosecuted him for that perjury. They were the only persons who could prosecute him for receiving money under false pretences, because it was from them he received it, and not from the Department. He imagined that most Members of the House had made up their minds that Mr. Goffin did commit these offences, and the noble Lord had shown that this was not the first offence. Then, what a frightful thing it was for the Governors of Westminster School to give their sanction and countenance to a man who had been guilty of a fraud in regard to which he must have taken the boys with him. The Vice President of the Council had told them to-day that he was going to remove some of the great temptations to fraud to which the elementary school masters had hitherto been subjected, and it was quite time that he should do so, for anyone who had been connected with public elementary schools knew how difficult it had been to maintain that high spirit of honour which was so important. But, at the same time, when they came to look at the effect of maintaining a man so able, so eminent, and so distinguished as Mr. Goffin in his position, after the Committee had distinctly come to the unanimous conclusion they did, he thought it was of immense importance that, by some means or other, the scandal of maintaining such a man in such a position should be put an end to. It was not merely that the Governors were called upon to prevent the scandal, but they ought to consider the effect of leaving such a man with power to persecute all those who had given honest and straightforward evidence against him.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, deplorable as it might be to leave Mr. Goffin with power to persecute persons who were objectionable to him, it was, nevertheless, only a common practice even in connection with a respectable Government Department. Therefore, they could not condemn Mr. Goffin on that account. The noble Lord who had formerly been Vice President of the Council and Under Secretary of State for India (Lord George Hamilton) could, from his experience, quote many cases in which a junior member of the Civil Service had
  1296
  occasion to remember any unfortunate slip he might have made against his superiors for all the rest of his life. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had studied the case of Mr. Goffin, with the intention of bringing the matter before Parliament if he could conscientiously do so; but certainly the impression produced on his mind was that the case against Mr. Goffin was not made out. He did not think that sufficient stress had been laid on the peculiar nature of the study to which "coachers" or "crammers" directed their attention, when they were engaged in coaching a pupil for passing a particular examination. The first part of the duty of the crammer was to find out who the Examiners were, and, in the next place, to hunt up all the antecedents of the Examiners with the skill of a private detective. He would obtain information as to all the occasions upon which such and such an Examiner had acted, all the questions which that Examiner had put upon paper; and it was upon a wisely selected average of such questions running over a long period of years that a professional crammer proceeded in preparing his class for an examination to take place two months, six months, or one month hence, at the hands of that special Examiner. Only yesterday an old College chum of his own, now engaged in coaching, breakfasted with him. His friend complained that too many crammers, and the most successful ones, confined themselves to the business of teaching their pupils the answers to questions which, over a long space of years, the particular Examiners before whom they were to appear had been in the habit of asking of the pupils. For instance, this gentleman was a coach for some of the examinations for commissions in the Line, commissions given to Militia officers; and he said that among the Examiners at these examinations within recent years there had been Examiners who were also Examiners in the public Colleges, such as Woolwich and Sandhurst. The crammer knew very well that Mr. So-and-So, Professor of such and such a Department at Woolwich, was the Examiner; and he would, therefore, find out the class of questions that gentleman had propounded at Woolwich and Sandhurst over a series of years, and after he had found that out beyond all doubt, his pupils would be able to clear a majority of the questions

  1297
  asked. Cramming was a sort of art which had been brought almost to perfection in the present day. A short time ago there was an hon. Member in that House who was at the head of one of the greatest cramming establishments in the Kingdom. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was deprived of his seat by the verdict of an Electoral Commission. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was sorry for that untoward event, because if the Gentleman to whom he referred had been disposed to give a brief lecture on the science and mysteries of cramming, he would certainly have been able to astonish a great majority of that House. It had been pointed out to him (Mr. O'Donnell) by an experienced crammer, in a moment of social expansion, that the more distinguished the Examiners with whom a crammer had to deal the more safe the crammer was in forecasting the questions that would be asked. Men of distinguished scientific attainments were the men who were most sure to have a dozen particular fads of which they were particularly proud. Having arrived at certain original views, they could not for the life of them help asking questions upon them year after year. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was of opinion that the whole system of competitive examinations required re-casting. It was something like the contest between big guns and iron plates; the guns had got ahead of the plates, and the crammer had got ahead of the competitive examination system. Looking at the imperfect nature of the tribunal before which Mr. Goffin went—and if there was one tribunal less satisfactory than another it was a Committee of that honourable House—looking at the imperfect nature of that tribunal, he was certainly utterly unable to come to any conclusion hostile to the good faith of Mr. Goffin. Mr. Goffin seemed to be a man of wonderful ability as a teacher, with a wonderful genius for getting at conclusions; and he was quite sure that during the period Mr. Goffin was engaged in preparing Westminster scholars under a strict cramming system, he would have made it his business to go through all the antecedents of the Examiners, and all the people the pupils were likely to come in contact with. Being a man of such ability, it was not astonishing that the pupils of Mr. Goffin, as a general rule, satisfactorily answered about 90 per cent of the questions put
  1298
  to them. He thought it would be most difficult, in all the circumstances of the case, for the House to draw any hasty inference as to the guilt of Mr. Goffin, or to come to any conclusion adverse to him.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had no right to address the House again except by permission; but he would not detain the House for more than two or three minutes. The question had only been brought to his attention by the Notice placed on the Paper by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton); and everyone who heard the noble Lord that night must feel that he had done good service in bringing it forward. When the question was brought under his (Mr. Mundella's) notice in the Department, he made an inquiry into the nature of the charges against Mr. Goffin, and the result of his investigation was this—that Mr. Goffin was guilty of the charge brought against him, and that it was really a sad thing that a body of Governors so eminently respectable as the Governors of Westminster School should have retained a man in such an important position. The retention of such a man was little less than a scandal, and it was setting a very bad example. He was the more sorry, because it was really teaching the country to believe that the Department were disposed to charge a man with fraud when there was no real and substantial ground for the accusation. He did not know that it was possible to constitute a fairer or more complete Committee than that which had been appointed at the suggestion of his hon. Friend behind him to investigate this case. It consisted of Mr. Lowthian Bell, Mr. Moore, Lord George Hamilton, Lord Francis Hervey, Mr. Errington, Mr. Rodwell, and Sir Sydney Waterlow. His hon. Friend the Member for Graves-end charged everyone who sided against Mr. Goffin with being the prosecutor. He spoke of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex as the prosecutor, then of Colonel Donnelly as the prosecutor; and he (Mr. Mundella) was afraid that he himself would now be looked upon as the prosecutor. Even Mr. Lowe, the present Lord Sherbrooke, was spoken of as the prosecutor, because he had happened to be Vice President of the Council, and it was supposed that he must necessarily be affected with some Departmental taint which would prevent

  1299
  him from fairly and honourably dealing with a question like that of Mr. Goffin. Surely the House would not suspect that Members of the Government and permanent officials were really anxious to convict any man of fraud? From what he could learn, such men as Professor Franklin and Professor Roscoe considered that the case against Mr. Goffin was proved beyond all doubt, and that it was a scandal that such a man should have been retained so long in the position he now occupied. There was no doubt that Mr. Goffin was a remarkably able man and an excellent science teacher; but he had all the less excuse for the course he had taken. It was not necessary that a man possessing so much ability should have recourse to fraud in the way in which Mr. Goffin evidently had had recourse to it in order to obtain money for his own school work. It was said that the Education Department ought to have prosecuted Mr. Goffin, and the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Erring-ton) repeated that cry. The hon. Member, however, knew that the Department could not do so. This transaction took place nearly three and a-half years ago—namely, in May, 1878—and how could they now prosecute Mr. Goffin? An indictment for fraud would not lie against him; that was very well known. The fraud was not committed by Mr. Goffin directly for his own benefit, but only indirectly, as the money went into the hands of the Governors. If a criminal indictment had been preferred against Mr. Goffin, his mouth would have been closed; they could not have cross-examined him, and they would have been deprived of the best means of getting at the truth. All he could say about the matter was this—that he thought the discussion which had taken place would produce a good effect. He hoped the Governors of the School would, on reflection, consider that it was a scandal to allow the present state of things to continue. He should certainly confer with those who usually advised him in legal matters, in order to see what steps could possibly be taken. He was afraid that nothing could be done by the Education Department; but, if not, the Charity Commissioners might consider whether it was not their duty to interfere. He did not care how eminent or able a man might be; if he committed such a fraud as this, he was guilty of a
  1300
  great mistake, and, in the interests of all public teachers, he ought not to be allowed to continue in the position he occupied. It was now time that this discussion should come to an end, and, as the House could not come to a conclusion on the matter, he would appeal to it to resolve itself at once into Committee, so that the Government might be allowed to take the Education Votes.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked if there was to be a discussion upon the Estimates?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  (1.) £1,283,958, to complete the sum for Education, England and Wales.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he was not anxious to trouble the Committee in any way; but he thought that the full and very interesting Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would require a good deal of time for the consideration of the facts contained in it before they could express any judgment upon it. He thought no excuse was needed for the long speech which had been made to them, as it was one of great interest to all who had the pleasure of hearing it; and he would only venture to remark that he hoped another time to have the satisfaction of entering at length into the points which the right hon. Gentleman had laid before them that night. He was inclined to doubt the advisability of the practice which the Vice President had adopted that night, and which he (Viscount Sandon) tried to adopt when he filled the Office of Vice President of the Council—namely, of making a Statement with the Speaker in the Chair. Unfortunately, other matters had intercepted that Statement, and the natural discussion of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and the result was that they had arrived at a very late hour before they were able to discuss the Vote. As he had said, he was not to blame for not having set a bad example

  1301
  in the matter, because he did try to make his statement with the Speaker in the Chair; but he was prevented from doing so by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. He gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council that the experience of the last 10 years had somewhat disappointed the expectations that were raised, and, to some extent, that it dissipated some of the fears that were expressed. Some of them expected that the voluntary schools would be very much encouraged by the course of legislation adopted; but those expectations had been disappointed. On the other hand, the expectation entertained that the progress of education would be a little more rapid had been somewhat dashed. The hopeful aspect of the case was that the parties who disagreed in former years were now evincing a desire to work together in a more harmonious manner for the benefit of the children committed to their charge. He was gratified to hear the high testimony which the Vice President of the Council bore to the voluntary work of the country, both in regard to the board schools and the voluntary schools. They found that some very vague and voluntary dreams which had been formed of the past had been abandoned, judging from the Vice President's speech. Nobody spoke more strongly than the Vice President did now against the evils of free and gratuitous education. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly consistent in that; but it was most important that a person holding the high position of the right hon. Gentleman should be able to say that the opinion of the country was entirely against free education. As to religious instruction, the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of its value; and he (Viscount Sandon) rejoiced that it was so after the 18 months' experience the right hon. Gentleman had had of the working of the Department. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that it had fallen to his lot to come to the House at a time of comparative calm in the Education Department, so that he was able to turn his mind to a further revision of the Education Code. He hoped, in the long run, the right hon. Gentleman might not find that in trying to be concise he had become obscure. The right hon. Gentleman was able to undertake this im-
  1302
  portant work, owing to the Department being more free in regard to the supply of schools, and owing to the board system having been started and got into full working order. He was also able to undertake the work of compulsion which had been proposed by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). His way had been cleared for him, and he (Viscount Sandon) felt that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in giving a large meed of praise to the exceeding vigour of the heads of the Education Department, not only the Gentleman who was at the head of all, but those who were at the head of the subordinate departments. In regard to the Code itself, he hoped he might be allowed to record his opinion, and he trusted that all hon. Gentlemen who were interested in education would do the same. Until they had seen the system fully in operation, the whole future of the schools must depend entirely on the good working of the Code. They must remember that all the changes were purely tentative after all, and the great question which lurked behind was that of the money. They were told that they were not to consider the money question at present; but to look to it solely as an educational question. That was very admirable and very excellent; but the schools of the country must look to it from the money point of view; and the case of the board schools, and voluntary schools, as between small schools and large schools, rural schools and urban schools, must be decided by the facilities which the new Code afforded. It would, therefore, be unwise to express an opinion as to the Code until they knew how the money was to be allocated. There was one thing, however, which they ought to require. He did trust the right hon. Gentleman would watch the matter carefully, so as not to place too great a head pressure upon the children. He said that from the experience he had gained when Vice President, and he was satisfied that there was great danger of pressing too heavily on children of tender age. He would venture to call special attention to the case of the pupil teachers. He was quite sure that in many cases they demanded far too much from young pupil teachers. They had to give out these poor children, as well as take them in, and the pressure upon their minds was very

  1303
  great, in having to teach during the greater part of the day, to stand almost entirely throughout the day, and then to study at night. Then, also, in regard to increasing the intellectual pressure, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, after the strong expressions he had used as to the advantages of religious teaching, to keep a careful watch that in their exertions for the spread of secular knowledge they did not ignore religious teaching. There was great danger, if they showed that the interests of the State in the schools was merely based on secular knowledge, that in the course of time pure religious teaching would be cast aside as of no importance whatever. He thought that was quite unintentional on the part of Her Majesty's Government; and he believed that they might virtually make it impossible that that religious teaching they wished to foster should suffer. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his praiseworthy endeavours to remove the temptation to fraud which existed at present, and which were so serious in our schools. No one would rejoice more than he would when the scheme relating to the 250 attendances was carried out. As to The Child's School Book to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, he was in favour of getting rid of all unnecessary forms; and, therefore, he should only be too happy if he succeeded in getting rid of The Child's School Book. The right hon. Gentleman said he was also going to give greater prominence to poetry, recitation, history, and geography. He would be glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman had time to get those matters attended to in the ordinary curriculum of the schools. For his own part, he was a little doubtful whether Milton and Shakspeare offered the best kind of poetry to children of 10 or 12 years of age; and he was rather in favour of some of our excellent patriotic lyrics which very easily adapted themselves to the intellects of children. But that was a matter of detail. The right hon. Gentleman had also assured them that he was going to lay great stress on sewing as a branch of instruction. He believed he had the honour to be the first to give the money of the State for the promotion of that most important art amongst girls, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do all in his power to encourage it. At the
  1304
  same time, he ventured to put in a word for those despised subjects—domestic economy and cooking. They should all have in view the importance of teaching those useful and necessary subjects in schools. It was difficult in practice, he knew; but they were most necessary to be taught to girls, and he hoped the Vice President would encourage them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman meant to keep the attention of Inspectors fully engaged on the moral character of the schools. Everyone who knew what schools were would see how important it was that the Inspectors should show great attention to the general moral tone which prevailed in them. The right hon. Gentleman had used one happy expression. He said he was determined that the teaching in these elementary schools should be thorough. He reminded the House that they had made it compulsory on parents to send their children to those schools; that they were bound to see that the teaching was thorough and good, and that it was absolute cruelty and wrong to subject children to insufficient instruction. That point should, undoubtedly, be kept steadily in view. He wished the right hon. Gentleman success in his endeavour to promote night schools; and he agreed that he was taking a bold and wise course in allowing clerical teachers to instruct in night schools. It was probably the most important change of any made in the Code to throw open the profession of teachers to graduates of the Universities; and he thought the more people considered it, the more they would see the advantages of making that alteration. It would however, be necessary, in fairness to existing teachers, that they should have due warning of the change, because, having entered upon their career on the understanding that it was a closed one, they should certainly receive notice of what would appear to them a very sudden and important change. He also hoped care would be taken to find a more suitable class of teachers for rural schools. The misfortune was that it was impossible for the districts in which those schools were situated to give a high rate of pay, and yet it was exceedingly bad to have very young teachers. That question, undoubtedly, merited great attention. It was the case that there was some deterioration in respect of the time during

  1305
  which teachers stayed in their schools; and they found that as a rule where there was only a mistress she stayed only for a year, or possibly two years. Anyone would understand that the effect of that upon the children was disastrous. In that way the teacher had no time to make acquaintance with the children, who were always being put under new systems, while, in fact, the moral hold was relaxed. That was a very important difficulty which all interested in rural education should consider. He could not agree with the remarks of the Vice President of the Council on the subject of honour certificates. He had always regarded them both as tending to raise the tone in schools and as incentives to future exertion. He thought those certificates did tend to elevate the character of their elementary schools, and he was afraid he should adhere to that view. He thought it a pity, for the sake of £1,000, to sacrifice what he believed to be in many cases a useful incentive; and, therefore, he trusted that if any change was made the system might be modified without being abandoned. He saw that about 13,000 children in the course of the year got those certificates; and he was constantly meeting with children who had gained them and who showed them with great pride, while the parents had told him that the moral effect upon their families was surprising. There was one point on which he should be obliged to challenge the decision of his right hon. Friend if he should think it his duty to press it. He, for one, was loth in any way to lower the character of the Inspectorate, because it was of the highest importance that its intellectual standard should be kept up; so much so, in his opinion, that when he held the Office of Vice President very severe conditions were attached as qualifications for that office. Therefore, he trusted that nothing would be done to lower the position of the Inspectorate. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any truth in the rumour alluded to in the Press that he held out hopes to teachers of extending the pension system generally? He was aware that he granted a certain number of pensions in cases where the teachers were old and underpaid; but he carefully guarded himself from holding out any hope whatever of a general pension system, which would be a most serious and
  1306
  grave undertaking for the country, and he hardly thought the right hon. Gentleman could have been correctly reported when he was said to hold out hopes of so great a change. Although he should not be sorry to see a system of assurances established which would secure teachers against the consequences of sickness and old age, he did not think it was the business of the State to go further in the matter. He did not wish to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman; but he must hold himself absolutely free with regard to the changes in the Code, and with regard, also, to the changes in connection with the Inspectorate.
  MR. RICHARDsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper on going into Committee of Supply which, yielding to the appeal of his right hon. Friend, he did not proceed with; but to which, perhaps, he might be permitted to refer in Committee and to say a few words on the subject of it. He referred to what he could not but regard as a great anomaly in their educational system—that was to say, the denominational character of so many of our Training Colleges. He did not severely blame anybody for that, because it had grown out of a state of things which existed formerly, but which no longer prevailed. It was well known that for a long time the education of the people of the country was left in the hands of voluntary associations, and they frankly and gratefully acknowledged that they rendered valuable service to the cause of education. As long as these associations were purely voluntary, and supported by the contributions of their friends, they had a right to make their own rules; but when Government undertook to subsidize those efforts, then, of course, the matter was very much altered. It was enacted that all elementary schools should be subject to the Conscience Clause, which, to some extent, modified the denominational character of those schools, but the Training Colleges remained as they were, being governed by the same rules as existed when they were purely voluntary institutions. But they were no longer voluntary institutions; so much otherwise that by far the larger proportion of the incomes by which they were supported was derived from Parliamentary grants, and the fees paid by students. He would give some figures,

  1307
  by way of illustration, taken from the Report of the Committee of Council. He found that with regard to the Training College at Carnarvon the total annual expenditure was £2,227, the subscriptions and donations amounted to only £293. At Cheltenham College the total expenditure was £5,275, of which only £500 was raised by subscriptions and donations; the total expenditure of the Female College in the same town being £2,281, with subscriptions and donations amounting to only £117. The British Schools College, in the Borough Road, had a total expenditure of £7,000, of which only £1,390 was raised by voluntary contributions, and the Wesleyan College, at Battersea, a total expenditure of £4,172, and the donations and subscriptions amounted to £321. Thus it would be apparent to the Committee that, so far as support was concerned, those Colleges had become almost State institutions; and the question was whether it was right that institutions, which were practically dependent on public money, to which all classes of the community contributed, should remain sectarian in their character, government, and teaching. The tendency of their legislation had been, of late years, to unsectarianize education. That was proved by the Elementary Education Act, the Endowed Schools Act, and the various Acts passed by the Legislature during the last 20 or 30 years in relation to the Universities. But the Training Colleges remained on the same footing as before, many of them being, beyond doubt, purely denominational. A Memorial had been sent in to the London School Board, signed by the members of the Teachers' Association in this Metropolis, complaining of the disabilities imposed upon them by the denominational character of the examination to which their pupils were subject before they could enter the Training Colleges. The School Board thereupon applied to each Training College in the country for copies of the forms of application for admission, and for information with regard to the nature of the religious examination required to be passed by candidates. The Returns to the London School Board were as follows:—There were 41 Training Colleges of all kinds in England and Wales. Of these, six made no Return, five had no religious examination, and 25 had returned
  1308
  that they required, on entrance, an examination in the Old and New Testaments and in the Prayer Book. In all the Church of England and Diocesan Training Colleges this examination was exacted. The Wesleyan Methodists required an examination in the Old and New Testaments and the Conference Catechism; and as to the preliminary inquiries of an ecclesiastical character there were a great variety. Some Colleges merely required testimonials as to character from a clergyman or minister, and others addressed questions of this kind—"Are you a Communicant?" "Are you a member of the Church of England?" "Are you prepared to make a declaration that you will continue as a teacher in the Church schools?" Now, he asked the Committee again whether it was fair that these institutions, which were supported almost entirely out of public money, should have a character so decidedly denominational as to exclude entirely from the advantages of the training they gave all the Nonconformists of the country? He did not wish to say one disrespectful word of the Book of Common Prayer. It was not his habit to speak disrespectfully of anything that was an object of reverence to any of his countrymen; but he might be permitted to say there was much in the Book of Common Prayer that the Nonconformist conscientiously objected to. They did not teach it in their schools; therefore, any of the Nonconformist teachers who wished to go to those Training Colleges were barred by the requirement that a candidate must be examined in the Book of Common Prayer. There was a great hardship in that, inasmuch as these teachers might wish to go to the Training Colleges for the purpose of, afterwards, teaching in the board schools, which did not, and were not, allowed to teach the children the Prayer Book and the Catechism. The board schools were forbidden, by the 14th section of the Elementary Education Act, from giving the children such instruction. No examination on these matters was required in the scholarship examination undertaken by the Government; and yet, when these young people presented themselves for admission to the Training Colleges, they were made to submit to that religious test examination into the Prayer Book, and, in some cases, they

  1309
  were compelled to declare that they were members of the Church of England. He must say it was time that all this should be changed. It was undesirable that any of these Training Colleges should be denominational in their character; but, in any case, he maintained, the sectarian restrictions which prevented others than members of the Church of England from enjoying the advantages of those Training Colleges, and other institutions supported by public money, should be removed. He was not able to move the Resolution he had put on the Paper, owing to the Forms of the House; but, if the Committee would permit him, he would read it, in order that hon. Members might see the modest proposal he intended to make as to those elementary teachers. It was as follows:—
  "That the Training Colleges for Elementary Teachers, which are almost entirely maintained by public grants and by the contributions of the students, should, so long as the present system of denominational colleges exists, be open without sectarian restrictions to those candidates who, being otherwise qualified, pass the scholarship examination with the greatest success, and the same religious liberty should be secured to them during their training which the Law now secures to students at the Universities, Grammar Schools, and in public Elementary Schools throughout the Country."
  He was told it happened very frequently that pupils who had been trained in the London School Board schools, and were proficient in all other branches of knowledge, being perfectly as well qualified to enter into the Training Colleges as any of those candidates who stood by their side, yet were rejected because they would not undergo examinations in the Prayer Book. He said this was unfair, and that the time had come when some change should be effected in the interests of religious liberty.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that one of the disadvantages they experienced on the present occasion, and which his noble Friend the Member for Liverpool had referred to, was that they had not been able to follow the interesting Statement of the Vice President by a general discussion. The debate had strayed over various topics, interesting in themselves, some of them highly interesting, almost sensational, and those had diverted them from the main topic of the evening—namely, a review of the educational proceedings of the past, and of the educational policy
  1310
  of the future. He could not help expressing a hope that if the revision of the Rules of the House was, as had been indicated, to form an important part of the programme for next Session, no new Rule would be adopted which would encourage and sanction the course of proceeding which had been pursued that night. Discussions of that kind came on under great disadvantages at such an hour of the morning, and it was very difficult for one to compress into the few minutes which he felt himself at liberty to occupy all the observations he desired to make concerning the large number of interesting topics referred to. He did not intend to go into the case of Mr. Goffin; but he would say a word with regard to what the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) had, with great moderation from his point of view, just stated. He (Mr. Richard) had made an appeal to the Government, and he thought it would have been very desirable if they could have come to some decision on the subject. Just as in the case of Mr. Goffin they were unable to come to a decision, so also in the matter of Training Colleges they were unable to come to a decision. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not be led into an incautious statement in approval of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Merthyr in so seductive a manner. He had spoken as though a gentle change might be made to bring these Training Colleges in harmony with other institutions in the country, conducted upon what he called the undenominational principle. If they were at an earlier period of the evening he should endeavour to persuade the hon. Member that this institution, whose example he recommended, was not so undenominational as he seemed to think. He would have reminded him of the endowed schools which came under Clause 19 of the Endowed Schools Act, and he would have pointed to the larger "public schools," as they were called, where religious education was given. But he would not now go into matters of that kind. He would only ask the Committee to remember that any change of the kind the hon. Member proposed would be a great and fundamental change, and not only that, but it would be a change that would amount to something very much like a breach of faith, because, although it was true that those institutions were

  1311
  supported in a great measure by the State—and he fully recognized the fact—yet it was also equally true that they were founded in a great measure by the liberality of private persons, for the express purpose of their being connected with a certain religious denomination. That remark did not only apply to the Church of England in which he was interested. There were Wesleyan Colleges, founded by and for Wesleyans, and also Roman Catholic Colleges, which were founded by and for Roman Catholics. Therefore, he trusted the Vice President of the Council would not, in a moment of incaution, be induced to adopt the view of the hon. Member for Merthyr, and, by so doing, give a severe shock to public feeling—to a great deal of the sound feeling on which the education of this country had hitherto rested, to which the Vice President of the Council had given credit, and to which the hon. Member himself had given credit. Education in this country was, for a very long time, chiefly dependent on voluntary effort. That voluntary effort was entirely connected with some religious body, and that religious body was mainly Church of England, as being the principal representative of religion in the country. He did not know that he would detain the Committee longer on this matter, except to say this—that there was a great difference between Training Colleges and public elementary schools. In connection with the latter there was the Conscience Clause, and the children of parents of any religious opinion could be admitted, every person's religious convictions being respected. He was not merely going into those matters on his own authority, but the Schools Inquiry Commissioners in their Report said that great distinction was to be drawn between places where pupils were received, educated, and boarded, and those to which children went as day scholars. Boarding schools it was pointed out, were in loco parentum, and it was shown that to have no definite system of religious teaching in them would be a serious detriment to their character. He was not speaking to those in the House who would discard religious instruction altogether from all schools; his arguments would be of no value to them; but to anyone who believed in giving young people some religious instruction, he said that unless they instructed the teachers in some definite
  1312
  form of religion—he cared not for the purpose of the present argument what, so long as it were definite—they had no chance of producing that class of teachers who would be the best and truest teachers in the sense in which they wished the children of this country to be taught. On this subject, speaking of Training Colleges, he was naturally led to say a word on a very important point—namely, the new Code, of which the right hon. Gentleman had given them an outline. He spoke of graduates of any University being recognized as assistant teachers without having to undergo examination for certificates. The existing rule might be relaxed harmlessly; and if that article of the Code was carried out to any extent, they would have a large number of teachers in the country who would not have been trained in Training Colleges, which was now necessary; but would have had the advantages of that free training which was given in the Universities. No work could be more suited to graduates, who had gone through a great deal of teaching themselves, than to impart their knowledge to others. The system contemplated had been already tried, he believed, and had been found successful, especially in the case of ladies. He did not mean to say that those ladies had absolutely taken University degrees; but they had passed the University examinations, and were those who would be expected, under certain circumstances, to take degrees and enrol themselves in the ranks of school teachers. He was glad to see anything like an advance in that direction. Teaching was one of the noblest occupations possible. Anything which raised the profession was a distinct benefit to the community, and he here spoke not only of University, but elementary teaching. He most cordially thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his proposal. He had here one or two figures which he thought he might trouble the Committee with, just to show how great had been the progress of the schools connected with the Church of England—which were the larger part of the voluntary schools—and the large share they had had in the scholastic development of the country. In 1870 the accommodation in the Church schools was 1,365,000, and in 1880, 2,327,379, whilst the average attendance in 1870 was 844,334, and in 1880, 1,471,615; or, in other words,

  1313
  962,299 additional places had been provided in Church schools in 10 years; whilst all other denominations, together with the school boards, afforded additional places for 1,399,870. In 1880, there was, as he had said, in Church schools accommodation for 2,327,379, or more than half the whole school accommodation of the whole country, which was 4,240,753. It was said that the school boards represented the elementary education of the country. He did not wish to discourage the good work done by the school boards; but his view was that they had only to supplement what was already partly done by the voluntary schools in the matter of elementary education. But it was important to observe that far from killing, or even checking, voluntary effort, the school board system seemed to have stimulated and encouraged that effort. They were entitled to ask how that had occurred. There was a very pertinent view taken of that matter by some people. They said—"People won't pay twice over for the same thing." It was said—"How can you expect people to subscribe towards the support of voluntary schools when they have to pay taxes for the maintenance of the school board schools?" Well, it was because at the bottom of the voluntary system there was something sufficient to counterbalance the selfish element. There seemed to be in such a matter an analogy with the relief of the poor. It might be supposed that nobody would subscribe to voluntary hospitals, when there were infirmaries scattered all over the country provided out of the rates; but just as they found in that case that people always would provide more in the way of relief than was required to simply meet the necessities of the case, so in this case he thought they would find that the voluntary system of education would not be killed, but would rather be quickened and increased by the action of the School Board. With regard to the details of the new scheme, although they had only heard them for the first time that night, they would give to it all the favourable consideration in their power, and heartily co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in respect to it.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYwished to say a word or two as to the Training Colleges which were referred to by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. In the
  1314
  first place, there was not only the grievance of those who were driven out of the Training Colleges by conscientious scruples, but there was the moral harm to the other ex-pupil teachers who felt compelled to sacrifice their religious scruples in order to obtain the training. That was a result which they ought to look at quite as much as to the injury to those who adhered to their religious opinions. In fact, he thought they ought to consider the latter class rather more than those who withdrew from the Colleges. Then, with regard to the training of teachers, the country paid this large sum of money in order that the most experienced and industrious of the teachers might proceed through the Colleges to the work of elementary teaching. By giving preference to an ex-pupil teacher who passed low down in the examination because he could pass an examination on the Church Service, or who gave a promise that he would teach in Church schools, they got inferior teachers when they might secure superior teachers. He did not think it necessary to labour that point further, except to remind the hon. Member for the University of Oxford that freedom of conscience and exemption from religious services and instruction existed in all the Colleges among the undergraduates. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the steady progress made by his Department this year. The progress was, perhaps, not as great as they would have liked to see; but there was a sufficiently distinct progress to make them feel that they were promoting elementary education. He did not think it was necessary, at that late hour, for him to take up the challenge the right hon. Gentleman threw down as to the ex-pensiveness of the London School Board. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he held strongly that the duty of the Department was to look after the efficiency of the School Board and not the cost, which was the business only of the ratepayers. He hoped the Department would keep their minds on the question of efficiency, and not run into other matters. They had too much of the Education Department under the late Government, when it tried to hold up economy at the risk of sacrificing efficiency. It was not proper in a debate in Parliament to drag in considerations of cost as between one

  1315
  school and another. Then, with regard to the proposals for the revision of the Code, no one could give a final opinion favourable or unfavourable upon them. It was a most important scheme, and full of very valuable considerations; but their remarks that night must be purely provisional, and further discussion must be reserved. But there were one or two points which he should like his right hon. Friend to consider before finally pledging himself to this scheme. He should like to suggest under No. 5 whether sewing, which was to be compulsory for all girls, might not be made optional for girls who were half-timers. It was necessary there should be compulsory sewing; but in industrial districts, where girls were half-timers, they got so little opportunity for mental training that he thought sewing should not be made part of the curriculum. Then, as to Clause 6, the Department had to steer between two shoals, the danger of mechanical instruction, and the danger of trusting everything to inspection. If they wished to give the Inspector greater power and liberty, they would be exposed to the danger of its being said that they were putting the schoolmaster under the Inspector, and enabling the Inspector to impose his own theories upon a whole district. That was a danger they ought to be alive to—the danger of excessive State interference. He was sufficiently in favour of local individualism not to wish to see that, but to see something like free play and individual working out of the educational system in the country. A stereotyped pattern of education throughout the country would be, on the whole, bad, although it might be useful in backward districts. He welcomed No. 8 as to adult teachers; but he should like to call the attention of his right hon. Friend to No. 8 in connection with Nos. 36 and 37. He gathered from the Vice President of the Council that by the latter Articles of the Code it was intended to wipe out the ex-pupil teacher in favour of certificated teachers. He did not dissent from that; but he should like to ask what was the meaning in No. 8 of an adult teacher up to the number of 40, and a certificated teacher when the number amounted to 60. Then, in No. 20, needlework would cease to be a class subject. It had been put in as a necessary subject according to the
  1316
  Schedule; but it would be a necessary subject in the routine of the day, and not a class subject. He did not object to that; but he would remind the Vice President of the Council that if he put needlework in the Schedule he would materially raise the standard, because at present, if needlework was taught according to Schedule, it was taught as a class subject, and it became a matter for extra grants. The modification of the specific subjects was too minute a proposal to be discussed at that hour; but it would naturally be discussed in the autumn by persons practically engaged in education. In No. 28, he thought the Vice President was going too far in the direction of checking and discouraging specific subjects unless elementary subjects were well taught. He had not the slightest objection to the provision that where less than 75 per cent passed in elementary subjects the grant should not be paid in that particular year for specific subjects; but he thought it would be hard to reduce the grant if there was less than 75 per cent passed in the previous year, for there might have been many things, such as an epidemic, for instance, to interfere with the results. He knew schools in one district of London where they frequently got less than 75 per cent, but where the Inspector reported that the state of education was thoroughly satisfactory. In fact, he believed that in that particular district schools were more efficient, passing under 75 per cent, than many other schools passing up to 85 or even 90 per cent, so different was the standard of different Inspectors. Therefore, he thought to prohibit the grant for specific subjects merely on account of the percentage of the school would be a mistake. He should not object to giving the Inspectors some discretionary power, or that if they reported the general teaching of a school to have fallen back, the grant for specific subjects for the coming year should be suspended; but he did not think they should have a mechanical self-acting standard like 75 per cent. With regard to night schools, he sympathized with the desire of the Department to raise the teaching; but night schools took up education after a boy had left the elementary schools, and it was not enough to go to the Seventh Standard in those schools, because some of the boys would probably have passed the sixth or even the seventh by the time they were 13

  1317
  years old, and for these there would be no further education in the night schools. He should like to see something which would enable night schools to go beyond that. Then, with regard to No. 34 and the three pupil teachers, he sympathized with the intention of the Department to keep down the number; but three pupil teachers would be too many in a small school of, say, 120 average attendance; while, on the other hand, in infant schools with an average of 600 three pupil teachers would not be sufficient. He would rather fix the number at one for every 100 of the average attendance. That would keep down the number of teachers more than the present proposal. As to No. 36, he agreed with the proposal to reduce the value of the certificated assistant, and to let him count for 60 instead of 80; but he thought it would be necessary, if they reduced the value of the assistant, that they should reduce the value of the pupil teacher. He had hitherto been valued as half; but if they made the value 40 as compared with 60, they were stimulating pupil teachers rather than assistants. As to No. 39, dealing with graduates, that had been spoken of as if it were a concession; but it did not concede or give anything of moment, and there was nothing to prevent a graduate of a University getting an appointment to a school and sitting for his certificate. He would admit no ex-pupil teachers unless they were prepared to pass the Government examination; but he would not close the door absolutely to persons who might be of great merit, and. some of whom were doing admirable work in their schools, unless they were prepared to go through a University training. Although, as a rule, that training was valuable, they might get some people who had been teaching in private schools, but could not afford University training, who were very efficient for teaching; and they would be doing great injustice to them and depriving elementary schools of valuable teachers by the present proposal. Then he thought No. 39 would immensely strengthen the argument of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) in favour of breaking down the present monopoly of the Training Colleges. But if they proposed that the only door of admission to the schools should be the Training Colleges, they made an overwhelming
  1318
  argument for the contention against any denominational distinction whatever. On the whole, however, he congratulated his right hon. Friend upon his scheme.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he thought two parts of the Vice President's speech seemed to afford general satisfaction to the House—his expressed desire to render educational endowments more generally useful, and his statement that he would bring in a Bill next year. Although he did not now propose to go into the question of endowments at any length, he would submit to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to do something in the meantime. The facts were these. Whereas the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) hoped that the Endowed Schools Commission would be able to deal with all the endowed schools in five years, 10 years had elapsed and less than half of the schools had been dealt with. He would, therefore, submit to his right hon. Friend whether it was not possible to increase the number of the Charity Commissioners so that there might be some more rapid progress made. Unless that was done it was perfectly clear that they could not hope that any more rapid advance would be secured. He hoped it would not be supposed that he was complaining of the Charity Commissioners. He believed they had worked with all due diligence, and that they were not to blame in the matter. At the same time, the question was one of much importance. It was one thing to prepare a Bill, and another to pass it through Parliament; and, therefore, even if his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was prepared to introduce a Bill next year, it was still very desirable to hasten the action of the Endowed Schools Commissioners in the meantime. There was one point connected with higher education upon which he should like to say a word—namely, as to the great desirability of knowing what was being done in the schools of the country. He did not desire to interfere with the action of the head masters and Governing Bodies of schools; but he thought that parents should have the opportunity of knowing what kind of education their sons would receive. They had Blue Books containing interesting and valuable statistics as to the property, land, and buildings belonging to

  1319
  the public schools; but they really had not, until the Returns given him by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) two years ago, any information as to the system of education pursued in the public schools, and he regretted to say, in spite of all that had been said as to the desirability of introducing modern languages and science, only two or three hours at the most were being given to each of them. Those who felt with him in that matter would be sorry to see literature excluded from the public schools; but as there were 42 hours devoted to study he would hope that some greater amount of time would be devoted to those branches.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member is now dealing with the question of secondary schools, whereas the Vote before the Committee is one for the elementary schools.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthought the Vote included the expenses of the Education Committee; and, therefore, he had considered that he was justified in alluding to that question. He would, however, not pursue the question, but would only ask his right hon. Friend to give attention to the subject. Coming to the question—namely, of specific subjects in elementary schools, there was one point connected with the Inspectors to which he would like to call the attention of his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend had told them that evening that he proposed to deal with that subject. Last year he (Sir John Lubbock) troubled the Committee with statistics showing conclusively that the introduction of specific subjects, so far from interfering with reading, writing, and arithmetic, really benefited the merely fundamental subjects; and he thought the statistics which had been produced that day showed that experience had proved that the introduction of specific subjects had not had the effect of interfering with the study of other subjects. Although the hour was late, he hoped he might be permitted to mention one little anecdote which showed how well children were able to follow a little instruction in this matter. A friend of his, the wife of a distinguished Member of that House, had given lessons in mechanics to one of her children only about four years old. Some time afterwards she told him the story of the fox and the crane, and how the crane extracted the bone from the throat of the
  1320
  fox. "When she came to the end of the fable the child said—"Well, Mamma, was it a hand crane, or was it a steam crane?" He regretted to find from their Reports that some of the Inspectors were very unfriendly to the specific subjects. He did not wish to quote any names, because he did not wish to make a personal attack upon the Inspectors. According to the Blue Book, for instance, one of the Inspectors said he had no sympathy with the desire to add science to the subjects already taught; another said that it would be ridiculous to see 3,800,000 children assembled listening to sermons on stones; another stated that children could not understand scientific questions at all; another did not regret that specific subjects were not taught in his schools; and another could not see what business a Fourth Standard child had to be dabbling in science. All this showed how very little appreciation there was of the instruction proposed to be given. He would not weary the Committee with other quotations to the same effect; but he would submit that these gentlemen had such strong views on the matter that they could hardly be expected to give to these specific subjects a fair trial when they were brought before them. He heard one or two expressions which fell from his right hon. Friend in his opening address with great regret. At the same time, he did not think, on further discussion, that it would be found that they differed very much after all. At any rate, he was glad to hear the proposal that technical knowledge should te continued from the commencement of school life until the close. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) as to leaving the school committees as free in this matter as possible. He objected strongly to the proposal to make grammar a compulsory subject. No doubt a very large proportion of schools would take grammar as one of the class subjects; but still he should like to leave the school committees the option of doing as they pleased in that matter. He did not understand how many specific subjects could be taken in addition to class subjects.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Two.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Maya third class subject be taken as a specific subject?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he was glad to hear that that was the case. Of course, they could not now discuss all the details of the proposed arrangements. It struck him in looking through the Code that it might be improved in details; for instance, that it made rather too little reference to plants; but that question they would have an opportunity of considering afterwards. He was glad, as a University Member, to see the step which his right hon. Friend proposed to take in that direction; and, on the whole, he thought they might fairly congratulate his right hon. Friend on the fact that the alterations he proposed were likely to be of benefit to the education of the country. He thanked the Committee for allowing him to make these observations; and in sitting down he would only add that they might all congratulate themselves on the energy, ability, and zeal with which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President was conducting the important duties of his Office.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he trusted the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) would excuse him if he expressed some pain at the observations which the hon. Member had addressed to the House. It seemed to him that the hon. Member was bent on invading the voluntary principle. He might be wrong; but that was the impression that the speech of the hon. Member conveyed. He was old enough to remember when the representatives of the denominations strove earnestly for the recognition of that principle, and he very humbly aided them in that object; but now the hon. Gentleman pointed with jealousy to the success of that very principle, because the most successful denomination had been the Church of England. Next to the Church of England, the hon. Member pointed out, not as a subject of congratulation, but as a subject of regret, the amount which the Wesleyans had earned for their Training Colleges. Now, if that was not a recognition of the voluntary principle, he (Mr. Newdegate) knew not what was. The hon. Gentleman would carry the point at issue to this—that not equality of treatment, but numerical equality, should be insisted upon; and that was a most tyrannical principle. The hon. Member would excuse him if
  1322
  he asked the hon. Member to glance back at the period of the Commonwealth. Surely he would accept Cromwell, advised, as he was, by his chaplain, Owen, and his secretary, Milton, as in favour of religious freedom up to the point when freedom became irreligious. If the hon. Member would study the history of the Commonwealth he would find, that Cromwell, advised by Dr. Owen, and with Milton for his secretary, was compelled to restrain with a strong hand that denominational jealousy which that great man clearly foretold would, if gratified, prove fatal to all religious freedom.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, it was stated that they had little to do with economy, but that their great point should be efficiency. The Education Department had to consider both economy and efficiency, and the attention of the country had therefore been properly directed to the increased expenditure for educational purposes. The grant in 1870 amounted to something like 9s. 8d. a-head. It had now risen to 15 s. 8d. a-head; and he was afraid, from some indications which his right hon. Friend had given, that he did not contemplate any limit to the amount to which the grant might go. He should be sorry to object to any expenditure that would secure the efficiency of the schools; but as there was a growing tendency towards extravagance in the local administration of the educational expenditure of the country, and as it arose, to a great extent, from having the Imperial Exchequer to fall back upon, he did think that that was a point deserving of attention. He did not propose to pursue that matter further; but with respect to the challenge given to him by the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to call attention to one sentence contained in the Report of the right hon. Gentleman himself, which the right hon. Gentleman did not read to the House, but which he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) regarded as very unsatisfactory and very depressing. The Report said that—
  "Whereas, out of 1,900,000 scholars examined, there were 969,000 over 10 years of age who ought to have been presented in Standards IV., V., and VI., but that only 461,000 were so presented."
  [Mr. MUNDELLA: Hear, [hear!] His right hon. Friend said "Hear, hear;"

  1323
  but he (Mr. Fowler) contended that it was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs that only one-half of the entire number were presented. The Report, however, did not state there what it did in the Appendix—namely, that the total number who passed in Standards IV., V., and VI., out of the 461,000, was only 263,000; and he ventured to say that when they found so large a number who failed in those Standards, it was impossible that they should allow the education to remain there. In Standard VI. last year 52,625 children were presented for examination; but only 58 per cent of that number passed. The practical result of that was that they were paying in this country something like £5,000,000 per annum for the education of the rising generation, out of which the Imperial Exchequer and the local rates contributed £2,750,000, and yet the result was that less than 40,000 children passed a satisfactory examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic. He said that that was not a satisfactory state of things, and he had sufficient confidence in the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he would do his utmost to bring about a better condition of affairs. He was sorry to see in the New Code introduced to the House that night that it was not intended to grapple with the question of the age at which children should be compelled to pass in the several Standards. By Clause 15 it was provided that a boy of 10 years of age, after April, 1883, should be passed over in the First or Second Standards. Now, the First Standard ought to be passed by a boy of seven, the Second by a boy of eight, the Third by a boy of nine, and the Fourth by a boy of 10. And yet he saw a clause introduced to allow children over 10 years of age to go on for two years, and then to allow them to escape two of the Standards. Their educational system had now been in force for 10 years; and he thought the Department would be justified in saying, before they granted the public money to any school children, that a child of seven years must pass in Standard I., another of eight in Standard II, and so on, carrying out their own rule. In that case he did not think it would be found that out of 461,000 children examined in Standard IV. only 260,000 were able to pass. He congratulated his right hon. Friend on the masterly
  1324
  and statesmanlike manner in which he had made his Statement that evening, and on the determination he had evinced to make his administration of that Department a great success; but he would press upon him the necessity of raising, as far as possible, the standard of general education.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped it would not be thought disrespectful if he did not reply to many of the questions which had been addressed to him in the course of the discussion. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) had made some useful suggestions, and also the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot). He should very much like to allude to those suggestions if it were not for the lateness of the hour. He had only time to answer the question which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard). Before doing so, however, he would say in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who asked him to put more pressure on the schools of the country in order to bring more children into the higher standard, that that was not where the pressure was required. The pressure should be put first on that House, and next on the local authorities. If they wanted the children to pass in the Six Standards they should have the courage to do what was done in Switzerland, Germany, and other countries, and say to the children that they must continue at school from the 6th to the 14th year, until they had passed through all the curriculum laid down. It was of no use saying to a child that it might work half time as soon as it had reached the Second and Third Standards, and full time when it had reached the Fourth, and then complain that the schoolmaster did not make all the children pass the Sixth Standard. It was not the fault of the secular schoolmaster, but of Parliament which seemed to have a low estimate, of what the education ought to be, and had never had the courage to do its duty to the children. They talked about foreign competition, and yet they still sacrificed their children to that foreign competition. When Parliament exhibited more courage his faith in the principles of a higher education would be considerably strengthened. What they ought to do was to keep their children

  1325
  at school up to their 14th year. That was his answer to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and the whole answer he had to give him. He certainly believed that their system and their schoolmasters were quite as good as those of any other country. He was sorry he was not able to give as complete an answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) as he should like. He confessed that the question of the Training Colleges had not occupied his attention. He was assured, however, that school board teachers did go to the Training Colleges, 123 male and 224 female teachers having passed through them, according to the last Return. He was told that legislation would be necessary on this subject; but that depended on the will of the House. He thought no teacher ought to be debarred from the Training Colleges on account of his other religious opinions, and he was prepared to consider what was necessary to be done in that matter. If his hon. Friend would give him a little time he would look into the question. His noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) had complained that he had set a bad example by making his Statement with the Speaker in the Chair; but he could assure him that this course was adopted after much consideration, and with due regard to the convenience of the House, for had not his Statement been made under these circumstances, he was sure, having regard to the number of Motions on the Paper, that he should have been making it now. He hoped, after the satisfactory discussion which had taken place, that he might be allowed to take this Vote.
  MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, he regretted that this most important subject of education had been brought on so late in the Session, and at so late an hour of the night. He thought it was a reflection on Members of the House that when small matters were under consideration, there was, as a rule., a full attendance, but that when subjects of the deepest interest were before them they found themselves reduced to scarcely a quorum. The Vice President of the Council had not absolutely closed the door against his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard); but he was bound to say that the assurances he had given were of a very vague character. Now, in these days, when religious tests had been removed in every
  1326
  direction, it was impossible that in such a matter as elementary education those who were qualifying themselves for the position of teachers should be debarred from entering any public training institution they pleased. Sooner or later some change must come. He thought his hon. Friend had put his proposal in the mildest form, having regard to the prejudices of those who sought to maintain the denominational character of the Training Colleges; but if it was found that some relaxation of the present tests was not conceded, he was certain that some radical change must be made in the direction of establishing Training Colleges against which the objection now urged would not lie. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had reproached his hon. Friend with having gone counter to the voluntary system. But he did not see how this could be said, seeing that 95 per cent of the maintenance of these institutions came from the public funds, and that there only remained 5 per cent upon which they could hang their claim to be considered voluntary institutions. They were not voluntary institutions; they were public institutions controlled by denominations and maintained by public money, and they were, therefore, anomalies. It was only fair on the part of his hon. Friend to say that, unless some substantial proposal by way of relief were made, it would be necessary next year to proceed much further than his hon. Friend now proposed. Let hon. Members look at the possible injury done by the present system. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) truly stated that the object should be to provide the highest class of teachers which the country could find; and what had been the result of the Test Act so far as our Universities were concerned? The last 17 years would testify. In 11 of those years the highest honours had been taken by Dissenters, who, before the Act was passed, were denied the right of entry. There had been gross injustice done to men belonging to the Dissenting Bodies of the country in placing obstacles in the way of their entrance into suitable training institutions. Again, he must say that the right hon. and other hon. Members were by no means entitled to call the denominational schools of the country voluntary schools,

  1327
  because they were only so to a limited extent; and they knew that a great proportion of their cost came from the taxes of the country and the payments of the children. The great blot on the Education Act of 1870 was the leave given to denominational bodies to claim and occupy as much ground as they liked; and the country, as was well known, was startled by the sudden zeal shown by denominationalists to occupy ground which ought to have been really occupied by a national system of education. In the rural districts it was notorious that this denominational zeal had been shown for the purpose of keeping out board schools and the representative system. He himself had a curious instance of this presented to him in conversation with a clergyman in the North of England, who said—"Although he was certain the change must come, he had been round to all the farmers to put them on their guard against the possibility of having board schools in the parish." That was evidence of the strongest kind of the prejudice which prevailed in certain quarters against the board schools. It was now asked that what was maintained at the public expense, and what was established by national authority, should be put under national control. He deeply regretted that their Episcopalian friends did not take up their position side by side with their fellow-citizens in the maintenance and furtherance of national control with regard to the educational system of the country. In conclusion, his right hon. Friend pointed to the sum of £18,000 a-year contributed in aid of the Training Colleges; but he thought he must know that that sum represented but a small percentage of their entire cost, and by no means entitled him to defend their present position. He believed that those who were favourable to national education in this country would be justified in putting entire confidence in his right hon. Friend, knowing that he would hold the balance fairly, and that justice would be done.
  MR. WOODALLwished to know whether, in addition to the grants upon class subjects, aid would be given towards instruction in specific subjects in night schools?
  MR. HEALYasked, in reference to the statements of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler),
  1328
  whether it had been brought under notice that the real reason why children were prevented from passing in the higher Standards was that they were compelled, owing to the inherent difficulty of our orthography, to pass the first seven or eight years of their lives in learning to read? He asked, also, whether anything had been done with regard to the Memorial from 130 school boards for making use of a concurrent phonetic system of spelling? He should be glad to know whether the Department had made any inquiries into the matter, and whether they were prepared to give that proposal recognition side by side with the old musical notation? He might as well give Notice that he would take an early opportunity of moving that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the desirability of establishing a phonetic system of spelling.
  Vote agreed to.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it was now after 2 o'clock, and he therefore begged to move that the Chairman report Progress. It was unreasonable to keep them sitting here at this hour, when they had most important Business to get through tomorrow. They would, at their next Sitting, have the Land Bill before them again, and it was desirable that they should be able to give that attention to it which would enable them to deal with it satisfactorily. In the last Parliament they were never asked to vote money after 1 o'clock; but now the Government seemed to think it the proper thing to ask them to sit up all night voting money.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the question of Science and Art was thoroughly discussed in the early part of the night. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had sat there a very long time to discuss the British Museum Vote.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not wish to be unreasonable. The Government were anxious to make a Jew's bargain; but he (Mr. Biggar) desired to be perfectly reasonable. Therefore, on the understanding that after the Science and Art Vote had been disposed of Progress

  1329
  would be reported, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £227,181, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith."
  MR. G. HOWARDsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), who had interested himself in the matter, and who, if he had been present, would have called attention to it, he wished to say a word with regard to the General Pitt Rivers' Correspondence. A Committee, upon which were to be found some of the very best names from a scientific point of view, was appointed to consider whether General Pitt Rivers' offer should be accepted or not. The Committee unanimously recommended that the collection should be taken over, and one was rather surprised to find that the Department had not adopted that course. They gave as their reason for not accepting the collection, first of all, want of space; but that was a bad argument in connection with a National Museum, especially now that something was being said about enlarging it. The next reason given was that there was a collection of a similar kind at the British Museum. Well, that was entirely disputed not only by General Pitt Rivers himself, but by the Committee, who stated that the collection would not interfere with any existing collection. It was arranged on different principles, and illustrated different points. He would not detain the Committee, but would urge most strongly on the Government the desirability of reconsidering their decision. He trusted they had not given a final answer.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that, as Chairman of the Committee to which reference had been made, he hoped he should be allowed to say one or two words. He had heard one or two murmurs, and if hon. Members were to discuss these Votes, he trusted the Committee would allow them to do it without interruption. This collection of General Pitt
  1330
  Rivers was, perhaps, one of the finest collections in the world. The collection was offered to the nation by General Pitt Rivers, and not only that, but this gentleman undertook, if the collection were accepted, to provide a curator at his own expense. The Committee unanimously decided that the collection was of the greatest value and interest, and should be accepted; and, having done that, the Government then declined to receive it, on the ground of want of space. It would have been much better if the Government had made up their mind not to accept the collection at the outset, instead of appointing a Committee of scientific gentlemen, whose time was of great value to them, whose recommendation had been ignored. He did not suppose the hon. Member wished to divide the Committee on this Vote; but he (Sir John Lubbock) would like to know whether the decision of the Department was final, or whether the matter was still open? General Pitt Rivers did not care whether the collection was under the South Kensington authorities or those of the British Museum; but, having got together a most interesting collection, he wished to present it to the nation, and it appeared to him (Sir John Lubbock) very unwise to decline it, and not to see whether some arrangement could not be made under which it could be accepted. If the Government did not care about putting the collection in the South Kensington Museum or the British Museum, arrangements could, perhaps, be made for exhibiting it permanently at Liverpool or Manchester. He therefore ventured to express a hope that the Government would not look upon this matter as absolutely finally closed, but would place themselves in communication with General Pitt Rivers, with a view to seeing whether some arrangement could not be made for the purpose of accepting this very valuable collection for the benefit of the nation.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Department quite recognized the public spirit of General Pitt Rivers; but the ground on which they have declined the collection is that it is not suitable for preservation in the Museum at South Kensington, where the collections have reference to Art and applied Science. It is an ethnological collection, and can be of no kind of value in the work South Kensington has to do. As to want of space, the hon.

  1331
  Member is mistaken about that. The gallery in which the collection is arranged belonged to the Commissioners of 1851. They at first allowed us to have it without rent; but they now ask us to pay £2,000 a-year for it. More than that, General Pitt Rivers says the collection requires a certain amount of space, and that amount of space seems to us to be altogether out of proportion to the advantages of possessing the collection. He says he will require almost double the amount of space he at present occupies at once, and then he desires to have the collection entirely under his own control. He requires that the collection shall not in any way be dispersed, or dealt with otherwise than as he pleases. He insists on having it entirely under his own management during his lifetime. It seems to me that gifts made to the nation in this form should not be accepted. No one, however generous he may be, has a right to impose these conditions. A gentleman, in giving a collection, should say, as many people have said before—" You may take my collection as a whole, and I will have no connection with it whatever." As it is, General Pitt Rivers wants to have the collection under his own control, and we are to pay the expense of its maintenance. The proper place for the collection is the British Museum, where there is already a small collection. Why should not this collection go with the National Collection? No doubt it is a very interesting collection; indeed, it afforded me considerable pleasure when I went to see it; but, at the same time, South Kensington is not the place for it.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, what a pity it was that General Pitt Rivers did not go to the University of Oxford, where he would have got abundant room and better treatment than he had received from the stingy autocratic body he had gone to.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the collection was at South Kensington already, so that the objection of want of space was not a good one. If they accepted the collection, and desired to part with it, the Government could give it up again at any time. General Pitt Rivers had offered to provide a curator; and, again, on the question of space, hon. Members would see, if they referred to the Report of the Committee he had referred to, that they had expressly
  1332
  guarded themselves against the demand for so much space. If it was understood that the refusal was on the part of the South Kensington authorities, and not on the part of the Government as a whole, they would have gained their point. Whether the collection was put in South Kensington or the British Museum was not a matter of importance. What they desired was that this valuable collection should not be lost to the nation.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he entirely agreed with the view which had been taken of this matter by the South Kensington authorities. The collection was entirely different to anything at South Kensington, and it took up an enormous amount of room. It was utterly unsuitable, and the Government was right in not accepting it. It was said that General Pitt Rivers would provide a curator. So he would; but at his death the authorities at South Kensington would have to look after the collection themselves. As to the British Museum taking the collection, that was entirely a matter for General Pitt Rivers and the Museum Trustees. The Government could not control them, and if General Pitt Rivers wished his collection to go to South Kensington, he had nothing to do but to go to the Trustees. It would be putting their funds to an improper purpose to accept the collection at South Kensington.
  MR. HEALYsaid, there was an item of £150 for house rents for Sir Richard Wallace's Collection, which was removed in 1873. Why should the Vote have gone on since 1873? This Vote embraced the Dublin Museum of Science and Art, and he was sorry that the Vote should have been taken, as the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), who was not now present, was very much interested in it. The hon. Member would be in his place to-morrow, and he (Mr. Healy) had hoped that he would have been able to speak upon this matter. There was a strong feeling in Ireland on the subject of the Science and Art Museum of Dublin, and it would have given his hon. Friend much satisfaction if he could have had an assurance with regard to it.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, that on page 314, in what was supposed to be a resumé and analysis of the Vote, there was an item

  1333
  of £30,380 for "purchases, catalogues, &c. There was not a line, however, in the Estimates showing what the purchases had been. They knew that South Kensington and the other Departments must purchase specimens; but it was desirable that the details of those purchases should be shown, as, owing to jealousy, the different Departments might compete with one another.
  MR. MUNDELLA: As to the question asked by the hon. Member opposite, I stated about a month ago that we had sent a person over to Ireland to see what amount of space was required at the Dublin Museum, and to prepare a ground plan. We have received from the Treasury a notice that the Office of Works in Dublin is prepared to put out an advertisement inviting tenders for the building of a new Science and Art Museum forthwith. Nothing can be done until that matter is decided.
  MR. BIGGARwished to have an explanation of the item £6,234 for "Simpkin's Defalcations," and of the item £500 for "Solar Physics." What did these Votes mean?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was sorry to state that "Simpkin's Defalcations" was an item which had appeared in the accounts for many years. The defalcations were only wiped out last year. With respect to "Solar Physics," he thought that explained itself.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he saw in the Vote the item of £150 for house rent, and he would suggest that if it was to be a permanent item it should be transferred to the Buildings Vote.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought the noble Lord was right in saying the solar physics spoke for itself. It was evident he had not much to say in support of it, and all the best authorities in the country thought that this item ought not to appear in the Estimates. The ex-Astronomer Royal, writing on this subject, said—
  "I think that the granting of public money for scientific research ought not to be sanctioned, unless in one of the following cases:—Either where it appears probable that results useful to the public will be obtained, or whore it appears that scientific investigations, interesting to the educated classes, and commensurate with the probable cost, are beyond the reach of private persons or societies, but may be undertaken with advantage at the public expense. My objection to the establishment of the Committee
  1334
  on Solar Physics is intended to apply only so far as it is a paid Committee; I do not object to the purpose for which the Committee was appointed, or to the payment of a secretary, or to expenses incidental to an office. The Committee, I believe, have faithfully discharged their understood duties, and I shall willingly co-operate with them to the best of my power."
  What was this item? £500 was paid to one or two men who thought they were promoting scientific research, while they were simply amusing themselves by looking through telescopes and spectroscopes from one year's end to another. He was not at all singular in his opinion upon this. In April there was a special meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society with regard to this item, and the following resolutions were passed:—
  "(1.) That, in the opinion of this Society, the granting of public money for scientific research, in cases where it does not appear that results useful to the public will be obtained, or where the researches proposed are likely to be undertaken by private individuals or public bodies, does not tend to the real advancement of science. (2.) That this meeting considers it inexpedient that a Physical Observatory should be founded at the national expense. (3.) That this meeting is of opinion that the Government grant to the Committee on Solar Physics at South Kensington should be discontinued. (4.) That, in the opinion of this meeting, full accounts should be published of all money expended by the Government for scientific purposes, and that in all cases the nature of the work to be undertaken should be defined as clearly as possible."
  His expression as to looking through telescopes was not his own; it was the expression of Sir Edmund Beckett, who said—
  "You may employ anybody if you like to amuse himself with looking through a telescope and a spectroscope, and there may be no definite work expected;"
  and—
  "On the other hand, if a man is to be paid for only amusing himself, in order that he may every now and then publish a book on some solar theory, or something of that kind, there is no sort of security that he will be employed usefully."
  And again—
  "There was the great object that was to be obtained by what has been called in later times by the amusing name of the science of sunspottery. I do not know that that science so-called has done much for mankind."
  These were the views of the Astronomical Society, and he thought that Society might be supposed to have as good a knowledge of the subject as Members

  1335
  of this House. Mr. Ranyard, one of the members of the Society—
  "Considered that those who asked for endowment ought to be able to show the usefulness of the researches upon which they were engaged—for instance, that the study of solar physics was useful to prevent periodical famines in India, and so on."
  Mr. Bidden, who was certainly an authority, said—
  "Having listened to the letter of the Astronomer Royal, he thought it was directed to discouraging" the grant of money to gentlemen of a scientific turn who had no particular definite object in view, but who desired to promote in a particular manner the science in which they were interested, without any evidence of its being for the benefit of mankind in general. No doubt, many would be very glad to spend more of their time in scientific experiment, and to dignify it with the name of scientific research; but there should be an adequate motive of public utility for making an application for a grant of public money."
  He thought that was very reasonable, and he should be glad if the Government could state what Public Service had been forwarded by voting this item for Solar Physics year after year. He had no hesitation in saying that he regarded it as a waste of money, given to keep a particular individual in a very pleasant semi-occupation—in something like what Addison called "physic-idleness." It was not worth while to pay £500 to gentlemen for physi-idleness.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £226,681, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEthought the observations of the hon. Member ought not to pass without comment by one who knew Mr. Norman Lockyer. He did not like to hear an hon. Member, who knew nothing about this matter, speaking of the labours of scientific men in a most insolent manner—
  MR. HEALYrose to Order, and asked whether the term "insolent manner" was a proper term to use?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether it is un-Parliamentary, but it is not becoming.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEwould withdraw the words, and substitute "most unbecoming manner." He was
  1336
  sure that if the hon. Member knew anything at all about the branch of science to which Mr. Lockyer had contributed important discoveries, one of which had been crowned by the medal of the French Academy—a body that was certainly a good judge—he would see that something had been done by the gentleman of whom he spoke in such a flippant manner. He did not think any £500 could be voted for a better purpose than that of promoting such research.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he certainly would not withdraw his Amendment. He knew it was Mr. Lockyer who was concerned; but he had not gone upon his own opinion, but on those of the ex-Astronomer royal and other members of the Society.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, this Vote was made on the special recommendation of a special Committee of distinguished gentlemen.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he had been talking to the ex-Astronomer Royal a few days ago, and thought he expressed an opinion rather the opposite of those given in the passages quoted by the hon. Member.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrepeated that what he had read had been the proceedings of the Royal Astronomical Society in April last. Mr. Christie, the new Astronomer Royal, read the letter of the ex-Astronomer Royal in the sense in which he signed the first of the third resolutions.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he differed somewhat from his hon. Friend the course he had taken; but he thought the hon. Member was as much entitled to be heard on the subject as the hon. Member for Cricklade (Mr. Story-Maskelyne). His hon. Friend had known Mr. Lockyer for 15 years as a friend; and he was, therefore, perhaps, competent to know what that gentleman's capabilities were. He himself would not oppose any Vote for scientific research; for he did not think this country spent enough in that direction. He believed every one of Mr. Lockyer's theories had been confuted; but they could not expect to get truth without discussion, and he would respectfully ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he would also appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw. What this country had done in science was highly valued in India.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was perfectly convinced that this was money thrown away; but as he did not think he should have anyone to "tell" with him he would withdraw.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £69,939, to complete the sum for British Museum.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLE: You are about to move, Sir, the Vote for the British Museum, and there are two points upon which I wish to speak. The first is on the apparent increase in the Estimate. That is not an increase proper, but is an increase entirely, or almost entirely, on account of the removal of collections to the South Kensington Museum, and for the necessary increase of the staff. At the same time, I expect this increase will go on for a few years until the whole of the collections are removed. The other point arises out of an observation which I understand was made earlier in the discussion upon the grants to private local institutions. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council will probably be pleased to hear what I am going to say. Two or three years ago power was given to the Museum to give duplicates to these local institutions. I understand that something has been said this evening to the effect that the Trustees of the Museum neither give duplicates nor lend any part of their collections to these institutions; but the Trustees are forbidden by Parliament from lending their collections, and are bound to preserve all collections in the Museum to all posterity. With regard to duplicates, when we transferred the Natural History Collections, we took care to see what duplicates could be given, and several have been sent to six or seven of the largest institutions in the country. The question of loans is one involving much greater considerations than can be discussed on a mere Vote. Those loans can only be made by Act of Parliament, and then you will have to consider whether you will entirely alter the British Museum as contrasted with the South Kensington Museum, the one being a repository where everything is to be found for the purposes of study; the other being a place more or less for the granting of loans. I venture to sug-
  1338
  gest this for the consideration of the Committee.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he fully recognized the force of the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole); but it was only fair to say that the position taken up by the Trustees of the British Museum in regard to the lending of books and manuscripts was regarded by most foreigners as singularly churlish. They could get the loan of MSS. from Florence, Vienna, Berlin, and other places; and the University of Oxford, with which he was connected, was also willing to lend any rare books or MSS. it possessed. A rigid rule against lending prevailed, however, in the British Museum, and it was an exceedingly churlish rule. He hoped that the Trustees would be induced to make some arrangement by which important MSS. and documents might be lent to other Museums, where they would be copied and kept in perfect safety. He only made these remarks in consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and also in connection with the fact that a large amount of the treasures of the British Museum was rendered practically useless to the great mass of scholars throughout the world in consequence of the great expense attending a journey to London, that being the only place where there was a possibility of seeing them.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), as one of the Trustees of the British Museum, to induce the Museum occasionally to part with some of its MSS., and also to extend the hours during which the building was allowed to remain open. He thought the adoption of such a policy would be of material advantage to the country, and conduce to promote the interests of the Museum itself. If the Trustees were of opinion that at present they had no power to do this, a short Act of Parliament might be brought in giving them the power, and he believed it would be hailed with great satisfaction. The library of the Museum was at present rich in the possession of MSS., and only wanted one other collection to be quite perfect. He believed that a good collection of Spanish MSS. was the only absentee, and he trusted

  1339
  that steps would be taken to remedy the deficiency.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEdesired to say a word in regard to the transfer of the collections from the British Museum to South Kensington. The transfer commenced more than a year ago; and at the time when the last year's Vote was taken the collection of minerals with which he had been connected for a period of 32 years had been already removed to the South Kensington Museum without the slightest accident, and had been arranged in accordance with plans previously made for its exhibition and safe-keeping. He was sorry to think, however, that this was the only collection which had yet been completely transferred. He believed that the Geological Collection had been transferred, but that it had not yet been completely arranged. The Botanical Collection was nearly transferred; but in biology not a single specimen had as yet been removed. He thought it was a great pity, seeing that an important and costly Museum had been built at South Kensington for the reception of these collections, that so long a time should elapse before it was in a position to fulfil the purpose to which it had been dedicated. At present the space to be vacated at the British Museum was still incapable of being devoted to the collections remaining at that locality. It was very much to be regretted, and he wished to know whether any steps towards completing the transfer were about to be taken? He believed that the keeper of the Department had an idea that he must move all at once or not at all. It seemed to him (Mr. Story - Maskelyne), however, that it would very much help the transfer to move part, and that a good deal might be done in arranging such a part in the course of the next few months. He understood that most of the cases were now very nearly ready for the reception of the specimens; and he hoped to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the transfer was to be soon begun and be rapidly and properly carried on. He believed that there would be plenty of room in the Museum for General Pitt Rivers' Collection, if it was a collection of a kind desirable to be incorporated with those now at the British Museum—a point on which there seemed to be much question.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the difficulty in completing the removal of the Natural History Collection arose from the fact that it had been found impossible to induce the late Government to give the money that was required for providing the necessary cases; and it was impossible to remove the various specimens of birds and animals until cases were fitted up for their reception. He thought that hon. Members would hardly wish that some of the specimens should be removed before the whole of them could be transferred. If they were removed bit by bit they were likely to sustain injury. As to the desirability of allowing the precious MSS. possessed by the British Museum to go abroad, although a good deal might be said in favour of it, still there were various considerations of great weight which had hitherto induced those who had looked into the matter to believe that it was better to keep them in England. At any rate, the Trustees could not fairly be blamed for not doing so, because at present they had no power. To lend the MSS. as suggested would be contrary to the law.
  Vote agreed to.
  MR. BIGGARthought the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would not object now to report Progress. There were several other Orders upon the Paper which it would be necessary to dispose of, and the hour was late—nearly 3 o'clock. He did not mean to argue that the next two or three Votes were likely to give rise to much discussion; but they would occupy no larger amount of time on the next Supply night than they would then. He would therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of reporting Progress.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he did not propose to take any of the succeeding Votes, except the Vote for Education in Scotland. He would take that Vote, which he believed would not require discussion, and he would then move to report Progress.
  (4.) £228,435, to complete the sum for Public Education, Scotland.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELLwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council how Scotland would be affected by the new arrangements in

  1341
  regard to the Education Code? Nothing had been said in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman before the House went into Committee as to Scotland; and he was afraid that it was not intended to extend the advantages of the New Code to Scotland. He trusted that no length of time would be allowed to elapse before Scotland received a scheme somewhat similar to that which was now offered to England. He wished, further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that the Education Department had not yet put in force two of the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1878, relating to the examination of higher class schools—which were part of the Scotch educational system. One of these provisions related to the examination of higher class schools which were not under school boards—private schools—and gave power to the Department to appoint Examiners to such schools, provided that the managers of the schools offered suitable payment for the examination? There would thus be no expense to the Department in carrying out this provision of the Act. The second provision related to the examination of higher class schools under school boards. In that case, there would be some additional expense to the Education Department; but it would be very little compared with the great advantage which the cause of education would derive from having an examination of the higher class schools conducted by officers of the Education Department, and having all the schools examined on one uniform system. If this were done, it would give the school boards a much higher sense of the importance of the schools of this kind under their charge. He would, therefore, ask if the Education Department contemplated putting in operation these two provisions of the Education (Scotland) Amendment Act of 1878?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the scheme contained in the New Code was intended to apply to England and Wales only; but if the Scotch people approved of it there would be no difficulty in extending it to Scotland. The necessity, however, for a New Code was not so urgent in Scotland as in England, because many of the provisions contained in the new arrangement were already adopted in Scotland. The Scotch Code was very much more liberal than the English
  1342
  Code; but if the New Code was found to work satisfactorily, he should be perfectly ready to make the two systems thoroughly uniform. As to the other question of the hon. Member in regard to the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Amendment Act of 1878, the hon. Gentleman would probably be aware that some doubts had been expressed as to the provisions in regard to the examination of higher class schools and the power of inspection possessed by the Department under the Act. He should be happy to take the question into consideration.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  REGULATION OF THE FORCES BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  REGULATION OF THE FORCES BILL.

    [BILL 195.] CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    MR. CHILDERS: On Thursday I appealed to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to take off his objection to this Bill. He said he would consult the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) on the subject. The blocking Notice, however, has not been removed. I would repeat my appeal. It is necessary that the Bill should pass, because unless it is accepted the soldier is likely to suffer very materially.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that he must have forgotten on Friday to speak to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork, and on Saturday he (Mr. Biggar) was not in the House. To-day his hon. Friend was not present; but he hoped to-morrow to be able to ask him about it. He should be prepared to take off the Notice; but he had given a positive promise to the hon. Member for the City of Cork that he would not remove it until he (Mr. Parnell) had had an opportunity of moving an Amendment.
    MR. CHILDERSremarked, that on Friday he saw both hon. Members in the House, and was somewhat surprised that the Notice had not been removed. He trusted, however, that the hon. Member for Cavan would take an opportunity of conferring with his hon. Friend.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred, till To-morrow.

  PATRIOTIC FUND BILL— [Lords.]
  (Mr. Secretary Childers.)
  PATRIOTIC FUND BILL— [Lords.]

    [BILL 240.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CHILDERS, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to enable the Patriotic Fund Commissioners to give up one of their schools for which they had not sufficient money, and to give the Government more control over the expenditure of the fund. He did not think any question would arise as to the Bill; but in Committee he would give all necessary information.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Childers.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether, out of the funds they were about to save, they intended to endow any institution for Catholic orphans?
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the school which had been kept on by the Patriotic Fund Commissioners was a boys' school at Wandsworth.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  NATIONAL DEBT BILL.— [BILL 236.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  NATIONAL DEBT BILL.— [BILL 236.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that he should like to know the nature of the Bill, as some hon. Members, particularly an hon. Member who generally sat at the end of that Bench, were very much interested in it?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHin reply, said, that the Bill was merely a formal measure to carry out a promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would not raise any opposition to the progress of the Bill.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 243]; re-committed for Thursday.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [6th August] reported.
  Resolutions 1 to 18 agreed to.
  (19.) "That a sum, not exceeding £19,883, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of Temporary Commissions and Committees, including Special Inquiries."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he should like to ask the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) to postpone it. He made this appeal because he intended to bring forward a Motion which, unfortunately, he had not yet put on the Paper. He did not, however, think he should be out of Order in reading it to the House, and the House would then see why he made the appeal. The terms of the Motion were as follows:—
  "That in view of the increasing importation of foreign and Colonial food-stuffs, and the consequent decrease in the value of agricultural property in Great Britain and Ireland, it is expedient to appoint a Committee of Experts to inquire into and report upon the probable effects of foreign competition on British agriculture, and the rentals of English and Irish land."
  He was in this position. This was a Motion on going into Committee of Supply; and, looking at the state of Public Business at present, it did not seem likely that he should ever have an opportunity to move this Motion. If he did move it, he would undertake not to occupy the House more than a couple of hours in its discussion. As far as he, personally, was concerned, he should not occupy more than half-an-hour in the statement he should have to make; and, no doubt, it would be very easy for the Government to answer him. If he had not an opportunity of moving the Resolution he believed he could raise the question on this Vote, for in this Vote the Agricultural Commissioners were included. The noble Lord would not lose anything by giving him the opportunity he sought, because he (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was sure of getting the money he required.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he saw no possibility of being able at any other time to bring on the Report of Supply earlier than that. Therefore, it would be useless to postpone the Vote. If the hon. Member wished to bring forward his Motion and make a speech, why did he not do so at once?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it would take a week to prepare the speech.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, the sum of £21,695,712, he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  EAST INDIAN RAILWAY (REDBMPTION OF ANNUITIES) BILL.
  Resolution [August 5] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill244.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of. Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 245.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) * (208); Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Order* (209).
Second Reading—Public Works Loans* (196).
Select Committee—Report—Erne Lough and River* (149–206).
Committee—Report—Royal University of Ireland* (194).
Report—Third Reading—Land Law (Ireland) (204–207).
Third Reading—Removal Terms (Scotland), now Removal Terms (Burghs) (Scotland)* (184), and passed.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NOS. 187, 204.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEYsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany), who was not. then present, had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that—
  "The tenant shall not on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, break up any ancient pasture or meadow laud."
  He wished to know if the Government had any objection to accept that Amendment, because, if not, he would move it?
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the case of waste committed by a tenant was fully dealt with by the existing law.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he thought the subject a very important one, and he could not see what possible objection the Government had to accepting the Amendment.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, the existing law was sufficient to meet the case. There could not be the slightest doubt that an injunction would be adequate protection against waste being committed by a tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that as this was not a question which would be decided by the Commissioners he would not press the Amendment.
  LORD HARLECHcould not see why the Government should object to the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the objection of the Government was to putting in the Bill particular exceptions when general words answered equally well.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, that he had drawn up an Amendment to the clause, for the purpose of enabling the landlord to exercise his rights with regard to wreck and seaweed, &c, on the seashore. The Government had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same subject; but he thought the Government proposal did not go far enough. His Amendment was to insert the words "exercising rights to wrecks and royalties," as one of the incidents of tenancy reserved to the landlord.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that he was going to add words to his Amendment which he hoped would satisfy the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNasked what these words were. He did not like to compromise his position by giving up what he had got for what he did not know.
  LORD CARLINGFORDread his Amendment, which reserved to the landlord the right of—
  " Passing and re-passing to and from the seashore with or without horses and carriages for exercising any royal franchise belonging to the landlord."
  The point, he said, had been carefully considered by the Government, and he thought his words were better than those of the noble Earl. He also intended to improve them by adding the words "right of property or."
  LORD STANLEY or ALDERLEYsaid, he thought the words of the Lord Privy Seal would best answer the purpose in view. This Amendment was very necessary, as much drift timber had already been lost through the ill-will of the tenants.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, that he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment (Lord Carlingford) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Incidents of tenancy subject to statutory conditions).
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKmoved, in page 7, line 21, to leave out the words "was lawfully entitled to cut," and substitute the words "may be entitled to cut."
  LORD CARLINGFORDconsidered the Amendment unnecessary; but, at the same time, saw no great objection to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Determination by court of rent of present tenancies).
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEmoved, in page 11, line 17, to leave out (" made payable,") in order to insert the word ("increased.") He said he had moved this Amendment in Committee, perhaps upon very short notice, and he had been asked to bring it up on the Report. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the tenant from being misled by the words in the Bill as to his position and rights under it. All who had property knew the great likelihood of a man misleading himself as to the value of the improvements he had made by way of set-off against rent or arrears.
  LORD CARLINGFORDopposed the Amendment. He said it was conceivable, in some future condition of things, that though the rent might not have been increased it might be inequitable. That might be the case if, quite independent of landlord or tenant, there were a change in the value of property.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, he was at a loss to conceive how the Amendment would oblige the Commissioners to maintain an inequitable rent.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether under the clause it was possible to make an agreement such as that which he quoted the other night, by which the proprietor of landed property in the "West of Ireland might make an improvement lease in which the rent was increased a few shillings every year, so that the rent per acre would eventually increase from Is. an acre to 14s. an acre? He did not know whether it was the intention of the Government to prevent such leases; but he was quite sure that that was the effect of the Bill.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he was not able to answer the noble Duke's question off-hand. He could not, however, himself see that the question applied to the clause at all.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was afraid that the clause would prevent any increase of rent being made upon a tenant in respect of any improvement made

  1173
  during the 15 years' term. In the case he quoted the other day, a few shillings increase was made by agreement in five or six years. Such cases as this were universally recognized in Ireland, and were extremely beneficial to both parties. Under this Bill it would be impossible to make such agreements.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, agreeing with the noble Duke, said that the landlord might desire to let at a low rent during the first few years in consideration of the tenant making certain improvements, and then to raise the rent to a sum more nearly approximating to the value of the land—would such an arrangement be legal under the Bill or not?
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, surely noble Lords did not imagine that the Bill was for the improvement of Ireland, because if they did they were very much mistaken. Its result would certainly be to check improvement in the country.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsuggested to the Government that it would be wise, before the Bill returned to the House from the Commons, to insert some power to the Court to sanction such arrangement as he had mentioned.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that such an arrangement could be made in a lease sanctioned by the Court for 31 years.
  LORD CARLINGFORDagreed that there was no question at all that it could be done.
  THE EAEL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, it was no use suggesting that anything should be put into the Bill in "another place," because they could only deal with the Amendments made by this House; and if this clause was to be altered it must be done now.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—Clause 8, at end of sub-section 8, page 11, insert—
  ("But nothing herein contained shall prejudice any right heretofore enjoyed by the tenant of any holding subject to the Ulster tenant right custom, or any usage heretofore corresponding with the Ulster tenant right custom,"
  said, he intended to withdraw it. The noble Duke pointed out that a great deal of the prosperity of Ulster was due to the good feeling between landlords and tenants, which had been one of the results of the Ulster tenant right custom. He was sure the noble Marquess (the
  1174
  Marquess of Salisbury), in his Amendment the other night, did not intend to interfere with this custom; and if his Amendment could be shown to have an such tendency, he was convinced the noble Marquess would be ready to make whatever qualifications were necessary.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Duke has rightly interpreted my views with respect to this Amendment. I do not intend to interfere with any rights enjoyed under the Ulster Custom, and I before stated decidedly that my Amendment would have no such effect. It simply amounts to this—that it is a notice for the future to all persons purchasing a holding that the amount which they may give for the purchase of that holding will not be held to be a just cause for reducing the rent at the time payable in respect thereto. That cannot affect any past transaction. At the same time, if it should be thought that any modifications are desirable in order to obtain that end, I shall be most willing to accept them.
  LORD CARLINGFORDmoved, in page 15, after Clause 16, to insert the following clause:—
  (Provision as to certain claims of pasturage and turbary.)
  ("Where the tenant of a holding by virtue of his tenancy exercises over uninclosed land a right of pasturing or turning out cattle or other animals in common with other persons, or exercises a right of cutting and taking turf in common with other persons (which right is in this section referred to as a common right, and which other persons, together with the tenant, are in this section referred to as commoners), then if such holding becomes subject to a statutory term the Court may, during the continuance of such term, on the application of the landlord, or of any commoner, by order restrain the tenant from exercising his right of pasture or cutting or taking turf in any manner other than that in which it may be proved to the Court that he is, under the circumstances and according to the ordinary usage which has prevailed amongst the commoners, reasonably entitled to exercise the same.")
  He moved also to amend the proposed clause by inserting after the word ("commoner") the words (" with the consent of the landlord.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 21 (Provision as to existing leases).
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEmoved, in page 17, line 42, to leave out the words

  1175
  ("valued under the Act relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland at an annual value of,") and substitute the words ("held at a rent or rents,") the object being to substitute actual rent for rateable value. He remarked that one effect of the change he proposed would undoubtedly be to lower the figure at which tenants were to be allowed to contract themselves out of the Act. Most of their Lordships, he believed, would agree with him in thinking that such a change would be an advantage.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he was unable to agree to the Amendment. A line drawn by public authority was, for such a purpose as this, much better than one drawn by private individuals in the case of a particular farm. The Government were of opinion that £150 valuation was the lowest figure at which the parties ought to be permitted to contract themselves out of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEYsaid, he thought they were not demanding a great deal if they asked that the greatest facilities should be given to the parties to arrange between themselves, in respect to future tenancies, the terms on which farms should be held. The Government were actually jealous of free contract—they loved servitude, and they objected to give the slightest portion of enfranchisement to the Irish landlord and tenant. They seemed to think that the Irish tenant should be treated as a child under paternal Government; but surely it was reasonable to suppose that a man who had risen in the social scale was able to protect himself.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that if the noble Marquess consulted the Irish farmers he would find that their ideas of what constituted liberty were very different from his. What he called liberty they would call servitude. The Government felt that, in the circumstances of Ireland, the tenant could not safely be left to arrange these matters with his landlord, and that, consequently, it was necessary to protect him.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that the question of liberty could arise only in regard to future tenancies. He did not think the Irish farmers, if they rightly understood the case, would accept the noble Lord's strange and reactionary definition of liberty.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he understood that the effect of this clause was general, and that in every case where the valuation was over £150 the parties might contract themselves out of the Act.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no doubt that the clause as it stood applied to present as well as to future tenancies. It appeared to him that the reasons urged against the Amendment moved in "another place" by a Relative of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) were equally applicable to the present proposal.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Amendment did not deal with the same case as that dealt with by the Amendment referred to by the noble and learned Lord, and moved in "another place" by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice. That Amendment was intended to prevent any tenant above the £100 limit from applying to the Court for a judicial rent. If it had been carried every tenant in Ireland above that limit would have been precluded from going to the Court, whether he wished to do so or not. The clause now before the House dealt only with purely voluntary arrangements made with the full consent of both parties. These could, no doubt, as the noble and learned Lord had stated, be made either with present as well as with future tenants; but it was quite clear that in the case of the former, the tenant, unless it were to his advantage, would decline to contract himself out of the Act, and would remain under the protection of the Court. The clause would, therefore, operate to the tenant's disadvantage only in the case of a new letting; and as to this, there was no reason why a free contract should not be made by a farmer rented at over £150. In any case, the Amendment was not in part materiâ with that mentioned by the noble and learned Lord.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 31 (Emigration).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved, in page 26, lines 2 and 3, to substitute the words "family or families" for the words "a sufficient number." The Amendment, if agreed to, would enable the Land Commission, on being satisfied that a family or families in any district desired to emigrate, to take the necessary measures for enabling them to do

  1177
  so. He objected strongly to the limitations which, had been introduced into the Emigration. Clause in "another place;" but this was the only Amendment which he should submit to their Lordships. It would, he explained, enable the Land Commission to make the family the unit of their system of emigration.
  VISCOUNT MONCKregretted that the clause had ever been introduced, as a grant of £200,000 was so absurdly small that it might as well be struck out altogether. At the same time, he hoped the Government would accede to the very reasonable request of the noble Earl, and allow the Commissioners to deal not only with any State or Colony, or public Company, but also with individuals who could give reasonable security.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Amendment of the noble Earl could not be accepted by the Government, for it would be inconsistent with the policy of the clause. It was not intended that the Court should go about Ireland and pick up one family here, and another family there, but to relieve the congestion in some particular districts. It seemed to him that if they were merely to relieve individual families, they would be simply putting money into the pockets of these families. With regard to the regrets that had been expressed at the smallness of the sum to be applied to emigration, he had to say that the whole scheme partook of the nature of an experiment; but if it should be found to work well and usefully, it would, no doubt, be made the basis of further experiment and expenditure.
  LORD WAVENEYread a communication from Mr. Wilson, saying that there might be difficulty in dealing with immigrant families in Australia; but that individual immigrants of either sex could easily obtain employment. New South Wales had contributed £2,500,000 to the furtherance of emigration, and New Zealand £1,000,000. Those two countries and Canada were careful of the welfare of the emigrants on their arrival. The immigration which they encouraged was, in fact, such as would relieve the existing pressure on the labour market of this country.
  LORD EMLYsaid, he was of opinion that the system of emigration which the
  1178
  noble Lord had sketched was likely to allure away the very men who might be called the bone and sinew of the land. The sort of emigration that was required was the emigration of families, and that would not be secured to the necessary extent by the Amendment of the noble Earl, which would only lead to a family here and a family there being selected. He regretted that the experiment was not to be tried on a larger scale than was proposed by the Bill, so as to remove from the West Coast of Ireland, from Mayo round to Cork, a large population which were now living in misery and discomfort.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there was a general feeling in all parts of the House that a great deal of the chance of the successful working of the Bill in the direction of relieving congested districts in Ireland had been frustrated by the unfortunate concessions made by the Government in the other House. The futility of the clause in respect to emigration was deeply to be regretted. Every person who had commented on this subject outside of the mere political and Party fight of the day had recognized in the most earnest terms that nothing but a free and efficient system of emigration could be of any real service for Ireland in the long run. He asked whether the clause as now drawn would not be construed as a Parliamentary engagement not to go further in the promotion of emigration at another time—whether the words would not be held by persons with whom the Government had engaged, and with whom they dealt as power with power, that a promise had been made from which they could not recede? He suggested that after the Limitation Clause the words, ("unless Parliament shall otherwise order") should be inserted.
  LORD CARLINGFORDpointed out that if the experiment proved successful, and that it was found desirable to go farther, Parliament would not be prevented by anything in the Bill from so doing.
  THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that that being so he did not see what objection could be offered to the words he had suggested. His object was to prevent it being said, with any force in future years, that the Government and Parliament had by the Bill pledged itself not to go further.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that this subject had been considered carefully in the other House. The noble Marquess knew the jealousy it had excited. He (the Earl of Kimberley) did not share that jealousy, and would, personally, have been glad to have seen a larger limit; but the proposal was in the nature of an experiment, and if it failed it would come to nothing, while, if it succeeded, there would be the strongest motive to go further.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the words in question were—
  "Provided always, that there shall not be expended by virtue of the authority hereby given a greater sum than two hundred thousand pounds."
  Those words did not prevent Parliament sanctioning a larger scheme hereafter if it thought proper to do so.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLremarked, that he had looked at this clause as simply the beginning of an experiment. He was perfectly satisfied his noble Friend knew there were a great number of the 600,000 families that had been referred to who, for their own good and the good of the country, could be removed. His noble Friend must know that this experiment ought to be tried on a larger scale; but the Government had sacrificed their own opinions on this matter to the state of Parties in the other House. Still, there was this to be said for it, that it gave room for an experiment on a small scale, and, if it succeeded, it might, with the consent of Parliament, be extended. He could not avoid this opportunity of expressing his belief, having some personal knowledge of a similar state of things in the Highlands of Scotland, that with regard to the class of tenants holding farms under £10 valuation, they could not hold their own under the economic conditions of the country, and any measure which gave them a permanent interest in the land was a pure delusion.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause 56 (Definitions).
  LORD CARLINGFORDmoved, in page 40, line 4, to leave out from ("which") to the end of the paragraph, and insert—
  ("The Land Commission may by order declare fit to be purchased as a separate estate for the purposes of this Act.")
  1180
  That would enable the Commission to deal with any portion of an estate as an estate.
  LORD EMLYsaid, that this Amendment would meet some of the greatest difficulties of the case, for the Commission would be able to deal with one or two, or three townlands, as they thought fit. The Amendment would make the clause far more operative than before.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 57 (Tenancies to which the Act does not apply).
  LORD INCHIQUINmoved, in subsection 7, the omission from the words (' Any holding let by written contract of tenancy and therein expressed to be so let to the tenant")of the words from ("by written contract") to ("expressed to be so let")—the effect of which would be to exempt such tenancies from the operation of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the clause was a copy of one in the Act of 1870, which had never been complained of.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the Act of 1870 was a very different measure. It was desirable that in future contracts should be in writing. If the Amendment were agreed to be would propose to add at the end of the subsection—("Provided that any such letting after the passing of this Act shall be in writing.")
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 207.)
  Order of the Day for suspending Standing Order No. XXXV. read.
  Moved, "That the said Standing Order be suspended."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  On question, resolved in the affirmative; Standing Order suspended accordingly.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord privy Seal.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: In rising now at the last stage of this very important measure I wish to trouble your Lordships with a few observations, although I do not wish to renew the discussion that has taken place on the clauses; for the Bill has been brought up to this House so late in the Session that it has been absolutely impossible to

  1181
  give it that full and careful consideration which such an exceptional, and, I may almost say, a revolutionary measure deserves. The first point which I wish to note is what has fallen from Her Majesty's Ministers. We have had a clear admission from them that this Bill does contain distinctly the principle of the "three F's." Secondly, we have learnt in no doubtful manner the value of pledges, promises, and assurances, given in other places, which almost constituted a bond on the faith of Parliament. Lastly, I hope I may say, without giving offence, I never remember since I have been in the House any great question on which such a feeble defence was offered by Her Majesty's Ministers for such a very sweeping measure. I never remember such an absence of argument in defence of a particular measure. On the other hand, I think the changes that have been made in the Bill constitute, in many respects, great improvements; but I should be wrong if I said that the structure of the Bill has been materially altered; the vicious principles which were in it originally it still contains. This House has been attacked by irresponsible speakers and writers for the alterations which it has ventured to make in a measure which is assumed to be far more popular than it is; but I believe it would have been truer and fairer to say that the moderation of this House, taking the question as a whole, has been singularly illustrated in what it has done. The effect of the changes made has been to make this very reactionary and sweeping legislation somewhat more experimental and tentative than it originally was; and, therefore, I look on the changes made with great satisfaction. The vicious principles to which such great objections have been taken, as much on the other side of the House as on this, remain in the Bill without much alteration. The Bill gives durability of tenure; it appoints a judicial tribunal to settle questions of rent between landlord and tenant; it takes away the landlord's rights without giving him compensation for improvements; and for the first time almost it divorces landlords from their duties and rights in connection with the soil. By the Bill we go as far as we can to establish a pauper-peasant proprietary in Ireland. I might add that it is a triumph
  1182
  for the Land League, while Ireland is left in the same distracted, convulsed, discreditable condition that it has been in for the last year. If it be so, it is surely not amiss to ask—what is all this for? I should say, judging from the discussions which have taken place, that there are three reasons. The first is some vague idea of preventing landlords in the future from committing any injustice to their tenants; secondly, there is a still more vague and fantastic notion of remedying some of the old injustice perpetrated in ancient times in Ireland; and, thirdly, the main argument and the staple of the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was that it was hoped to pacify and to content Ireland. I will say a few words upon each of these. In the first place, the hope of preventing landlords from committing injustice on their tenants. My answer to that is that, practically speaking, there is no injustice at present prevailing. By the Prime Minister and by noble Lords, his Colleagues in this House, testimony has been borne to the conduct of Irish landlords on the whole, and the fairness and humanity with which they deal with their tenants. A recent Return, embracing 22 counties, shows that the proportion of evictions which could be fairly brought home to the conduct of the landlords was reduced to something considerably less than 1 per cent. But if you are by legislation to guard against the possible abuse by landlords of their rights or powers, why and how can you limit that legislation to them? I defy you to draw the line between the owners of land and the owners of other property. Or if, indeed, you are prepared to make any such distinction, you will find it very dangerous. I need, not tell the House that when you make laws regulating the profits of property, you place yourselves and the Constitution on a very slippery incline; and, more than that, you distinctly prepare Ireland for a very different form of Government from that which it has hitherto enjoyed. If it be true that you think freedom of contract is impossible in Ireland, then you mean that the Irish people are not fit for free institutions, and are not a free people. But when you come to the argument that you propose by legislation in 1881 to remedy the ancient misgovernment and misrule of Ireland, I wonder if anyone can seriously

  1183
  entertain such a notion. I am perfectly willing to admit that there has been in the past the greatest misgovernment, oppression, and cruelty displayed by England towards Ireland; but, granting that, what does it prove now? For the last 50 or 60 years England has by her Governments and Parliament loyally striven to efface the memory and trace of these ancient wrongs. She has given absolutely equal legislation to Ireland. She has never stinted money, sympathy, help in every way; and I am bound to say, during the last 12 months, Ireland has unhappily repaid her by, to use the words of the Prime Minister, "disabling, dishonouring, and degrading" the House of Commons. Ireland has disabled and dishonoured the House of Commons, and she has paralyzed the action of the Government, when she induced Her Majesty's Ministers to lay such legislation as this on the Table of the House. There is not, therefore, very much value to be attached to that argument. But then comes a contention, and a more important one, which was dwelt upon the other night with much effect and eloquence by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he told us that by this legislation you may hope to pacify and content the people of Ireland. What is really the chance of this? When I look back to the history of Ireland I see three influences at work there very plainly. In the first place, in all historical times Ireland has been the greatest difficulty of this country. Spenser, the poet and statesman of the Elizabethan age, opened his view of the state of Ireland by wondering how a country endowed with such gifts of nature and soil should be in such a state of desperate and hopeless disorder. So, too, the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis dwelt on the fact that if there were only 20 bad persons in a barony of Ireland it would be enough to set on fire the whole county, so inflammable are the people. Secondly, I know that just in proportion as the government of Ireland has been according to Irish ideas, so has been the misgovernment and misery of society. And just in proportion as there has been a firm and kindly Government, so has prosperity returned. Every one of those outrages which have been happening in Ireland, which, if they did not justify, yet caused, in a great measure, this legislation, are, down to their minutest details, of ancient date.
  1184
  They have been occurring for generations past. The only difference has been that in former times you had a strong and effective Government that gave no countenance to this notion of governing Ireland by Irish ideas. And this, with one exception, has been the invariable case in Ireland. That exception was the period when Tyrconnel was in power. Now, unfortunately, a different method has been adopted, and I have very great doubt of the result. When Tyrconnel governed the country according to Irish ideas I need not tell your Lordships that of all the miserable and disgraceful pages of English and Irish history, the page recording his Administration was, perhaps, the worst and most discreditable. But I am free to admit that when you have a very exceptional state of things your remedy must sometimes be exceptional. Great advantages are purchased by great sacrifices; and it is an extravagant price that Her Majesty's Government ask Parliament to pay. My Lords, nature has bound together these two Islands in an unhappy and ill-assorted union. It would have been better had Ireland been 1,000 miles away from the English coast. But this has not been so; and the great qualities which exist on either side of the Channel—qualities which might enrich and make happy both peoples—have been, by unhappy misrule and the malice of demagogues, perverted from a blessing into a curse. If, indeed, this Bill could set straight all the difficulties in the relations between England and Ireland, great as the price we are called on to pay, I should not think it too great. But, so far as I can understand it, the Bill will only aggravate every one of the difficulties and dangers with which we have to deal. I will mention one of these to which little allusion has been made in this House. For the last 40 or 50 years no one point has been more agreed to by men of all opinions than that a great source of mischief and danger to Ireland arises out of what has been called absenteeism. But this Bill makes absenteeism, hitherto occasional, permanent. You cannot expect that any landlord who is henceforward subject to the provisions of this measure will care to retain either his residence or his property in that country if he can avoid it. Who can hope that any improvements will be made by landlords which can

  1185
  possibly be avoided? If you expropriate the landlords, you at the same time expel capital from Ireland; but there is much more; remember that in all times the landlords have been the mainstay of the English connection. And when you have practically expropriated them, with their improvements, their better machinery, their better cultivation, I ask the House to consider what will be the means of maintaining the connection between England and Ireland, except what Mr. Burke calls "that tristis et luctuosa successio—a miserable series of Coercion Bills and English bayonets?" What better illustration of that than the course adopted by Mr. Parnell and other Members of his Party? You have already got, not to a revaluation or a reduction of rents, but to a cry for no rents at all; and instead of a message of peace you have incendiary proclamations and the shipment of infernal machines. Is there any reason then to hope that when this Bill becomes law it will fulfil the sanguine anticipations of its promoters? I believe there is scarcely a person outside this House—I am sure there is no one inside its walls if I except the occupants of the Treasury Bench—who expects that this Bill will produce the least improvement in Ireland. I ask, therefore, again, how is the Queen's Government to be carried on? I am sure this Bill will do nothing to maintain it; it is a terrible problem, one sufficient to tax the strength of the strongest and the wisdom of the wisest. I venture to think that this House, though it has been called "the House of Landlords," has dealt with this measure with the ability and knowledge which a House composed, in a great measure, of landlords must possess. I believe that this House has had this question long before its mind, and that it has endeavoured to look at it in the broadest and largest point of view. But I am persuaded that the question involved is not merely a change in the relations of landlord and tenant, but the far larger question how, in future, Ireland is to be dealt with. I will not pursue that subject; but I will only say this—that if we turn to the temper of the people, the result is, to my mind, very little more encouraging. We see a forgetfulness of all authority, and the belief that if men will not obey the law, the law must be altered for them. Never
  1186
  since society began did any good proceed from such a combination as this. But we are in a great difficulty, a difficulty which no man can overlook, and which no sober person can under-estimate. We are on the verge of civil war; and though I deplore the madness of the people and the weakness of the Government, still I think this House has acted wisely in accepting this measure, and in now sending it down to the House of Commons. We accept it as an experiment—a very great experiment. If that experiment should issue in prosperity and peace, in better relations between England and Ireland, and the happiness which flows from a united and contented people, then there will not be one individual in this House who will not rejoice in such a result, whatever his own prophecies and convictions may have been. But, on the other hand, if this Bill becomes with the Irish people the ground for fresh demands, further agitation, and greater friction between Ireland and England; if affairs 'grow worse instead of better, more irritating, dangerous, serious, then the people of this country, and not this House alone, will have to face the alternative—either a total severance of their relations with England, or a return to the older and more severe method of government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I wish, with the permission of the House, to make a few observations on the speech we have just heard. The noble Earl opposite began his remarks by asking, with an air of innocent wonderment, what this Bill was for. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships, who unanimously passed the second reading of the Bill, have some greater idea of its purpose and contents than the noble Earl. There is another question that I should like to ask. I should like to know what this speech of the noble Earl at this stage of our proceedings is for? I own I am at a loss to understand this, except what I may gather towards my enlightenment from my own personal experience. I lately had a smart attack of gout—which your Lordships kindly took a sympathetic interest in. That attack came out, I am grateful to say. What might have happened if it had been driven in I do not know; but it did come out, however, and now I am here more or less able to stand on my legs. I can only explain my noble Friend's speech

  1187
  by this. If I have any remark to offer upon my noble Friend's political career, it is that he has generally been in too great a hurry and too impulsive in what he was about. But in this case, whether under compulsion or not, he has evidently delayed a carefully elaborated and prepared speech for the second reading until this, the last stage. What the result would have been if this speech had been entirely driven in, and had not come out at all, I leave your Lordships to imagine. The noble Earl having had the advantage of hearing everything that has been said on the subject in your Lordships' House—an advantage which it has been my misfortune not to have had, though I have carefully read the report of all that has been said—made a great point, indeed, of this—that it was now admitted by Her Majesty's Government that this Bill gave the "three F's." I am not aware that anyone made an admission to that effect. I certainly consider the speech of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, notwithstanding the contemptuous allusion which the noble Earl thought fit to make in regard to every speech in favour of the Bill, was a very admirable statement of the objects and arguments in favour of this Bill. In the course of that speech, my noble Friend said that he himself was not very greatly afraid of the '' three F's;" but he particularly stated that the two first F's were in this Bill, and that, although great security was obtained for the tenant, fixity of tenure was not in it. I do not think it would be right to weary your Lordships with a discussion of all the details of the measure. Your Lordships are aware that nearly all the ablest Members of this House have spoken on this subject, and unlike the noble Earl, who is so condemnatory of those who have opposed him, it appears to me that most of those speeches were even above the average ability of the speakers who made them. Some of these speeches were made, I consider, with great severity; others, I think, were made with very great and marked moderation, though in opposition to the Bill. Indeed, it is perfectly obvious that to the great majority of your Lordships the Bill, abstractedly considered, is displeasing; but, influenced by the large, liberal, and statesmanlike views put forward by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury),
  1188
  your Lordships thought right not to do that which the speech of the noble Earl really went to, if it went to anything at all—the complete rejection of what he termed an inefficient and revolutionary measure. Your Lordships thought it better to give a second reading to a Bill which I have not the slightest doubt you are going to read a third time. It is not for me to criticize the number and the importance of some of the Amendments which your Lordships have introduced into it. Very weighty advice was given to your Lordships not to increase the number of these Amendments; but your Lordships have taken a course which you thought it was your duty and your right to take. The Bill will go down to '' another place.'' It will be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government what proposals they will have to make to the other House of Parliament on the subject. There will be no feeling of hostility to your Lordships. But your Lordships will feel that when they are told that this is a measure which your Lordships pass somewhat unwillingly, but which, for large and liberal reasons, your Lordships think ought to be passed, leaving the whole responsibility to Her Majesty's Government to carry out the measure; that, in the interests of Ireland, it is of the greatest possible importance that Her Majesty's Government should carefully consider and weigh those Amendments that have been made. THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON said, that the country was looking with the greatest hope for the passing of the measure then under the consideration of their Lordships, which, he believed, would do incalculable good. The priests of Ireland had, in many instances, joined the Land League because their people had done so, and that, therefore, they—the priests—feared they would lose their hold over them if they did not also join it. It would be bad, and a hard thing, if the priests lost their hold over the people. The moment the Bill passed the priests would say to their flocks that it was a large, a wise, and a generous measure, and they would make the farmers understand its value and induce them to abandon the Land League. But the Land League was receiving some £90,000 a-year. That was at present a financial success which the League would not like to give up; but that success would eventually wither. He expected

  1189
  that there would be great contentment, and that the Bill would cut to the very centre and tend to destroy that spirit of unquiet which had so much troubled Ireland during the last few years. While approving of the Emigration Clause, he would suggest to the Government that, in preference to it, they should, by means of a grant, endeavour to more fully develop the fisheries of Ireland, thereby affording employment to a large number of persons; and then there would be no need for emigration.
  Lord HOUGHTON and Lord BRABOURNErose together, and there were loud calls for both. Neither giving way,
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved that Lord Brabourne be heard.
  Motion agreed to.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that as no one in that part of the House had spoken in this debate, and as he had endeavoured to form an independent judgment on the Bill, he was anxious to address a few remarks to their Lordships. He regretted the speech which they had heard from the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), for as they had agreed to pass the Bill the less they inveighed against it the better. As he understood it, the principle of the measure was the formation of a new Court in Ireland—a Triumvirate—that was to manage the distribution of the property of the country. All he could say was that he hoped that the difficulties which would beset that tribunal would not approximate to the difficulties with which the Triumvirate of Ministers who took care of the Bill in its passage through their Lordships' House had had to contend. Of course, he did not say that the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had shown no ability in argument; but they were placed in a position of difficulty. Assailed in front by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), taken in the rear at the same time by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), their late Colleagues; and oppressed throughout with the incomprehensibility which seemed inherent to the very nature of this Bill, they had, indeed, deserved the pity of the
  1190
  House. But, in truth, these noble Lords had an impossible task to perform. They had to show, not only that the same property could at the same time belong to two different persons, but that, without diminishing the total value of that property, it was possible to increase the value of the portion which belonged to one person without any diminution of the value of the portion which belonged to the other. Their difficulty was indeed great, and the chief fear he had was that two years would not elapse before the difficulty of working the Bill would turn out to be so great that it would become absolutely necessary to introduce another measure to explain and amend it. He did not wish to say anything more against the Bill. His principal reason for rising was to state what, as it appeared to him, their Lordships had really done. In five sentences he thought he could tell their Lordships what they had done, and why what they had done ought to be accepted and embodied in the Bill. In the first place, they had determined that property legally purchased and duly paid for should not, to the loss of the purchaser, be handed back to the seller as a free gift by the Legislature. Secondly, they had determined that contracts entered into in strict compliance with the law should not be broken upon the application of one of the parties to such contracts. Thirdly, having constituted a new Court, they had provided that the parties who were to make use of it—namely, the landlords and tenants—should come before it upon something like an equal footing, and that the landlord should not be obliged to increase his rent as a preliminary step to applying to the Court. Fourthly, they had given to the Court some indication—although no express direction—as to the principles upon which it was to proceed, and they had struck out words which had a tendency to confuse. Fifthly, their Lordships had given an appeal from the decisions of this new Court; and, considering that some of the questions which would come before it were questions which had never come before a Court before, upon which there was no strict rule of law to direct and no previous decisions to guide the Court, the refusal of such an appeal would have been nothing but an injustice. He had already seen hard words used against their Lordships generally, and against

  1191
  the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in particular. He had formed an entirely opposite opinion with regard to the action of the noble Marquess. [Ironical laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] He was sorry that noble Lords were incapable of appreciating nobility of action on the part of an opponent. But the moderation which the noble Marquess had shown in deferring his own opinion to the opinion of the large majority of the House of Commons and of the Irish Representatives, the discretion he had shown in only attempting to eliminate from the Bill those provisions which most flagrantly offended against the principles of law, justice, and equity, and the clearness with which he placed the real issues involved in the Bill before the House, entitled him to the thanks of their Lordships and the gratitude of his countrymen. One more thing he (Lord Brabourne) desired to say. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) had recently taunted them with being a House of landowners. He (Lord Brabourne) had sometimes read such taunts in the columns of second-rate newspapers, or in the speeches of irresponsible orators upon Provincial platforms. He supposed it was his inexperience of their Lordships' House which caused him to feel great surprise when such a taunt was uttered by a Minister of the Crown. For what did it really mean, if it meant anything at all? A tailor was not held to be disqualified from judging of clothes because he was a tailor—the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack was not disqualified for making laws because he was a lawyer; and when it was said or insinuated that because their Lordships were landlords, and consequently knew a great deal about land and its management, they were disqualified for this kind of legislation, what was really meant was that their minds were too much warped and prejudiced to enable them to deal honestly with the question, and this he (Lord Brabourne) believed to be an utterly unjust charge, and one which they would all repudiate. He had only to add that he believed that if Her Majesty's Government fairly considered the Amendments made in the Bill they would find that they greatly improved the measure, and that if they were adopted, and the Bill suffered to pass into law as it left their Lordships'
  1192
  House, it would be a measure, not, indeed, conspicuous for its fair dealing with all parties concerned, but one which had been brought by their Lordships to bear at least some distant resemblance to an equitable settlement of a difficult question.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that there had been strong representations to them from the Government, showing the painful position in which they were placed during the last few months; and he defied them to say that, in any part of any country of the world, the landlords could have exhibited so much moderation and good humour as the Irish landlords had done in Committee of that House. He did not, like his noble Friend who had just sat down, hold in any special admiration the conduct of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). But it had been characterized by a total absence of anything like violent speeches or altercations. He could not but think that their Lordships had been considerably influenced in their decisions by the circumstance that this Bill had come from the House of Commons almost with universal consent. Why had it been so? It was because the House of Commons contained a very large number of most important Irish, landlords, and the bulk of them had been generous and appreciative towards the Bill. The measure would go to Ireland as a message of peace and conciliation from the landed proprietors to the Irish tenantry, and he did not concur with his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne) that within two years it would fail. It was the duty of everyone to give the measure a fair trial; and the Bill, in his opinion, would commend itself to the political feeling of all classes.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHwished to say that he trusted the Bill would not in the future be regarded as a precedent. Having, with a vast number of Peers on his side of the House, foregone his better judgment in consenting to this measure, he regretted that there should be indications that the hope upon which his conduct had been based might not be fulfilled. The hope was that the Bill would produce tranquillity in Ireland; but it had been rendered fainter during the last few days by the remarks that had been made by the agitators who were responsible for the disorder reigning in Ireland.
  LORD DENMANwould say "Not Content," to enable him to enter a protest on the Journals of the House against this defective measure. He complained that the constitution of the Court was very limited without the co-operation of Boards of Guardians, and contained no provisions for retiring pensions for the Commissioners, except for the chief, who was made a Judge of the High Court of Justice. At the same time, he sincerely hoped that Ireland would before long enjoy greater happiness than any which ever could be expected from the effects alone of the measure now before their Lordships.
  On question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Fire o'clock.