asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Fenians lately confined in Portland Prison were treated in a different and more indulgent man- ner than the other prisoners; and, if so, whether the relaxation of the prison regulations in their favour was in consequence of orders to that effect; and, if so, by whom were such orders given; and, whether upon the departure from Cork of the released Fenian prisoners for America any, and what sum of money was given to any of them; and, if so, by whom, and to how many, and for what reason, was such money given?

, in reply, said, the Fenian prisoners lately confined at Portland were, as a measure of security, kept separate from the other prisoners by an order of the Directors given in May, 1866. The Governor was directed by that order to employ these prisoners as a separate party on a description of labour equal to their ability in point both of strength and of knowledge. As a matter of fact, he believed the labour to which they were put was of the lightest kind assigned to prisoners; but their frequent insubordination and consequent punishment made it very difficult for the Governor to obtain any work from them. The only other relaxation of the rules made in their favour of which he was aware was that, in consequence of their friends being rarely able to visit them, owing to the distance from them at which they lived, these prisoners were allowed to receive more letters than the other prisoners by way of compensation. With regard to the money given to them, the course pursued was—mutatis mutandis—the same as in the case of any other prisoners. The practice was, when prisoners were released, to pay the expense of their journey to their place of destination, and to forward a sum varying from £3 to £6, by instalments, to some trustworthy persons, or to the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, in case the prisoners were wise enough to consent to that application of the money, in order to provide them with the means of living until they could obtain work. In this instance the passage money of the prisoners was paid for them successively not as first-class passengers, as had been stated, but as second-class passengers, in the first ships that went out from this country; and they were also supplied with £5 for the same purpose as the money given to other released prisoners. Twenty of them received that sum, and of the four others who were released, three of them were discharged in consequence of their term of imprisonment being about to expire, and the fourth was released on a licence in consequence of his extreme state of ill-health. The money given to them was provided out of the Supplies granted by Parliament.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Consul at Paris was absent from his post during the siege with the knowledge and by the permission of the Government; and, if yea, on what ground such permission was given?

, in reply, said, Lord Lyons being intrusted with discretionary powers on the subject by Her Majesty's Government, and acting in concert with his official colleagues in Paris, under the advice of M. Jules Favre, left that city on the 17th of September last. Some days previously he thought it advisable only to retain so many members of the Embassy as were absolutely necessary to carry on the current work. Mr. Lascelles and Mr. Atlee, who is attaché as well as Consul, were selected to leave; they were not, however, to quit France, and were to remain within reach. Previous to Lord Lyons leaving Paris, he did all he could to persuade the British residents to leave; and he urged on them the great risk and danger to which they would be subjected if they resided longer in that city whilst under a state of siege. Similar representations were afterwards made by Mr. Wodehouse, who remained for some time in charge of the Embassy. When at the commencement of the bombardment it was ascertained that many British residents were still in Paris, and difficulties arose as to any diplomatic or consular officer entering the city, the rank of Consul was conferred upon a gentleman well known in Paris, and who had used the most praiseworthy and generous exertions to succour and support the distressed British—by name Mr. Blount, and he has since been acting in that capacity. Mr. Wodehouse has, within the last few days, returned to Paris, and Mr. West is on his way there at the present moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to introduce again the Bill for continuing Turnpike Trusts, of which the original Acts have expired; or to introduce any Bill having for its object the abolition of Turnpike Tolls?

, in reply, said, the usual Continuance Bill would, be introduced this Session. The Act passed last year would secure the extinction of a good many more turnpike trusts than usual; and, in order to facilitate the ultimate abolition of all turnpike tolls, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill making the adoption of the Highway Act compulsory.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in conformity with his statement to the House last year, he is prepared to bring in a measure this Session to remedy the state of the law as to the use of false weights and measures, and the adulteration of food, drink, and drugs; or failing that, whether he will introduce such clauses into his proposed Licensing Bill as will effectually meet the evil?

, in reply, said, with reference to the use of false weights and measures a Bill was now in preparation by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. C. Fortescue), who authorized him to say that he hoped in the course of the present Session to be able to introduce it. As to the adulteration of food, drink, and drugs, he apprehended that the Licensing Bill which he himself would bring in would deal very stringently, and he hoped, also, effectually, with the adulteration of drinks. But it was not his intention, in the present Session, to legislate with reference to food or drugs.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of the In- structions given by the Admiralty to the Committee on Designs of Ships of War, and the Report of the Board of Construction of the Navy to that Committee on the cause of the loss of Her Majesty's ship "Captain?"

If the hon. and gallant Baronet will move for the first Paper referred to in his Question — namely, the instructions given by the Admiralty to the Committee on Designs of Ships of War, there will be no objection to its production. But it would be unusual and inconvenient to lay on the Table of this House Papers in the nature of evidence furnished to such Committee before it has reported, and therefore I hope that the second Paper referred to will not be asked for in the meantime.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any steps have been, or are intended to be taken, for providing a Patent Museum and offices adequate to the requirements of the nation, in pursuance of the Report for 1869 of the Patent Law Commissioners, and the several previous Reports therein referred to?

, in reply, stated that he held in his hand the Report to which the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question referred; but he was unable to find a recommendation in favour of any particular plan. In one part of that Report it was stated that it would be desirable that a Patent Museum should be built at Kensington; in another part reference was made to a suggestion that the proposed building should be erected on the Thames Embankment; while in another part it was stated that for the last 18 years a great many parties had been anxious that it should be built on the site of the present office in Southampton Buildings. He believed that for the last 18 years it had been a moot point where it would be convenient for the new Patent Office to be erected, and what should be put in it when it was built. It was doubtful whether any such building could be erected until an Act of Parliament was passed to regulate the management of the museum, having regard to the interests of manufacturers and traders. He might further observe that during the last few years the whole of the Patent Laws had been called in question, and Notice had been given by one hon. Member of his intention to introduce a measure dealing with those laws, and by two other hon. Members of their intention to move for a Select Committee in order to effect their total abolition. In the view of the possibility of the Patent Laws being entirely swept away, it would scarcely be desirable that steps should be taken to build a new Patent Museum.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any ground whatsoever for the published statement that the German military authorities are placing impediments in the way of importing provisions into Paris?

It is not in my power to give more than an imperfect answer to the Question of the hon. Member. Undoubtedly, to my great regret, the Government have heard that there have been very considerable impediments placed in the way of transporting provisions to Paris; but we have received no information to justify us in placing the responsibility for those impediments upon the Prussian military authorities. The latest information, in fact, that we have received is from Captain Cowen, who was at Havre yesterday, and who stated that provisions could not pass by rail either to Paris or to Rouen, but that they were being sent by river; that every effort would be made by him, and that he was going to Rouen to see the Prussian commandant there upon the subject. In the meantime a telegram was sent by the Foreign Office to Versailles to lay the difficulties in the way of the transit of provisions to Paris before the Prussian military authorities, and to beg that they might be removed as far as lay in their power. I may, however, say that in a country devastated by war the state of the railways and of the rolling stock may account for the circumstances which we all so deeply regret.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties which will arise at the approaching Assizes in respect of the payment of Jurors under the provisions of the Jury Act passed last Session, and the insufficiency of the funds available for such payments; and whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt any means to obviate such difficulties; and, whether the Government propose to introduce a measure for the amendment of the Jury system?

, in reply, said, that the measure to which the Question of the hon. and learned Member referred had been under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and, although he believed the measure, on the whole, to be a good one, great objection had undoubtedly been raised to one of its clauses which related to the payment of jurors. It was questionable, indeed, whether that particular clause was sound in principle, and he had himself some doubt whether parties ought to be taxed for the payment of jurors, because it was a question whether if jurors were to be paid they ought not to be paid by the State. The clause in question had given rise to considerable difficulty in Westminster Hall, and would in all probability occasion still greater inconvenience on the circuit. Under these circumstances, he proposed to introduce a short Bill to repeal this particular clause in the Act, and it would be a question whether some better machinery could not be devised in its place.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will consent to postpone taking any Vote in the Army Estimates till the House has had time to consider the changes in Army Organization to be proposed in the Bill which he intends to introduce on Thursday next?

I think the proposal is a perfectly reasonable one. I shall not ask for any Vote in the Army Estimates until the plan for the reorganization of the Army has been laid upon the Table of the House. I had, perhaps, better state that the course I think it will be most convenient to take is that I should make my statement on Thursday next in Committee of Supply, and that Progress should then be reported, in order that the House may have time to consider the plan for the reorganization of the Army before it is asked to agree to a Vote in the Army Estimates.

In view of this being a subject of such importance to the security of the State, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not proceed to take any Vote in any Estimates until hon. Members have had a week in which to consider his proposal.

I do not intend to ask for any decision of the House upon the subject until full time for consideration has been given. The first Vote in the Army Estimates will not be taken for at least a week after the day on which my statement will be made.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government are acting in concert with other neutral Powers to secure terms of peace between France and Germany of such moderation as will insure the permanent tranquillity of Europe?

As regards the steps that have been taken by Her Majesty's Government up to the present time, I may refer to the Papers laid upon the Table of the House, or I should rather say, which have been distributed among hon. Members this morning, to which I have only to add that on the 20th of January a Paper posterior to that collection of Papers was framed, in which a suggestion has been conveyed to the German Government that it might with great advantage make known to France the terms of peace upon which they propose to insist. I am not able to say whether any step has been taken by the Prussian Government in consequence of that communication; but with regard to the present and to the future I may state that we are not at this moment acting in concert with the other neutral Powers respecting the terms of peace to be agreed upon. In saying this, I do not in any way intend to recede from the views expressed on Thursday night that the terms of peace are matters of legitimate interest to the neutral Powers; but those who are the primary and chief authorities in framing the terms of peace are the two belligerents; and at the pre- sent moment we have no reason to believe that it is the desire of either of the belligerents that the neutral Powers should take any steps in the matter. Recollecting that we are now within a very few days of the time when a Representative Assembly will meet in France, which will in every sense be qualified to act for the people, I think that the hon. Member will agree with me that it is better not to press this matter further at the present moment.

reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:—

I thank you for your loyal Address.

In your good wishes upon the Marriage of My Daughter I gratefully recognise a fresh proof of your attachment to My Throne and Person.

I receive with much satisfaction the assurance of your concurrence in My prayer that the present Armistice may result in an honourable and durable peace between the two great Nations now unhappily at war.

I earnestly trust that all your efforts for the promotion of the welfare of My People, and the security of My Empire, may be directed to a prosperous issue.

I rise, Sir, to make a proposal the same in terms and the same in substance which has been made on former similar occasions—namely, on the occasions offered by the marriages of the Princess Louis of Hesse and the Princess Christian. And I should have been very glad if it had been consistent with my duty to assume, without doubt, as the Government has been able to assume at the periods which I have named, that there would be an unanimous—either literally or substantially—acceptance of the proposal. I feel it to be a subject for regret that there should be any doubt—I do not say as to its acceptance by the House: of that I have no doubt, nor of is acceptance by a very decisive expression of opinion have I any doubt—but of the vote which any hon. Gentle- man may feel disposed to give on such an occasion. Nor is it the House alone that would be disappointed, I think, if any real difficulty were to be interposed in the way of passing such a measure; for I am persuaded that the whole nation, with very rare exceptions, would regard with surprise and dissatisfaction the hesitation of Parliament to make the becoming and usual provision for a Princess of the Royal House of Her Majesty. With respect, Sir, to the circumstances of the contemplated marriage between the Princess Louise and Lord Lorne, it is not necessary for me to dwell upon them at any length. The character of the Royal Bride is known to some of us by personal intercourse, to others by the voice which rumour carries forth; and I do not think that rumour has ever carried forth, in any case recorded in our modern history, impressions more satisfactory or more delightful than those which have been conveyed to the popular mind with respect to the Princess Louise. But happily, that is not a novelty in the records of our time, for the daughters of the Queen, for whom we have been formerly called to make a becoming provision, have had every claim upon our admiration and regard. But there is a novelty in the present instance, although I am persuaded that novelty can hardly be in the mind of any among us (or, if in any, it must be in the mind of a few only) a source of doubt or dissatisfaction, —it is that the Princess Louise is about to bestow her hand upon a British subject. Now, Sir, in the resolution which the Queen has taken that the absence of Royal rank shall not of itself, and in every case, form an insuperable bar to a suit for the hand of one of her daughters, she is not acting without the advice of responsible Ministers. But she has shown, in coming to such a resolution, another manifestation of that principle which has governed her life—the principle which has taught her, amid the pomp and splendour, and amid the duties and cares of Royalty, never to forget the womanly and motherly character. She has justly impressed on the mind of the country a belief that there is no mother throughout the wide expanse of her dominions to whom the personal happiness of her children is more intensely dear. Her object has been ever to choose, as husbands for her children, or to favour the choice of, persons upon all the points of whose character and, above all, upon whose governing principles she could entirely rely. Acting upon that rule, she has seen marriages of her daughters to foreign Princes, which have been to her a source of delight and satisfaction; and it is not from any disparagement of or disappointment in such marriages that in the present instance a different course is pursued. The real principle now is the same as it has been on each successive occasion—namely, the desire that the person who is honoured with the hand of the Princess Louise should be one in whose character her future destinies should, humanly speaking, be safe. But anyone who doubts the prudence of the course now to be pursued may do well to reflect that if the Queen has been pleased, and if the Princsse Louise has been pleased, to depart from the former practice, the practice so departed from can hardly be termed ancient. It was no unusual thing in the history of this country, but far otherwise, for persons of the Royal House to bestow their hands upon British subjects. And I must say that such a practice is agreeable to the usages and social system of the country. The feelings, habits, and convictions of the country are not altogether favourable to the formation of classes absolutely exclusive. We have a perpetual blending of class with class familiar to our daily experience. We see it in the intermingling of the titled aristocracy of the country with the untitled gentry, and of the untitled gentry with the middle classes; and this interlacing we all believe to be wholesome and beneficial, and not the least operative among the many sources of the happiness of the people and of the firmness of the social structure. I know no reason why such a principle should not be applicable to the highest class of all, in which we have not seen it recently applied; or why there should not occasionally be a descent, if so it is to be called, of the Royal Family itself into the ranks of the higher nobility. I will not dwell further upon the special circumstances of the marriage, because I rest confidently in the belief that they are calculated to give, and that they have given, very general satisfaction. Now, Sir, as I think it is my duty to anticipate every reasonable, or even unreasonable, objection that, so far as I can divine—and I own that I find the task one of difficulty—may be made, or scruple that may be entertained, I proceed next to notice what I hardly think will form the subject of difficulty in the minds of anyone who reflects for a moment—namely, the amount of the provision I now ask the House to make. The annuity of £6,000 a year is now proposed to the Committee, and in the regular course the portion of £30,000 will be voted as one of the grants of the year. I do not think, whatever may be his political opinions or social position, that any Gentleman will consider this provision an immoderate one in connection with the position of the Royal Bride, and with the scale of living and expenditure in this country. But, in order to show that the hand of modern economy has not been idle, I may compare the provision made for the younger daughters of the Royal House of our time with that made at an earlier period for the younger daughters of George III. The Princess Augusta Sophia had an annuity, partly out of the Consolidated Fund, and partly out of the Civil List, of £15,000 a year; the Princess Elizabeth had £14,000 a year; the Princess Sophia had £13,000 a year; and the Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester, had £14,000 a year; besides which there was a similar sum voted for her husband. I will assume, therefore, for the present, that it is not on the amount of this provision that the controversy—and I confess I regard it as a somewhat unworthy and paltry controversy—can be raised. But certain questions may have occurred in the minds of hon. Gentlemen. It seems to be asked, are we now called upon to make provision in a case where provision has virtually been made already? That, I understand, is the doctrine which some are disposed to maintain. My contention is that no provision whatever has been made for this case. I know that a vague idea is entertained that the Queen has a large income, and that out of this it would be her duty to effect savings, like other parents, out of which her daughters should be competently endowed. But there is not the same power of regulating expenditure as in the case of private incomes, nor an equal facility, therefore, for storing annual receipt with a view to family arrangements. Undoubted, the Sovereign of this kingdom has a large income; but, although it is a large income, it is an income which, far more than any other large income in the country, is predetermined to special purposes; an income of which only very limited portions are under the control and discretion of the Sovereign. The nominal amount of the Sovereign's income, if we add together the Civil List and the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, may be larger, possibly, than that of any subject, though there are a few among subjects who may come near it; but there are, undoubtedly, subjects in this country who have the real command over, and can expend at their free choice and pleasure, larger sums than are practically at the disposal of the Sovereign. Gentlemen who study the structure of the Civil List Acts will perceive that Parliament studiously lays down the application of the monies granted to the Sovereign, and confines them to the special services for which they are destined. In truth, when an arrangement of this kind is made with a Sovereign, the most sanguine expectation commonly entertained by a rational Legislature is that the Sovereign shall, by good husbandry, remain in a position to keep strict faith with the people, and shall not come to Parliament from time to time making pleas on one ground or another to show the insufficiency of the provision, and to disturb the bargain made, by new demands for the same purpose upon the public purse. I need hardly remind the House that we are now in the 34th year of a reign during which on no single occasion has any such demand been made. The management of the Royal household, and the management of the Royal income, have set an example of economy and good order to all the families of the country. But the present question is whether there is any, the slightest, foundation for the belief some may entertain that it is the duty of the Sovereign to effect such savings out of the income of the Crown as will be sufficient to meet these purposes. Now, Sir, I will say that I believe that this is not only not the duty, but even that it is out of the power of the Sovereign. This is a matter that is governed by practice—I do not mean by a written rule of practice, I do not mean by a literal covenant—I mean that practice of honour and good understanding and loyalty, which arises out of, and which is irrefragably confirmed by, a long and unmistakable course of precedent. The House knows very well that it is only within the present century that, after much labour directed to that end, it has been found practicable to come to a close, intelligible, and satisfactory arrangement with regard to the support of the Royal dignity and person. At the commencement of every reign a sum is allotted by an Act called the Civil List Act for that purpose. Does that Civil List Act contemplate a provision being made out of the funds it grants for the maintenance of the Royal children? I say it does not; and the proof that it does not is that, under all circumstances, it has been the established and understood practice of every Government to come to Parliament from time to time, and to ask for some separate provision to be made on behalf of the Royal children. The expense of the Royal children in their youth—in their youth I include the period up to their marriage or their attaining full age—has been borne by the Sovereign without any appeal to Parliament; but the practice has uniformly been that when the Royal children pass into independent life, whether by marriage or by attaining full age, or at whatever precise date, to apply to Parliament to make a provision. I fully admit that I am not prepared to quote anything in the nature of a written agreement on the subject; but I am prepared to affirm that the argument of practice has in this case the force of a demonstration. Now, in 1830, the Civil List of William IV. was fixed at £435,000 a year, and no better period for an economical precedent could be taken. I doubt if even a period as good could be found. I do not say that the commencement of the present reign has not also been excellent in that respect; but certainly there never was a time when there was a greater desire evinced on both sides of the House to draw the reins tightly and to prevent anything like extravagance in public expenditure than there was at the commencement of the reign of William IV. The sum then assigned to the Civil List was £435,000. But the sum given on the accession of the Queen was reduced to £385,000, And why? I think it evident that the amount was reduced because, in the case of William IV. there had been a Queen Consort, whereas Queen Victoria was unmarried at the commencement of her reign, and the contemplation was that if Her Majesty were to marry, then the time would arrive for Parliament to consider what increase of expenditure would necessarily follow upon any change of establishment and life which would so be produced. Shortly after, Her Majesty was happily married. And what then happened? A new proposal was made to Parliament, and a Vote was taken on behalf of the Prince Consort as the husband of the Queen, in addition to the Civil List. Therefore, from the Civil List, originally fixed in 1830, a reduction was made in 1837. It was made when the Queen was a maiden, it was altered when the Queen was married. It is impossible to have a stronger attestation of the principle upon which these matters have been uniformly regulated. Now, the fact that there is a uniform practice of this kind — what I should call a loyal and honourable understanding and practice—is quite conclusive; but, at the same time, I would beg the House to consider that the contract or arrangement is no very unfavourable one to the public. When we granted the Civil List, at the commencement of the reign, we did not grant it without an equivalent. We received in return those lands which formed the endowment of the Crown. It would, at least, be not too much to say that in a country governed by a monarchy the Crown ought to have the largest of all personal endowments. Accordingly, the Crown of this country has had, and so the Crown of this country would at this moment have had, an income much exceeding any private income, if the estates of the Crown had been used from time to time as those belonging to private individuals are — namely, solely for the purpose of extracting from them the greatest amount of profit it is possible to gain. Still, it so happens that, at the present day, the net revenue of the estates of the Crown has just reached the sum paid to Her Majesty under the Civil List Act. The sum paid from the Consolidated Fund on account of the Civil List Act amounts to £385,000, and the net sum paid into the Exchequer as the proceeds of these Crown lands is estimated for the present or coming year to amount to £385,000 also. Therefore, there is no very great or glaring difference in the case thus viewed. I know, of course, that there are some other emoluments enjoyed by the Crown, and that various other grants have also been made to members of the Royal Family; but, on the other hand, we should look at the valuable acquirements made by the people in the Parks of London and the Parks in the neighbourhood, which have been devoted for every practical purpose to the benefit of the nation. I ask, what do you believe would be the income of the Crown if the Parks of London, instead of being placed under particular provisions for the public good, had been cut up into building lots, and if the Parks in the neighbourhood of London had been, or were now to be, laid out for the erection of villas—that is, if this land had been used by and for the interest of the Crown for years, or rather for generations past, as it would have been used if it had belonged to private proprietors? I believe, though I have no right to give an estimate with authority, that in that case the annual independent income of the Crown would, perhaps, be not less at this moment than a million sterling. But the truth is, Sir, that this is a very narrow view of the case to take. There is a much deeper and a much broader question involved. The competent support—not the lavish and extravagant, but the competent and becoming support—of the Crown and the Royal Family is an important and an indispensable part of our political system. It is not the money paid back from the Crown lands into the Exchequer that forms the real equivalent to the public. That equivalent is to be found in the additional security given for the political benefits and blessings that we enjoy. We have not far to look to learn how difficult it is on this side of the Atlantic to bestow upon democratic and popular forms of government on a large scale the conditions of stability, and how difficult also it is to root monarchical forms of government in the affections of a nation where unhappily the union of tradition may not have been altogether favourable to such an association. And we have seen, too, how instability of succession places dynasties in this position—that the interior policy of a country becomes subservient, almost of necessity, to the interests of family, and that questions of peace and war, if pursued to their first causes, may be too often referable to considerations of what would be popular, or what would be unpopular, in reference to the interests of particular families. I trust, and I do not doubt, that this House, acting with that wisdom which guides it upon every great constitutional question, will perceive that we should commit the grossest of all errors if we were to be content with entering into minute pecuniary calculations upon a subject of this nature; if we were to regard this simply as a question whether or not a grant should be made on mere pecuniary grounds as matter of account, and not as one affecting the happiness and welfare of the people of this country, for which the existence of an ancient and deep-rooted monarchy constitutes one, at least, among the best and most effectual guarantees. I admit, indeed, that there is something to be said from another point of view. The practice of the House has been on all occasions to make those grants with cheerfulness—almost with eagerness. I think, unless my memory deceives me, I have heard a large number of Members in this House object to the grants more on the ground of their being too small than as being too large; and I am afraid that objections now taken may hereafter tend to promote a reaction in the direction of excess. But these Votes have on all occasions within my recollection been liberally and cheerfully voted, and if they were no longer to be liberally and cheerfully voted the act of asking for them would become intolerable to any person of high spirit and of due self-respect. It would be impossible for the Sovereign—it would be impossible not for a Sovereign only, but for any person endowed with, a just sense of duty, and, therefore, with that self-respect which is a part of duty, to enter into angry controversy with Parliament, should Parliament be so disposed, on such questions. And what would be the consequence? We should have to change our system. At the commencement of a reign, besides giving to the Lord Steward what he requires, and giving to the Lord Chamberlain what he requires, and so forth under the various heads, we should have to do what is done in so many private families—we should have to provide for all these distant contingencies and secure beforehand a becoming income to the children of the Sovereign. The effect of that would be—first, a great diminution of the moral control of Parliament over the Royal Family; and, secondly, a great diminution of the moral control of Royal parents over their rising families of children. It is, to my mind, open to much doubt whether it can be in the interests of a State that such a change should be made. And, undoubtedly, it is not in the pecuniary interests of the Sovereign that the present system is pursued. It exposes the Sovereign—it exposes the younger members of her family, who have never known reproach in any form—to idle vituperation, or, if vituperation is too harsh a word, to idle objections and to cavil. No doubt for the Sovereign it would be convenient enough that all these provisions should be made beforehand. But the present system, whatever it may be in other respects, is a system national and popular in its spirit—a system founded on those free relations of generous confidence which ought always to govern the conduct of the Sovereign of this country towards the Parliament. The Sovereign confides and trusts that when a reasonable and becoming demand is made, the occasion having arisen, Parliament will not hesitate for a moment to meet that demand; and Parliament has ever acted in such a manner as to justify this confidence by facts. I am sure that no one who considers the case will fail to see that this method under which from time to time, as mature age is attained by members of the Royal Family, or as marriage is about to be contracted, Parliament is asked to make proper provision, is a system conceived in the interest of the people, and likewise one which can only work as long as harmonious and cordial relations are maintained between the Sovereign and the Parliament. Sir, I think that if that be so it is needless for me to go further in the discussion of this important matter. It may be that some Gentlemen have discovered elements in it which have not met our view; but confident as I am that we are acting according to the principle of good faith, according to old and uniform precedent, and according to sound policy, I have not the least hesitation in putting, Sir, into your hands a Resolution which I am confident will command the assent of an overwhelming majority of the House, and which has for its object to make, in view of her approaching marriage, the usual provision for the daughter of the Queen.

, in moving that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the best means of promoting the Despatch of Public Business in this House, said, as he had already detained the House at perhaps too great length, he would take care now not to fall into a similar error. He thought there was such a general concurrence as to the necessity of appointing this Committee that it would be best to avoid on the present occasion all discussion as to details, and he would merely remind hon. Members that the proposal had grown out of an occasion of a very grave nature. On a subject of a most critical character which arose for discussion in the course of last year they had the spectacle of Members rising in their places to require the withdrawal of Strangers. Some approved the proceeding on the part of Members who so used their privilege, others questioned the propriety of it; but almost everyone owned that it created an absolute necessity for the consideration of the subject. The general pressure of business on the House made it also desirable that a Committee should be appointed, who would have an opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, who was the highest authority, and other high authorities connected with the working and management of the business of the House, and he had therefore great confidence in proposing the Motion of which he had given Notice.

rose to move an Amendment to the effect that it is not expedient to restrict further the privileges afforded to private Members by the present arrangements for the business of the House. As it had fallen to his lot last year to do his utmost to prevent the rights of private Members from being infringed upon, he had felt it his duty to place this Amendment upon the Paper for the purpose of obtaining some expression of opinion to the effect that, if any change was to be made, those rights and privileges which rendered that House the most respected of all popular Assemblies should in no way be diminished. He had been still further actuated by the recollection that no Committee had been appointed under the right hon. Gentleman without further restricting those privileges, and also by a report which had been widely spread as to the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. Besides, he had read an article in a certain Review with which the right hon. Gentleman was familiar, which had gone deeply into this question; and though it could not certainly have been written by any Member of Her Majesty's Government, because none of them would disclose the policy likely to be adopted by himself and his Colleagues, yet it was known that the right hon. Gentleman had intimate relations with that Review, and the article in question might, to use a foreign phrase, be fairly looked upon as having been "communicated." In this article considerable onslaught was made on the privileges of private Members. In the first place, it was suggested that the power of putting Questions in Committee of Supply should be taken away, and then that some foreign invention called the clôture should be used. With regard to the first point, he wished to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the last debate on the Report of the Committee of 1861 Certain Resolutions were at that time proposed for the adoption of the House by Lord Palmerston, the principle of which was to take away from private Members their right to Thursday, giving the Government Thursday and Monday evenings, and also to deprive private Members of their privilege of putting Questions on the Adjournment of the House; while in exchange Friday was made an Order day, and Supply was put at the head of the Orders. On that occasion Lord Palmerston said that—

"It was more in unison with the fundamental principles of the Constitution that when Supply is proposed it shall be open to every Member to discuss any subject."

Well, if that were so, and if he did not get from the right hon. Gentleman a distinct pledge that this vital principle of the Constitution was not to be interfered with, he would be disposed to divide the House against the Motion. He came now to another point, that of Morning Sittings. In 1867 and 1868 his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire introduced a new plan of Morning Sittings which interfered greatly with the rights and privileges of private Members. He believed his right hon. Friend now considered he had committed a great error of judgment, and would gladly retrace his steps. What had been the result? By making the Morning Sitting commence at 2 instead of 12, and end at 7 instead of 4, private Members lost at least 2½ hours a day on an average. Besides, there was the great inconvenience that professional men and men of business could not attend so well under the new plan. Then there was this further inconvenience—that mischievous people came down to the House, and in the Session of 1869 the House was counted out by these mischievous Gentlemen no fewer than four times, and three times last Session. Apart from the actual inconvenience of Morning Sittings, other encroachments had been made on the privileges of private Members. Until the year 1869 the Morning Sittings rarely commenced before the middle of the month of June; but in that year, on the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), they were begun at a much earlier period—on the 4th of May—and were continued almost till the end of the Session. Again, last Session, the right hon. Gentleman, on the 31st of March, announced to the House that on the following day he intended to move for Morning Sittings, and he continued these Morning Sittings on every Tuesday and Friday till the Easter vacation. And for what reason? That he might remedy the blunder he had committed in his policy with regard to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was a powerful Minister, with great command over his supporters, and, possessing a large majority, might find other means of saving the public time besides curtailing the privileges now enjoyed by independent Members. Unless some satisfactory promise were given by the Government on that subject, he should press his Amendment to a Division.

said, he believed he was able to give the hon. Member every satisfaction that he required. He appeared to think that the Government had some foregone conclusion, some formidable proposal to make, which they would be able to carry through the Committee to the great disadvantage of private Members. The Government knew perfectly well that it would be impossible to make any alteration in the mode of conducting the Public Business unless the consent of the House was freely given to such alteration. Consequently, their desire was that the most competent Committee that could be formed should be appointed to consider the whole matter without prejudice. Government influence had nothing whatever to do with it. The conclusion at which the Committee arrived would be their spontaneous act. Under these circumstances, he thought the hon. Gentleman would see that it would not be well to tie up the hands of the Committee in any way.

said, that having been a Member of the Committee of 1861, he had naturally watched the effect of the recommendations of that Committee, as they had come into operation after receiving the sanction and approval of the House. On several occasions previous to the passing of the Reform Bill, he had entertained some doubt whether the House had duly considered its own dignity in framing the Standing Orders, which it had adopted, and since the passing of that Bill he had become convinced that the Standing Orders ought to be considerably changed, for the purpose of remedying the confusion which prevailed in the transaction of Public Business. In the reformed House there was at first a strong inclination to curtail debates on great and vital questions, while the practice had grown up of hon. Members leaving the House almost empty during certain hours of the night. He was sorry to say that sometimes when questions of the greatest interest had been before the House, those who ought to have led the Opposition had been absent for hours. There were instances of the House having been counted out during the well-known dinner hour. He thought the time had come when the House ought to consider whether it would not conform its proceedings in some measure to the well-known social habits of its Members. He considered it unbecoming that the conduct of Public Business should be left in the hands of a small minority from half-past 7 to half-past 8 in the evening. He had no doubt that it was this consideration which induced the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire to propose Morning Sittings to commence at 2 p.m., but the proposal was too absolute, and the interval chosen was too long; it might be possible, however, to make some modification of that principle, so as to prevent the House from neglecting matters of great importance in the absence of hon. Members during the dinner hour. He agreed with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) that the privileges of independent Members ought not to be curtailed. There had been carelessness on the part of the great body of the House on the subject of Questions put before the commencement of the regular business of the House began each afternoon. One of the objects of the Committee of 1861 was the limitation of the enormous number of Questions on Fridays on going into Committee of Supply, but it seemed to him (Mr. Newdegate) that now this excess of Questions prevailed whenever the House sat. The House had virtually no control over the Questions which were asked; he had heard Questions put which were most unworthy of the attention of the House, and yet the House had no opportunity of expressing its opinion either for or against these Questions. Before that habit grew up hon. Members were in the habit of submitting Motions, and then the House had the opportunity of expressing their opinion upon them, but the House was quite helpless in the case of Questions. Another inconvenience was the late hour at which the important business was sometimes brought on—an hour when those advanced in years were unable to attend in their places, when they were exhausted by the labours of the day. If any hon. Member watched his opportunity and pressed on his business between 1 and 2 in the morning, there was no resource for those who objected, but to move adjournments, and to incur the imputation of faction. Besides this, it was impossible for the newspapers to report debates that occurred after a certain hour. Business of importance was thus often debated without the country knowing anything of the discussion, although the public were under the impression that they were fully cognizant of all the Parliamentary proceedings which took place. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for fulfilling his promise of last year, by proposing that the House should have another opportunity of re-considering the Standing Order by which its debates were regulated, and concurred with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) in thinking that the great body of the House ought to resist any further restrictions upon its independent action. He thought it necessary to the dignity of the House that it should endeavour to adopt such rules as would restrict the obtrusion of Questions over which the House had not adequate command, and by some expression of opinion enjoin that every Member should pay proper attention to the dignity of the House.

avowed his readiness, as a private Member, to waive some portion of the privileges which he now enjoyed; and he would do this the more readily that one result of the privileges private Members now enjoyed was that he had frequently been compelled to listen to long discussions in which he felt little interest, and which led to no practical result, up to 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, because the interests of his constituents were involved in legislation, often of a very experimental character, attempted at that hour. Upon Members who were engaged in mercantile or commercial pursuits during the day attendance at such hours as those pressed with great severity—especially when it was remembered that they were expected to be again at business the following day. It was really becoming a question whether hon. Members could hope to combine with their own proper avocations the duties of a Member of the Legislature. The appointment of a Committee, he feared, would have the effect of delaying any remedy to the end of this Session or the beginning of the next. Might it not, therefore, be possible to apply some remedy at once? If there were an understanding that no new business should be taken after 12 o'clock at night it would be possible to close the general debate at 11 o'clock. There was no good reason why this should not be done. Something could be gained at the other end of the Sitting, for Private Business was frequently got through at, or shortly after, 4 o'clock; yet the Speaker was obliged to remain patiently in the Chair till half-past 4 o'clock before the Public Business could commence. It might also be practicable to place some limits on the time occupied by speakers.

said, he had anticipated, from the terms of the Notice given, that the Motion to be proposed by the Government would be similar in spirit to the speech just made by the hon. Member opposite—that was to say, that it would proceed upon the assumption that the forms of the House were used by private Members, if not for the purpose of obstructing, at least with the effect of impeding Government legislation, and that it was accordingly desirable to appoint a Committee to ascertain whether it was not possible further to curtail the privileges of private Members, and to increase the opportunities of carrying Government measures. But he now learned distinctly from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that they had no object, purpose, or intention of restricting, and would not lend themselves in any way further to restrict, the privileges of the House or the opportunities of debate—

The right hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that "we never would lend ourselves." What I did was to suggest the appointment of a Committee to investigate the subject, and that the whole subject should be left to the consideration of the Committee.

said, that on the last occasion when a Motion on the subject was made from the Government Bench, he moved an Amendment similar to that of the hon. Member for Whitehaven, knowing that frequent attempts had been made with the result of removing some of the safeguards that had been estab- lished for the protection of the minority. If any intention existed to restrict the privileges of Members it would only have been fair to state it openly, and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would have done so. Understanding that the Government had no proposition of that kind to make, and that when the Committee reported hon. Members would be perfectly free to express their opinions in case any changes hostile to the privileges of the House should be recommended, he thought it advisable that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the Committee should be appointed without opposition. As far as private Members were concerned, any change, he thought, ought to be in the direction of restoration rather than restriction.

expressed his entire concurrence in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that any change which might be made ought to be rather in the direction of increasing than of decreasing the rights of private Members, which had been attacked and impaired on former occasions. If there was one question more important than another, it was the freedom and independence of Members. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government told them that he had not arrived at any foregone conclusion. He was quite prepared to assume that the right hon. Gentleman was the very soul of candour; that he never at any time in his life had the slightest feeling of reticence, but was always prepared to lay before the House every thought and feeling of his mind. But why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman move the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the business and proceedings of the House? Was it possible that he could have done this without having arrived at some foregone conclusion? Was it to be supposed that he had made this Motion without thinking that some change was required; or was it likely that the right hon. Gentleman, with his grasp of mind and attention to business, had never considered in what direction he would like the change to be? Gentlemen who were in the House of Commons formerly at the same time as himself, would remember the attacks which were then made on the privileges of independent Members by previous Governments, and the promises then made which had never been redeemed. In 1861 there was a change in the order of business, with the distinct understanding that Supply was to be put down on Friday nights for the purpose of enabling private Members to introduce any subject which they might wish to discuss, and the much lamented noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), then at the head of the Government, gave a pledge which, no doubt, he fully meant to carry out, that the Government would always keep a House on Friday nights for the purpose. Subsequent Governments, however, had failed to redeem the pledge, and the consequence was that Friday nights were virtually lost to private Members. He much regretted that a clearer explanation had not been given by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He most deeply regretted—and he was sure every Member of the House would deeply regret—the absence from the House of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who had always exercised great control over the proceedings of the Government itself, and of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of it. He could not think that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham had been present now, acting in the spirit which had always made him one of the most able champions of the liberties of the House, he would have failed to raise his voice and to protest against any inroad being made on the rights of private Members; and he trusted that when the matter again came under consideration the House would have the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman's presence. For his own part, he did not believe the Committee could meet without coming to some conclusion adverse to the rights of private Members. As happened 10 or 12 years ago, when this subject was investigated, the inquiry would result in a fight between those who held and those who expected Office against the independent Members of the House of Commons, their object being to prevent any voice but their own being heard. Of course, he could not anticipate the decision of the Committee; but he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven would not press his Motion to a division. The composition of the Committee ought, however, to be closely scrutinized, and he trusted that when the Report was brought up the House would be prepared to defend its own independence.

said, that as matters stood at present, it was very difficult for a private Member to carry a measure through the House. He himself had made the attempt, having spent nearly half last Session in the endeavour to get a Burial Bill passed; but, considering how slow was its progress, he believed he should be buried himself before he attained his object. Indeed, so many difficulties were in the way of a private Member, that the result would be that all opposed, measures would have to proceed from the Government. Now, was this desirable? The remedy he would suggest was that some check should be put on the practice of making Motions to report Progress and to adjourn the debate. He should be exceedingly sorry to put any unfair restraint on the rights of the minority; but when, as happened last Session, 15 Motions were made in the course of one night for the adjournment of the debate, and six to report Progress, and when two hours were spent after midnight in debating whether there should be any debate at all, it was high time a check should be put on so pernicious a practice.

said, that much prominence had been given in the speeches just delivered to the rights and feelings of private Members in reference to this matter; but the first duty of hon. Members was to legislate for the advantage of the country, and he thought no one who had had much experience in that House could avoid coming to the conclusion that Bills were often hurried through in a by no means creditable manner. Now, he did not conceive that the mere retention of certain antiquated forms ought to be regarded as of equal importance with the turning out of measures in a creditable and satisfactory form. He had read the Reports of the Committees which inquired into the forms he had just referred to, and also the suggestions made by the witnesses examined before them; and he found that the late Speaker, the present Speaker, and all the most experienced Members of the House, concurred in the opinion that many forms observed by the House were perfectly useless, and might be abolished with great advantage to the legislation of the country. He hoped the Committee would not be fettered by any pledge as to maintaining the rights of private Members, or the old forms of the House; but that they would be left perfectly free to consider the best means of conducting the legislation of the country.

said, that as a Member who attended the House at all hours, however late, he thought he had a right to say a few words on this question. It appeared to him there were but two methods by which it was possible to gain more time for the transaction of the Public Business of the House. One, which, perhaps, would not be relished by many Members, was to give the House a certain power of limiting the length of speeches; but of the usefulness of the other method a very good illustration would be given that evening, when the House was about to enter upon a discussion of an Elementary Education Bill for Scotland. It would be in the remembrance of the House that this very ground was gone over two Sessions ago, when this House, after much and careful labour, completed and passed a Scotch Education Bill; but all its work was thrown away and lost because the measure reached the Lords so late in the Session that they declined to take it into consideration at all. The remedy he would suggest for such a state of things was to provide that, when a new Parliament had not been elected in the meantime, Bills passed in this House towards the end of one Session should be taken up to the other House at the beginning of the next. The present system not only caused much loss of time, but gave rise to a great deal of hasty and improper legislation, for no other reason than that Bills might be got through the House in time to be considered by the other.

said, that after the discussion which had taken place, and after learning that it was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention to limit the rights of private Members, he should not press his Amendment to a Division.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the Regulation of Mines, said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the main points of difference between the present measure and the one which he introduced last Session. After the Bill was brought into this House last Session, a noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird), who had long presided over the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the health of those who work in metalliferous mines, which were not dealt with in the Government measure, introduced a Bill relating to those mines, and giving effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. Thereupon he (Mr. Bruce) undertook, on the part of the Government, to introduce, as Amendments in the Bill, substantially all the provisions of the measure respecting metalliferous mines. The present Bill would, therefore, deal not only with coal mines and iron mines worked in connection with coal mines, but with all the mines in the country. To the suggestions made by several hon. Members he had given the most careful consideration, and the result was that in one or two not unimportant respects he had found it advisable to modify the Bill. The Committee, which sat for two years investigating this subject, recommended that the most important general rule of all those which affected mines — that relating to ventilation — should be modified in an important manner. The present rule was that all coal mines, and iron-stone mines in connection with coal mines, should have an amount of ventilation sufficient under ordinary circumstances to dilute the noxious gases. Some Inspectors found it difficult, however, to obtain convic- tions, as the magistrates frequently found that ventilation, which in the opinion, of the Inspectors was inadequate, was sufficient for safety under ordinary circumstances. Consequently it was proposed by the Select Committee to lay the onus probandi on the owners of mines and their agents, instead of on the other side. This change was greatly opposed by several Members, and not supported by any. He had consulted the Inspectors of coal mines, and the result was the conclusion that, on the whole, it was best to retain the law in its present form. The Select Committee felt the greatest difficulty in dealing with the education of miners; but they were agreed that the present regulations were imperfect, and that the provisions made with the object of securing the education of miners were illusory. The law, as it now stood, provided that a child of 10 years of age, who could pass an examination in reading and writing, might be employed in a mine; but it took no security for the character of the examination, such as providing that it should be conducted by a certificated master, or fixing a certain standard of proficiency; and the consequence was that in many cases a most imperfect knowledge of reading and writing was certified as being sufficient. As soon as the examination was passed, a youth was employed without restriction as to hours, and that under circumstances most adverse to any kind of culture. Could anything be conceived more miserable than the condition of a boy of tender age shut up for 12 hours at a time in a dark cavern, with "knowledge at one entrance quite shut out," and altogether cut off from many opportunities of acquiring intelligence possessed by boys who spent their time above ground, even although they were not at school? The Select Committee considered this matter fully, and especially whether it would be possible to introduce the half-time system; but, on the whole, they arrived at the conclusion that it was best to exclude children altogether from the mines until they were 12 years of age, trusting that up to that age they would take advantage of the educational facilities now to be extended to them by the Act of last year, and believing that, if this exclusion were carried out, it would be unnecessary to impose any further restriction. The Factory Acts and the Workshops Regula- tion Act provided that children under 13, who were at work, should be secured a certain immunity from extreme labour, and a certain amount of education; but as, in the case of miners, it was proposed to relieve children from work up to the age of 12, it was considered less necessary to put them under the half-time system for the remaining year, which, indeed, would create an amount of inconvenience out of proportion to the good effected. He stated last year that of all the amendments suggested the most practical seemed to be one offered by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Akroyd), supplemented by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), which was that children should be allowed to enter the mines at 10, but that their hours of labour should be limited to three days a week, and that they should have at least 10 hours' education in school every week. He had received from the Association of Miners a proposition of a new and startling nature, which was that no child should be allowed to enter a colliery until he reached the age of 12, and not even then unless he passed a certain examination which would secure proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and that for young persons of from 12 to 16 years of age, the labour should be limited to eight hours a day; and that these young persons should attend school for a certain number of hours a week. He did not doubt the perfect sincerity with which the Association endeavoured to promote the education of the children of their own class; but he was bound to say there seemed to him to be something more than a desire for education in this proposition, for it was known that many of the Trades Unions had made it one of their objects to prevent the employment of children so as to keep up the rate of wages, by keeping down the number of persons employed; and when such a proposition as this was made we must see in it some object other than the advance of education. The age at which children were allowed to begin work was, under the Factory Acts, 8 years; but he thought there was ample justification for treating the mining population differently, and fixing the earliest age at a more advanced period of life. With this difference, he thought it was just and fair to adopt, as far as possible, the lines that had been already laid down; and he, therefore, proposed to allow children to be employed at the age of 10, to limit their employment to three days a week, to require that they should attend school 10 hours a week, and to maintain these restrictions up to the age of 13. With respect to the hours of labour, the propositions of the Bill were substantially the same as those of the Bill of last year, and it was then proposed to limit the labour of all boys under 16 to 56 hours a week, and at the same time to provide that under no circumstances should a boy be kept down a pit more than 12 hours a day, including an hour and a half for meals and rest. The work in mines was not, generally speaking, of a fatiguing character, and he believed that the work done by a child in a factory was, on the whole, more tiring than the work done by a child in a colliery, which was often confined to the watching of doors and opening and closing them as required. Another alteration in the Bill would, he believed, be deemed satisfactory. It was put forward as an injustice last year that miners should be liable to imprisonment, without the option of a fine, for certain offences, and that agents and others, often as culpable, should be punished only by the imposition of fines. There was undoubtedly a distinction between the two cases; for the offence of the workman was often clear and definite, while that of the agent was more indirect and complicated, and less easy to prove. He was still of opinion that both workmen and agents should be subject to imprisonment if their conduct deserved it; but he proposed that there should be a right of appeal whenever a man was sentenced to imprisonment without the alternative of paying a fine. Those were the only alterations of any importance which had been made in the measure, and the minor alterations, upon which he had not touched, it would be more convenient to discuss when they got into Committee. He had been unable to meet the wish of the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities (Dr. Lyon Playfair), that some provision should be made for the examination of agents. He had given the subject a good deal of consideration, and he had arrived at the conclusion that it was far more dangerous than advantageous for the Government to interfere in the matter by attempting to influence the choice of agents. The defects that existed in the management of collieries did not arise so much from a want of education on the part of the managers, as from a want of attention to duties, and from failure to use the means at their disposal for securing the safety of those intrusted to their charge; and these were failures against which no examination could provide, while no examination could test the energy, vigilance, presence of mind, which constitute in the eyes of the employer the highest merits of the agent, and he therefore had abstained from making any provisions for conducting such examinations.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and extend the provisions of the Law of Scotland on the subject of Education, said, that in doing so, he would not take up the time of the House in vague generalities on the importance of the subject, but would proceed at once to explain the leading provisions of the measure. He might, however, be permitted to say for himself that, in undertaking to prepare and introduce a measure on the subject of Education for Scotland, he did so under a full impression of its importance and of the difficulties he should have to encounter. He did not forget the unsuccessful result of previous attempts, made by more able hands than his; and if, nevertheless, he was not despairing, but hopeful, it was because of the changes which had been wrought in men's minds on the subject. Men's minds had become more deeply impressed with its importance, and those political and ecclesiastical considerations, which, to the regret of every good man, had been permitted to obstruct the progress of the education of the people, had been modified or moderated. Those hon. Members who had noticed the title of the Bill would have observed the contrast which it presented to the title of the measure of education for England which was passed last Session. The difference was not merely one in the point of words, but one which indicated a real difference between the condition of Scotland as compared with that of England in the matter of education. In England, as befitted so great, prosperous, and wealthy a country, there was splendid and munificently endowed provision for the higher and the highest education; but until the measure of last Session was passed, the law of England made no provision for the elementary education of all children of the country. In Scotland the matter stood very differently. There the foundations or endowments for the higher or the highest education were few in number and inconsiderable in amount; but, from a very remote period indeed, the law of Scotland had made some compulsory provision for the primary, and, to a considerable extent, for the secondary, education of the people. The burgh schools were coeval with the erection of the Royal burghs. It had ever been considered that one of the purposes for which burghs were erected, charters, privileges, and lands granted to them, was to promote the education of the community. The name given to burgh property was significant as signifying the purposes to which it was applicable; for the name by which it was legally and technically known was "the common good." He repeated that the education of the young had ever been regarded, and was now regarded, by the law of Scotland, as a "common good," to which the property of the community was legally applicable; and he would take leave to say further that any administrators of such property who were neglectful of education were neglectful of their legal duty. Burgh schools having their origin in the law to which he referred, and having, as he had stated, existed from the very earliest period—as far back as the institution of corporations and burghs—had so continued to the present time. The law upon the subject had, no doubt, been very largely evaded; but, nevertheless, in the greater number of the burghs of Scotland there was a burgh school, and in most of them some provision was made for the maintenance of the burgh schools out of the "common good" or corporation property of the burgh. As burgh schools were included in the provisions of this Bill, he might perhaps be permitted to make a few further observations in respect to them. They were not rate-supported. They were maintained partly by the contributions from the burgh funds—which, however, were very small—and partly and chiefly by fees paid by the pupils who attended them. In almost all of them—indeed, he believed with only two exceptions, the High School in Edinburgh and the Aberdeen Academy—elementary education was provided, commencing even with the learning of the alphabet. In most of them also instruction was given in the higher branches of knowledge; so that pupils were prepared to proceed even to the Universities. In fact, they constituted a connecting link between the parish schools and the Universities of Scotland. They were attended by children and young men of all classes, from the lowest to the higher middle class, and in some burgh schools—or, the High School at Edinburgh being taken to be the chief representative—the children of the very highest classes of the country attended. They were important public institutions; the only public schools in which legal provision was made for education within burghs, for the system of parochial schools did not extend to burghs. These schools were under the management of the town councils; and, judging from the Report of the Commissioners on Education, the management had, upon the whole, been satisfactory. He had now to bring under the notice of the House the existing state of the law of Scotland on the subject of education in the country districts. In parishes, the provision was made by means of parish schools. These schools were of very ancient origin. The law of Scotland made provision for education through the country generally, by a compulsory Act, so long ago as the 15th century. That Act imposed penalties upon all parishes which did not provide a suitable education for the children within their bounds. The first statute establishing parish schools—not upon precisely their present footing, but really establishing, or attempting to establish, a school in every parish—was the Act of 1633. The subsequent Act of 1696 placed the parish schools substantially upon the footing on which they now stood. The next statute was the Act of 1803, in the reign of George III.; and to complete the statement of the legislation on the subject, the last statute ne- cessary to notice was passed in the year 1861. The parish schools, the House would be good enough to understand, were public rate-supported schools—the legal provision for their establishment and maintenance was a rating of landed property in the parishes, with a relief to the heritors to the extent of one-half from their tenants. The management of these schools was, down to the year 1803, when the statute of George III. was passed, in the rated body—that is to say, those liable to rates for educational purposes had a share in the management of the schools. By the statute of 1803, the managing body was decreased in number by a provision requiring that those admitted to the management should be possessed of a certain specified rental, though prior to that all who contributed to the support of the school had a voice in the management. Now, in order to put the House satisfactorily in possession of the condition of those schools at the present time, it was necessary he should explain the area of rating or assessment for their support. This rendered it necessary to explain an expression frequently heard in the discussions on Scotch education—he alluded to the expression "valued rent." That had become a technical expression, having a technical meaning. Originally, it had no other meaning than the words express; it signified the real value or rent of every man's estate. But the valuations in Scotland were somewhat numerous at first, but had subsequently been discontinued, or renewed after a very long lapse of years. The first valuation of which they had any account was in 1280, the next in 1327. It was doubtful if there was any revision of this last in 1365; but there certainly was in 1424. The next notice they had of a valuation of the lands in Scotland was that in the time of the Usurpation. In the year 1656 the land tax was imposed upon the landed proprietors according to the value of their estates; and there was some reason to suppose that there was at that time a revision of the valuation. In the year 1667 there was another law imposing the land tax in Scotland, which required that it should be imposed according to the former valuation, where equal and just, with power to the Commissioners to rectify it where they considered rectification necessary. He believed there was no rectification at all; and the rolls made out with a view to the revision of the land tax under the law of 1667 had continued in operation for the collection of the tax ever since, the estates which were entered in the year 1667 standing there still at the value or rents originally set down. So in process of time the valuations entered in the rolls came to be called the "valued rent" of the land. It was hardly necessary to say that these could not in the present day be regarded as anything approaching a just valuation of the lands. In the first place, the rolls did not include all the lands in Scotland, because there had been parts of estates sold, and the "valued rents" not divided, although there was provision made for division as between the different proprietors; and the result was that a large amount of the landed property in Scotland was not on the rolls, or, to express it technically, was not "valued rented" at all. Nevertheless, the valuation contained in that roll—the "stent" roll as it is called—had continued down to the present day from considerations of convenience, and, in order to avoid expense and the other unpleasant incidents of re-valuation, it had been adopted as the rule for the imposition of a great variety of assessments under the local taxation system. It had not been adopted upon any other principle or from any other consideration that he was aware of. This state of things continued with respect to a great variety of taxes down to the year 1854, and continued now with respect to the assessments for the maintenance of the schools, churches, manses, and other matters subject to parochial taxation of that kind. In the year 1696, when the statute was passed placing parish schools upon their present footing, the heritors were directed to assess themselves according to their "valued rent"—that is to say, according to the rental value of their respective properties; and the ancient valuation was taken as the rule, and had unfortunately continued to be the rule of assessment from that time to the present. So, as he had said, the term "valued rent" had acquired a technical meaning; the result being that only those proprietors whose estates were upon the stent roll were subject to the assessment for the purposes of education, although undoubtedly it was a tax intended to be imposed upon all, the principle being equal contributions for the common benefit. As it was, however, those only contributed whose estates happened to be upon the ancient roll for the land tax. The inequality of its operation was illustrated in every county and district. He had obtained some Returns for the purpose of enabling him to judge of the unequal operation of the assessments imposed according to this antiquated roll, and he would mention one or two instances which might be taken as fair specimens of the whole. In the county of Forfar were two estates, one of the real value of £670, and the other of the real value of £345, yet each paid the same amount of rate, the "valued rent" of each estate, according to the old valuation roll, being the same. In the county of Perth were three estates—the first of the rental of £490, the second having a rental of £734, and the third a rental of £800; yet all paid the same amount of rate, the "valued rent" of these estates, which are of so different values now, being originally the same. In the county of Dumfries, again, were two estates—respectively of the rental of £551 and £3,823, which paid within a fraction the same amount of rate, the valued rent of the two being the same. In the county of Aberdeen, one estate, with a rental of £455, paid the same rate substantially as another estate with a rental of £964. In the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright were three estates noted—of the respective rentals of £126, £239, and £405; but they are all rated at the same amount within a trifle, that which was rated highest being the estate of £126 a year. That seemed an altogether unjust, inequitable system, and the marvel must be that it should have been permitted to last so long. He had mentioned that by the Act of 1803 the number of the managing body had been reduced by a provision to the effect that only those heritors whose estates were valued at not less than £100 Scots should have a voice in the management of the schools. The operation of that provision was also very capricious. In the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright there was an instance where the proprietor of a real rental of £405 a year had no voice in the management, because his ancient valuation was under £100 Scots; while another proprietor, with a rental of £126, had a share in the management because his estate was valued at over £100 Scots. In Dumfries a proprietor with a rental of £563 had no share in the school management, while another with a rental of £350 had. As he had endeavoured to explain, while the rating or assessment for the support of parish schools was confined to those heritors whose estates were on the stent roll, they had a reasonable claim to have the management of the schools in their own hands. But if they were to have anything worthy of the name of a national system of education, it was impossible that this ancient rule of rating should be continued. He would now proceed to state to the House the extent to which the parish schools—supported by the rates imposed upon "the valued rented" heritors, and which are managed by a select number of their own body, in conjunction with the parish ministers—contribute to the education of Scotland. In the whole country there are on the rolls of the schools 424,360 children. He had taken the numbers with respect to the country districts—that was to the whole country, excluding the 17 larger towns—from the Report of the Commissioners; but he had been under the necessity of making an estimate of the number attending in the towns, there being no precise statistics which enabled him to make a statement with perfect confidence. That number he estimated at 88,183, leaving a balance of 336,177 in the country schools. Speaking with accuracy from the statistical information given by the Commissioners there were on the roll of country schools 312,795 scholars. Now, there ought to be educational provision in Scotland for about 500,000 or rather more than 500,000 children. There were upon the rolls of all the schools taken together, 424,360, leaving a deficiency, according to the Report of the Commissioners upon Education, of children not on the roll of any school of 75,640. Now, it was necessary that provision should be made by law, if they were to have an efficient system of education at all, and nothing was to be left to chance or charity, for the education of all the children in Scotland. He did not mean to say that schools were to be provided for all that number of children; but that the State must take cognizance of the number requiring education, and must provide for those not already pro- vided for. Of course, the existing parish schools, which had been reported upon by the Education Commissioners, must form part of any national system; but the question they had to consider was, whether they could, with any propriety, be dealt with separately, and maintained as distinct schools upon their present footing, or something resembling their present footing, the new schools being under a different system of maintenance and management, or whether it would not be more satisfactory, and more conducive to the end in view, to institute one efficient system of maintenance and management for all the schools which are to be denominated public, and of which the law was to take cognizance? For his own part, he had never seen any advantage likely to arise from the double system. It was therefore intended that there should be no distinction. The new schools and the old schools would be of the same character, and there could be no reason why they should be differently managed or maintained. That being so—if they were to have only one system for all the schools which were to be provided under the national system, and which must necessarily be much more numerous than those which existed at present, he had to consider further whether the system he had described as existing with reference to the existing parish schools was such that it could be adopted as the one system of management for all the schools to be provided. He owned that without difficulty or hesitation he had arrived at the conclusion that it would be impossible, and certainly impolitic, to impose the rates necessary for the support of the schools upon a certain class of heritors only, and according to a valuation so capricious as that which he had explained; nor could he see any good reason in support of the proposition that the management of the schools should be vested in a select number of the valued rent heritors. He had, therefore, to propose to the House — and the measure which he was now asking leave to introduce contained a provision to that effect—to extend the area of rating for the support of the public schools to all lands and heritages whatsoever, to abolish the valued rent as the rule of rating, and substitute for it the real rent—so that the proprietors and heritors, without exception, should contri- bute to promote the education of the country according to the actual value of their possessions. There was no reason now, nor had there been since 1854, for having recourse to the valuation roll, because in that year an Act was passed in which the actual valuation was made up of the whole of the lands and heritages in the country. The proposal, therefore, he had to submit on this subject of the area of rating was, that it should extend to all lands and heritages, and that the rule should be the real valuation—thus bringing the whole within the operation of the rate assessment. In that case there could be no longer any reason for confining the management to the heritors, or to a select number of their body. The real idea of the Scotch Legislature was to impose the rate on all, and to give the vote to all who paid the rate. How it came to be modified he had explained. He was now only recurring to the ancient principles of the law in giving a voice in the management to all who contributed to the rate. Of course, such a body would be far too numerous to be practicable as a managing body; but there was a way of reducing them, that was approved by modern experience, and that was to make the ratepayers electors, and enable them to elect a managing body; and accordingly the provisions of the Bill in respect to the managing body was, that the ratepayers in each parish or district should elect the school Board in the same manner, substantially as was provided for in the English Act. This applied not only to parishes in rural districts, but to all burghs. Indeed, the greatest destitution in the means of education, according to the Report of the Commissioners, was in the burghs. There was comparatively little destitution in the parishes, and none that called for any special remark in the Lowland parishes. There was greater destitution in country districts in the Highlands, and the greatest of all in the large towns. The Bill proposed that in every burgh there should be a school Board elected by the ratepayers—the rate again being assessed upon the occupiers of all lands and heritages, and the rule of assessment under the Poor Law being taken substantially as the assessment for that of the school-rate. With a view to save the expense of a double assessment and double collection the school rate would be added to the poor rate, assessed upon the same data and collected at the same time. The duties of the school Board would be to ascertain, each Board in its own parish or burgh, the educational requirements of the parish or burgh, the existing supply of education; and to determine whether any, and if so, what aid was necessary. Of course, the school Board was to supersede the existing managing bodies of public schools—they came in place of the managers and heritors in parishes and burghs. In their hands would rest the selection of the masters of the schools, and they would have the general charge of the educational requirements, and the provisions to be made for them in the various districts. In the Bill that was laid before the Parliament and indeed passed this House, in 1869—in that Bill, after it came down from the House of Lords, provision was made for a temporary Board in Edinburgh, with a view to set the machine in motion. It was not proposed by that Bill that the Parliamentary grant should be handed over to the Board in Edinburgh, or should be administered otherwise than hitherto by a Department of the Government directly and immediately responsible to Parliament. The share of the Parliamentary grant which Scotland now received was £80,000 a year. Under the present measure, if it became law, that grant would be largely increased—indeed by several-fold. He would not indulge in any expectation that the administration of so large a sum would be handed over to any permanent Board to be constituted in Scotland, or removed from the Department of the Government hitherto entrusted with that duty, and immediately and directly responsible to Parliament for it; but it was undoubtedly well worthy consideration, whether the example set by the provision of the Bill of 1869, to establish a Board in Scotland for the period of three years, in order to set the new system going, and determine where new schools were wanted, and the particular situation in which they ought to be established, ought not to be followed. He confessed he was not himself partial to a temporary Board. He should have the greatest possible difficulty in agreeing to it—a difficulty which was strongly felt in 1869, in proposing a satisfactory constitution for such a Board; and it was to be considered whether it was really necessary to the attainment of the end in view, or whether a Department to be constituted with a view to education in Scotland would not be able to exercise efficient supervision and control over the local school Boards, so as to see that, on the one hand, they did not neglect their duties, or, on the other, that they did not exceed them. By the provisions of the Bill, the duty of determining, in the first instance, whether any, and what additional provision was required, and how it ought to be supplied, was laid upon the school Boards. Now, surely, all that remained to be done, in addition to that, by any sensible body was to see that they were attentive, and not negligent or perfunctory in the performance of their duties; and that they were not extravagant nor yet over-parsimonious. Now, the proposal which he had to submit to the House was, that Her Majesty should appoint a Committee of the Privy Council for Education in Scotland, and that that Committee, which in the Bill was denominated the Scotch Education Department, should have, as a Government Department necessarily must have, the administration of the Parliamentary Grant; and that they should also exercise that supervision and control over the local Boards to which I have referred as necessary. Provision was accordingly made for the discharge of those duties by the Department, which would be found defined in the interpretation clause. These were the main provisions of the Bill which he now laid on the Table. He abstained from entering into the details, which would be more satisfactorily communicated by the circulation of the Bill itself. The idea on which the measure was based was, as the House would perceive, this—We take the existing provisions of the law of Scotland on the subject of education in the parish schools and burgh schools as the foundation. The burgh schools had no aid from rates at present, and where they were insufficient to meet the educational requirements of the burgh in which they existed, there was no legal provision for extending their parochial system into burghs. The consequence was strikingly manifested in the case of Glasgow. There, there were 291 schools altogether, a very large proportion of them being indifferent, and a considerable proportion of them altogether bad; but of the 291, only one of them is a public school—the Burgh School of Glasgow. Therefore the parochial system had, in reality, to be extended, as it had not hitherto been, to the burghs. In so far as public schools were to be multiplied in rural parishes, the Bill made provision for that being done; and further for extending the system into burghs, but under the management of the school Board of each burgh. That had been done, not with the view of reducing the standard of the present burgh schools, which was generally above that of the elementary schools, but with the view of increasing the standard of the only public schools in Scotland providing for the secondary education of the people. The area of the rating being extended, the managing body was accordingly extended, but reduced to a convenient number in the manner provided by modern experience—namely, the electoral system. He had omitted to state directly and distinctly—though it might have been implied—that any remaining connection between the public schools and the Church of Scotland was now entirely severed. Indeed, the only connection subsisting between them since 1861 was the presence of the parish minister on the board of management. He believed Presbyteries claimed the right of periodical visitation and examination; but the Royal Commissioners had reported that, in their opinion, their visitation was of no practical benefit to the schools. It was impossible that these schools could now have any communication with any particular Church, and accordingly the Bill provided that they should have no communication with any denomination whatsoever. He had said nothing on the subject of the religious difficulty—perhaps it had not been pressing so much on his mind, because, so far as he had been able to ascertain—and he had been at some pains in making inquiries in all directions on this subject—the religious difficulty had not, and never had, any practical existence in Scotland. There had never obtained, by any provision of law, a conscience clause in any public schools; nevertheless, they had always been conducted as if a very precise conscience clause had been in operation. He believed it to be a fact that in every parish school in Scotland — and he thought he might extend the statement to all Church schools (with the exception of the Episcopal and Roman Catholic)—in the Free Church, the United Presbyterian Church, and the Independent, the conscience clause was practically operative—that was to say, religion was taught in a certain specified part of the day, when, those children whose parents desired them to attend might be instructed; but the secular teaching was so consecutive that the teaching of religion was no interruption to the education of any of the pupils. The fact was, that among the various denominations of Presbyterians there was really no preference on the part of the parents for any one school rather than another, because it happened to belong to a particular denomination. That statement was fully borne out by the Report of the Commissioners with respect to the whole country, with the exception of three districts, which they stated were in a worse condition, so far as education was concerned, than any other part of Scotland. The children belonging to the Established Church attended in great numbers the free schools and vice versâ: and he had had deputations of masters of parish schools and Free Church schools, who all concurred in saying that no religious difficulty was ever experienced. He had further to state that provision was made in the Bill whereby the school Board of any parish or burgh might take over any existing school—that was to say, if they were satisfied that education would be promoted by taking over the particular school buildings, masters, and scholars, and placing it under their management; and then they would become public schools in all respects under the management of the Board, maintained and dealt with by them in precisely the same manner as the parish schools. The Grants, it was further provided, much in the terms of the Bill of 1869, might be given to all the existing schools conforming to the regulations under which alone a Grant was to be given; but there was a provision with respect to future schools of a denominational character—that a Grant should not be given unless, in the opinion of the Scotch Education Department, there were exceptional reasons for arriving at the conclusion that such a school was necessary in the particular locality in which it happened to be called into existence. He need hardly state that all schools under the operation of the Bill would be subjected to undenominational inspection. It was only necessary to refer quite generally to the Report of the Commissioners in order to determine the value of inspection. The percentage of good schools, as compared with the percentage of indifferent and bad schools, was very large; and nothing had surprised him more than to find the small extent to which at present advantage was taken of inspection. At present the inspection was denominational, and that led to wonderful anomalies and expenses—there were Church Inspectors, Free Church Inspectors, and Roman Catholic Inspectors, all travelling together to examine three or four schools in the same locality. Even with that denominational inspection, out of 1,133 parish, side, and Parliamentary schools in Scotland, only 337 submitted to inspection. The Commissioners stated that they were unable to account for that otherwise than by what they had been told, that many clergymen in the Church of Scotland, had so great an aversion to Government inspection, or interference of any kind, that they were willing to sacrifice the Government Grant rather than submit to it. The provision contained in the Bill on this subject was similar to that contained in the English Bill. These were the principal provisions of the Bill which he asked the leave of the House to lay upon the Table. He did not flatter himself for one moment that the Bill would not be sharply criticized. He was not even sanguine that he had succeeded in realizing his own conception. That conception was large, for it proposed no less than this—to present to this House a comprehensive and efficient scheme of national education, thoroughly national and entirely undenominational; such a scheme as, according to the best of his belief and judgment, the country for which it was designed was prepared to accept, and which he hoped Parliament would sanction.

said, it could not be expected that the proposals of the Bill could be discussed at any length on this occasion. He should therefore content himself with observing that the measure, as described by the Lord Advocate, contained some proposals which were certainly new, and had not been contained in any of the former Bills; and which were at variance with the unanimous recommendations of the Commissioners—men of all parties and all Churches—who were appointed to inquire into the subject of Scotch education. At the same time, he would refrain from expressing strong opinions on the subject until he had read the Bill. So far as regarded the schools he should be most happy to assist in any way for the purpose of securing a better remuneration to the teachers engaged in education; but he did not exactly understand from what source the funds were to come, and it would give him great pleasure to do anything to effect an improvement in the condition of the burgh schools. With regard to the parochial schools, it was now proposed that they should be entirely "disestablished"—disconnected from the Established Church. That was a proposition which certainly had not received the concurrence of any of the Commissioners, with the exception of one, and he qualified his opinion. What the Commissioners suggested was, that the parochial schools should be continued upon their present footing. Now he (Mr. Gordon) would go further, and would have the management extended, if the Government chose so to term it, liberalized. His feeling was strongly against destroying those schools, which had done admirable service to the cause of education in Scotland, and which had been the object of envy and admiration amongst all nations; and he regretted exceedingly that it should be thought necessary, with a view to carry through what was called a national system of education, to abolish those schools, and place them entirely in the position of the new schools. Those schools had been successful, and the schoolmasters were exceedingly anxious that they should be preserved, if it were only as standards up to which the new schools should attempt to raise themselves. He must say that he considered that this subject was well deserving of reflection and consideration so as to determine the propriety of discontinuing them, after having rendered so much useful service to the cause of education. There was another proposition contained in the Bill completely at variance with the views of the Commissioners, as well as with the Bill of 1869. It was a point which would excite a good deal of attention in Scotland. There was to be no School Board for the management of schools there. Now, if there was one question more than another as to which the people of Scotland were jealous, it was that their schools should be under the management of a Scotch Board, and not under the management of the Privy Council. The Privy Council was, no doubt, entitled to great consideration; but there was a material difference in the system of education which was proposed for Scotland and that which was now about to be given for the first time to England. The parish schools in Scotland had hitherto combined both the position of elementary and secondary schools, and had been of the greatest service as affording a means of enlightened and liberal education to those who evinced abilities which rendered such education useful; and he could give no better illustration of this than by stating that something like 60 per cent of the students who present themselves at the Universities of Scotland had been educated at the parish schools. Those schools, therefore, fulfilled a purpose in Scotland which was not expected of the elementary schools in England. It was therefore most desirable that they should not be linked to the Privy Council, which had to deal with the elementary education of England, and which had not hitherto been called upon to deal with such a system as that to be proposed for Scotland. This, he thought, was a matter with regard to which there was a very strong feeling in Scotland. It was possible that some provisions might be framed which would tend to soften the proposal made by his right hon. Friend; but until he had seen the Bill he could not speak as to that. When it was said they should not have an Education Board in Scotland, had not Ireland its Board of Education? Why, then, should not Scotland have one also, for the purpose of managing a system entirely different in its principle from that which existed in England? The Lord Advocate was quite right in stating that the religious difficulty did not exist in Scotland. But why? Because, while the Church had the management of the schools in that country they conducted them on the most liberal terms; they instituted a conscience clause, and gave instructions to the schoolmasters that any child objecting to receive the religious teaching imparted in the parish schools should at once be relieved from attendance; and they had evidence from the Roman Catholic priests and others that they were so satisfied that no attempt was made at proselytism that they freely permitted the children of their creed to attend the parish schools. It was therefore quite right that it should be understood there was no religious difficulty. But then he had not found that the Lord Advocate in his statement admitted any recognition of religion. It was proposed practically to abolish the parish schools. In those schools there had been a "use and wont" of religious instruction as contained in the Shorter Catechism and the Bible; and that had not been objected to by any person, as his right hon. Friend had stated. They were going to create new schools without giving any recognition to the subject of religion. As far as teaching the Bible itself in the schools went, he knew there was a strong feeling in Scotland in its favour; and when they were legislating on the subject of education, were they prepared to ignore the general feeling on that subject? If the Catechism were abolished in the schools, let not the Bible be excluded from them. Let them not be deterred from recognizing the Bible by any idea that they were establishing religion by doing so. He should regret if they could not find a concurrence of opinion among different religious denominations that the Bible should be taught in the schools. The difficulty was not to be got rid of by sending it to the Parochial Board to be decided, because the Parochial Board was just as much the State power as that House itself. If the parish schools were to be abolished, where an admirable system of religious teaching had been carried on without the least injury to the consciences of those attending them, it was most important that the people of Scotland should consider whether in the new system that was to be introduced they did not wish that there should be some recognition, of religion. He was not arguing for sectarian or denominational education in Scotland, but only for the great principle that the Bible should be taught in the schools, and he was surprised to find that no reference had been made to so important a matter. In conclusion, he trusted that when he saw the Bill there might be in it some provision that would obviate some of the objections he had indicated, and it would be his endeavour to do everything in his power to expedite the passing of a measure to settle the question of education in Scotland.

said: I do not like to pass over the introduction of such a large and obviously carefully-considered measure for reforming our system of national education in Scotland without some general expression of appreciation. But I have a lively remembrance of the chorus of applause which greeted the Vice President of the Council when he introduced his English Bill last year, and the opposition which it afterwards excited from the very men who had applauded it at the outset. I would, therefore, speak with full reserve as to the conclusions which may arise in my mind on a deliberate consideration of the provisions of the Bill, for my right hon. Friend has kept his counsel so well that I do not think any independent Scotch Members had the slightest idea what was to be the nature of his Bill until he spoke to-night. But I can have no hesitation in saying that I think he has grappled with the difficulties of the subject boldly and with knowledge. In one respect the Bill differs from its numerous predecessors, in dealing with burgh schools as well as with primary schools, and, in this respect, I can have no hesitation in expressing a warm approval. It is difficult for Englishmen to grasp the difference between the Scotch and English system of schools; for, until last year, there was no true national system of education in England, while Scotland has enjoyed that blessing for several centuries. Our religious reformers extended the system which existed in practice at their time, and recommended a chain of schools, beginning with the primary, passing through secondary grammar schools, then through preparatory colleges professing the usual trivium of the dead languages, logic, and natural philosophy, until finally the platform of the national Universities should be reached. The scheme was only partially carried out, the colleges never having been organized; but the secondary or burgh schools exist in every Royal, municipal, and Parliamentary burgh in Scotland, with the exception of three small ones. Most of these—indeed, all but two—have lower primary schools attached to their secondary schools. These burgh schools furnish 42 per cent of the students of the Universities, while the parochial primary schools, which still give secondary education in a less organized way than the burgh schools, yield the chief part of the remaining 58 per cent of students. Primary and secondary education are thus so thoroughly ingrained in Scotland that you cannot deal with them separately, nor would Scotchmen give one farthing for a system of national education in which they were separated. The great Napoleon used to say that every soldier carried his Marshal's baton in his knapsack; so every Scotch peasant, when he goes to school, carries in his satchel a minister's gown, or other emblem of a learned profession, and it is his own fault if he lose it. I congratulate the Lord Advocate on having maintained this inherent difference between the education of the Scotch and English people by having, for the first time, provided for it in one measure. I have a little regret that he has taken those schools from the management of the town councils, who have done their duty well by them. This course was, perhaps, unavoidable. Certainly, in a money point of view, they contribute only slightly to their maintenance, for of the £50,000 which these schools cost annually, £42,000 are derived from fees, and £3,000 from endowments. Whether he has done wisely in not having a National Board of Education to preserve these peculiarities is a serious question, and one upon which I desire entirely to reserve my opinion, not only till I study the Bill, but also till I see the Revised Code from the Education Department. I think the Bill is wise in retaining as a burden on the land the present amount of between £40,000 and £50,000 expended on the parochial schools. But, in doing so, it was right to render their management more popular. The educational management of these schools was, in reality, a popular one, vested in all heritors till 1803, when it was unwisely restricted to large landowners. No scheme could be satisfactory that did not restore their popular character, and open up the management of these schools to all who are interested in their maintenance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Gordon) is wrong in saying that the Lord Advocate proposes to abolish parochial schools. On the contrary, as I understand him, he only proposes to develop and extend them by the aid of a larger area of taxation. With regard to the plan for creating new schools, and adopting the existing denominational ones, it is unnecessary at present to express an opinion. The question which has wrecked all previous Scotch Education Bills in Parliament has not been the religious, but the ecclesiastical difficulty. There is positively no religious difficulty worth speaking of in Scotland. When you have a whole nation, with few exceptions, worshipping in a common faith, and even in a common ceremonial—separated into sections not by questions of doctrine, but only of Church polity—surely, it will be a scandal to my country if this Bill be again wrecked on shoals of ecclesiastical jealousies. In the progress of this Bill, there will be no discussions, such as those of last year, upon conscience clauses. These have been long in operation by custom, most efficiently preserved in all schools in Scotland, and there will be no objection to give them a legislative sanction. The real fight will be as to how far the different Churches are to superintend the common religious instruction of the schools. One Church, indeed—the United Presbyterian, supposed to contain about a fifth of the people of Scotland—are of opinion that religion should not be superintended or paid for by the State in any way, and, in fact, desire that it should be relegated to the parent and the minister; but this is by no means the general opinion of the Scotch Churches, which would desire to see religion an integral part of school education, under effective inspection and supervision, if not by the State, by the authorities of the Church. Yet if, with a common religious faith, the Churches cannot come to some agreement as to how they can mutually assist each other and the school Board in the religious upbringing of the youth of Scotland, then this House and the country will, no doubt, think that the Churches value more their slight ecclesiastical differences than the religious and social welfare of the people committed to their charge. A truly national system of education ought to be much more easily attainable in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom; and, if it were not for our past unhappy experience, every one would congratulate my right hon. Friend in his honest endeavours to settle this question. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Glasgow complains that the Lord Advocate ignores religious instruction in the schools. I apprehend that he entirely mistakes the tenour of his observations. What I understood was that he relies on the spirit of the Scotch people, as represented by the school Boards, and he knows, as we all know, that the wish of the people is that there should be religious education in the school. He did not mention a single religious inability, such as we find in the English measure, and thinks we may safely leave this question to the people of Scotland. For myself, as a lover of education, I can promise to give a careful and impartial consideration to his measure, in the hope of being able to give to it a general support.

wished to be informed whether there was any limitation on the election of the school Boards, or any qualification of the electors required? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman was doubtless aware, the masters of the parish schools in Scotland were in many cases Masters of Arts—men who had taken their degree, and who occupied a high social position, and it would not be right that they should be overruled by school Boards composed of members of less learning and an inferior social position to themselves. He should, therefore, be glad to know what provision had been made respecting the qualification of the electors. He further wished to know whether the school Boards, which, as had already been pointed out, would be elected chiefly by Presbyterians, were to have the power of forcing the children of Episcopalians and of Roman Catholics to attend religious instruction to which their parents might object; and whether schools which professed the doctrines of the latter denomination would still receive some support from the State? He asked these questions not only for his own information, but also for that of the country, in order to prevent the intention of the measure from being misunderstood.

said, he should reserve the remarks he would otherwise have made upon the able statement of the Lord Advocate until he had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the details of the measure through the medium of the Bill itself. He could not, however, refrain from saying that there were one or two points in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's scheme which he (Mr. Anderson) was afraid would give considerable dissatisfaction. One of them was the relegation of the control of the local school Boards to a department of the Privy Council in London. He was sure that that proposal would be received with the greatest disfavour in Scotland; and, unless it was found when they came to look at the Bill that the proposition would be more advantageous to Scotland than had appeared from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he did not think that it would be approved of. With regard to the question of compulsion, he had hoped that the Lord Advocate would have moved a little further. He (Mr. Anderson) was quite convinced that they were ripe for a more complete measure in that direction than had been obtained in the English compulsory clause. Had the Lord Advocate proposed to go beyond that he (Mr. Anderson) believed he would have carried it, and the people of Scotland would have been grateful for the boon. As regarded the religious difficulty, he would only say that, while he quite agreed with previous speakers that it had hitherto not been a great practical difficulty in the schools themselves, there was undoubtedly in the country a very strong party who would demand that catechisms and formularies should be excluded from all rate-aided schools. That being the case, he did not see how it would be possible to exclude from the Bill all notice of the religious question.

said, he rose only to make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government to press the further stages of the Bill at an early date, so that its provisions could be fairly and fully discussed. It was chiefly owing to the fact that it had been brought in at so late a period of the Session that the measure on the same subject which had been introduced two Sessions ago by the predecessor in Office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been lost. He thought the jealousy likely to arise from the control of the school Boards being placed in the Privy Council in London would vanish when the large and liberal scope of the measure came to be properly understood. Upon the question of the religious difficulty he thought good counsel must be taken in order to avoid the numerous pitfalls that beset all attempts to deal with the question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to have forgotten that the Roman Catholics formed a large proportion of the population in some districts in Scotland, and were opposed to the religious principles held by the great body of the community. His predecessor had been prepared to allow separate Grants to their schools; but his right hon. and learned Friend had not stated whether he proposed by his Bill to allow similar-Grants.

said, that he was prepared to allow Grants to such schools.

said, that in that case many of the difficulties in carrying out the Bill would be removed. He foresaw that the question of giving such large powers to local Boards would be regarded with great jealousy; but, at the same time, he felt bound to offer his congratulations to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the ability with which he had introduced the measure, and pledged himself to give it a general support.

said, he desired to draw attention to the question of the dismissal and superannuation of schoolmasters.

observed that any person acquainted with Scotland must know how much the working classes in the rural parishes desired to see their clergymen have a voice in the education of their children. As it was, however, possible that in some cases the clergymen might be excluded by the popular vote, he should be glad to see some provision by which the clergymen connected ex officio with parish schools should have a seat at the school Board.

joined in thanking the Government, and in particular the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, for bringing in this Bill, and doing it thus early in the Session. He was sure that the proposition for a Scotch Committee of Privy Council would excite in Scotland a feeling almost of indignation. The Scotch liked Boards—Boards constituted of numerous members and meeting in presence of reporters—not Committees, that were not really Committees, nor did not act as such, but were in fact the Chairman. He would like to know who the Chairman of this proposed Committee was to be? Was he to be a Scotchman? Were the Committee to be Scotchmen? If so, they would no doubt work, and not let themselves be ignored by their Chairman. But there should be a Board—one meeting in Edinburgh. It was cruel to bring all the way up to London parties who might have business to do with the Committee or Board. He was in favour of undenominational unsectarian education. All the more did he set a high value on the character of the teachers. They should be men of piety and religious character. He hoped some means would be adopted—some provisions be contained in the Bill—to ensure that the religious character which hitherto Scotch schoolmasters had borne would be maintained. He also trusted some means would be presented for maintaining their connection with the Universities. The tendency of such teachers was to raise the standard at which their scholars aimed, and to which they would be brought. The recognition and extension of burgh schools was an excellent feature of the Bill. Such schools, brought under a Scotch Board, would become patterns which English educationists would imitate. On that account, also, he pleaded for the management of the Scotch schools being left to be carried out in Scotland according to Scotch ways.

desired to enter his emphatic protest against what he could not help conceiving was a breach of that principle which ought, on all occasions, to be supported by the present Government—a principle, however, which was violated in the Education Bill of 1870, which was now to be violated in the Bill brought forward for Scotland, and, in all probability, would be violated in the consideration of the measure which should be applied to Ireland—by the especial favour shewn to the Roman Catholics. He thought that the measure as at present framed would give great dissatisfaction throughout the country.

, in reply to the questions of the noble Lord (Lord R. Montagu), said, that the only qualifications required for the school Board was that the persons elected and the electors should be ratepayers. The noble Lord had asked, secondly, whether, under the provisions of the Bill, any child could be compelled to attend religious instruction, though such religious instruction were distasteful to its parents or its guardians. The answer was, that the provisions on that subject were in accordance with those of the English Bill; and under these provisions no child whatever could be compelled to attend religious teaching against the wishes of its parents or guardians. There was a provision in this Bill, as in the English Bill, that parents might select the school at which to place their children. The noble Lord had also assumed that, hereafter, under that portion of the Bill, no school would be allowed to participate in the Grant if it did not put itself under the school Board. That, however, was not so. He also desired to inform the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) that there was no exceptional treatment accorded to the Roman Catholics. It was, perhaps, unnecessary for him to say anything on the subject, but he wished to assure hon. Members that nothing that had fallen from him would warrant the impression that it was intended to destroy the efficacy of parish schools.

, in rising to move "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Vaccination Act (1867), and to report whether such Act should be amended," said, that he made this Motion in compliance with the statement made by the Home Secretary towards the end of last Session, when a Bill was brought in by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), to relax the stringent punishments inflicted by the refusal to permit vaccination. The feeling of the House on this subject was such that there was little chance that his hon. Friend would be able to carry his Bill; but it was also felt that it was desirable to remove, if possible, the objections which existed in the minds of some persons against vaccination. He did not imagine that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) more than any other Member of the House had the slightest doubt of the utility and necessity of vaccination, and that it was necessary not only to encourage it, but to make it compulsory. Opposition to such views were not heard in that House; but it was to be found, he was sorry to say, among certain persons in this country who had indeed carried their resistance to an extent that had been injurious to health and destructive to life. They must have forgotten the state of the country and the civilized community before vaccination was introduced. During thirty years before the introduction of vaccination there were on an average 3,000 deaths from small-pox per annum in every million of the population, while between 1854 and 1865 they were reduced to an average of 202 per million. In Berlin the statistics were still more conclusive—owing, probably, to the great care taken in Prussian administration—for in that city the decrease was from 3,422 to 176. Again, in the Smallpox Hospital, where all the nurses and the servants were invariably re-vaccinated on their appointment, the resident surgeon had not a single case on record during the last 34 years. He only mentioned these cases to show that the Government had not the slightest doubt not merely of the advantages and efficacy of vaccination, but of the necessity of having a law to enforce it. It would, no doubt, be pleasanter not to be compelled to have recourse to law to have it performed; but, unfortunately, they had to contend with opposition — the opposition of ignorance, and also, he was sorry to say, with the opposition arising from interested motives preying upon this ignorance; and, lastly, with the great neglect which arose purely from apathy. It was owing to those causes that a compulsory law was necessary, and statistics showed that the destructiveness of the disease increased or decreased accordingly as compulsion had or had not been enforced. In Scotland and Ireland, where they had been able to secure complete compulsion, the disease which at one time had been very prevalent, had been reduced to a minimum and was, indeed, hardly known; in those districts of England where, before vaccination was introduced, it had been fearfully destructive, it had now been greatly diminished; whilst, on the other hand, in those districts where the guardians had not enforced it, they were liable to frequent outbreaks. With these facts before them, it might be asked where was the necessity for a Committee? But he (Mr. Forster) was strongly of opinion that good results would follow from their labours. There were some persons in the country who entertained in their own minds a conscientious objection to vaccination, from a belief that it did their children harm; but he thought the evidence that would be brought before the Committee would tend to convince them of their error. At all events it was due to the feelings of those parents who objected to vaccination that further inquiry should be instituted, and he trusted the result would be that martyrs to the prejudice against vaccination would no longer be found. Another reason for the appointment of the Committee was that it was desirable to carry public opinion with the action of the law, and there were some cases in which the guardians wished to be strengthened in doing what appeared to many to be an arbitrary act. The Committee must take into consideration many suggestions which had been made in various parts of the country for rendering the Act more effectual than it was at present. The administration of the Act should likewise be inquired into; and he believed that when that was done it would be found that both the Privy Council and the Poor Law Board had done their utmost to prevent imperfect vaccination. It was their wish in no way to limit the scope of the inquiry, and he therefore proposed that the Committee should be empowered to take evidence with regard to the operation of the Act within Ireland and Scotland. He trusted that the inquiry would not only be full and complete, but that, in the interest of the public, they would feel it to be their duty to make their Report speedily, as it was desirable that there should be as little delay in the matter as possible.

observed that the arguments urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) in proof of the efficacy of the existing law in regard to vaccination had cut the ground from under his feet in asking for inquiry, for there could be no use in inquiring into a matter which was so well ascertained. Inquiry was good where there was anything to inquire about, but not where there was sound ground for action, and action was urgent. In such a case an inquiry was not only useless, it was positively mischievous; for nothing could be more dangerous than to profess a doubtfulness concerning a matter about which there was no doubt and which demanded only decision. The right hon. Gentleman, with a view to induce the House to acquiesce in the inquiry, had told them that there was ample evidence to show that where the law had been carried out small-pox had disappeared, and that nothing was wanted in England but strictly enforcing the law to secure similar immunity. And yet at the moment when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward this Motion for idle inquiry about vaccination, as a speculative remedy, the smallpox was raging in London. Instead of proposing an inquiry, those who believed that the law was right ought rather to express, and in action evince, their confidence in the results which it effected. He objected to the appointment of this Committee, moreover, because the subject had come within the scope of the inquiry entrusted to the Royal Sanitary Commission. That Commission had just taken evidence on the subject, expressed their opinion on it, and their Report would in a few days be in the hands of Members. Their opinion was that the law was complete, and required nothing but enforcing. They proposed better registration to insure its enforcement. It had been very imperfectly carried out in England; but in Ireland and Scotland it had been properly enforced, and with such complete success as to have nearly stamped out the small-pox. What was now really required was to empower the authorities to stimulate the responsible officers to enforce the existing Vaccination Acts. He thought that the reference of the question to a Select Committee was a most mischievous mode of shirking the responsibility of enforcing the law as it stands, and especially mischievous when the public had professed confidence in the mode already provided for meeting the present danger. The fact was that the Bill of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) at the close of last Session became—as so many Bills were still pressing at that period of the year—an embarrassment, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite in an unguarded moment had promised the hon. Member that if he would withdraw the Bill, though, there was no chance of its passing, but only of its choking the way of others, there should be an inquiry. It was an innocent and perhaps defensible weakness at the moment; but he trusted that at the commencement of a Session so full of business the result of cooler and calmer reflection would be not to appoint such a Committee, If its appointment involved nothing more than the waste of the time of 15 hon. Gentlemen upstairs, he, for one, would offer no objection; but he believed that at a moment when an epidemic was raging in London, even the appearance of doubt, where confidence was what was chiefly necessary, would be so mischievous that, though he would not divide them on this question—the House having been taken by surprise, he should certainly do so on the nomination of the Committee.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir Charles Adderley) argued against the Motion of his right hon. Friend on the ground that the existing law was satisfactory if it were only carried out. But that was exactly the weak point of the matter. The law was not now practically compulsory, and could not be carried out, and — arguing, therefore, the question from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view—the law imposed penalty after penalty if vaccination were not performed. If a parent did not get his child vaccinated he might be summoned before a magistrate and fined 20s.; but the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that did not secure compliance with the law. There were cases in which the penalty had been repeated at least half-a-dozen times, and the child remained unvaccinated to the present day. Surely, then, the right hon. Gentleman, if he believed in the efficacy of vaccination, must be dissatisfied with the law. [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: With its administrators.] Well, then, would the right hon. Gentleman say how the administrators had the means of carrying out the law? The administrators had not the power to take the child out of the arms of the mother, and carry it directly to the operator, and until that power was given them the penalty was merely the legal price paid for the disregard of vaccination. The law as it stood was ineffective, and, notwithstanding, it was harsh and cruel upon some parents: let them try if it could not be improved. He believed that it could be made more tolerant in its operation, and, at the same time, more efficiently and successfully applied. If this Committee were not granted an amount of discontent would be generated in the country the consequences of which could not at present be foreseen. There was not a constituency in England in which there were not to be found a small number of intelligent and conscientious men who would be deeply grieved if the House should not grant this inquiry. The Committee of 1867 had for its object not to inquire into the effects of vaccination, but to deal with the clauses of a specific Bill. The question on its merits had never been referred to a Committee, and hence the weakness of the law at the present moment. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would forego his promised opposition.

said, he joined in expressing the hope that his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) would allow the Committee to be appointed. There was no matter that required more consideration than the operation of the vaccination laws in England. We had evidence that in Ireland they had been perfectly successful; but in various parts of London, which was now visited by a fearful scourge, the differences in the administration of the law were very great. In some parishes it had been carried out very successfully, while in others no vaccination inspectors had been appointed, and scarcely anything had been done to insure obedience to the law. He held in his hand a letter from the medical officer of the Hampstead Hospital stating that so far as he could judge in the metropolis there could be no doubt the disease was increasing both in extent and in the malignity of its effects. However that might be, there could be no doubt that a very large number of persons were suffering from small-pox who, if the law had been properly administered, ought not to be suffering from it at all. There was no doubt that small-pox was a disease which could be stamped out if proper means were used; but now, on account of the inefficiency of our laws and the inadequacy of their administration, we had to submit to a fearful scourge, and in a great panic make haste to found hospitals, spending thousands of pounds when hundreds would have sufficed in the first instance. It was in the hope that the appointment of the Committee would bring home responsibility to some one that he desired to see the Motion carried. In proof of the way in which vaccination was neglected, he would refer to a report by one of the Officers of Health in London. That report stated that, in a particular district, during 1869–70 there were 1,105 births registered, and that the successful vaccinations had been only 253. There was no officer appointed to carry out the Act in that district. During the ten years from 1856 to 1867 the births annually registered were, on an average, 1,287, and the successful vaccinations 962, or three-fourths of the whole births; but they fell in 1868 to 685, in 1869 to 445, and in 1870 to 253: so that the Act in a large part of London had been entirely neglected. The six months allowed to the registrar to prepare a list of persons whose births had been registered but whose certificates of vaccination had not been received by him was too long, considering the migratory habits of many of the people. He had been told on very high authority that a very large proportion of the population moved from parish to parish and district to district every three months, so that if the Act were attempted to be carried out by the proper authorities the people could not be found, and in this way it was calculated one-fourth of the children registered were removed with their parents before the registrar's list was completed, and so escaped the operation of the Act. In one parish he was aware that the officer appointed used to go to the registrar and obtain a list at an earlier date, in order that he might follow up the people, and the consequence was that he had succeeded in getting four-fifths of the children vaccinated without a single prosecution. It was said by those who took an interest in the matter that all that was wanted was direct responsibility and proper organization. But the tendency of legislation of late years had been to divide responsibility, so that no one could say, when mischief arose, to whom the blame ought to be brought home.

said, the question was whether a Committee ought to be appointed to inquire into the Vaccination Act. The reason why he thought such an inquiry as that which was now proposed would be useful was not because that House or the intelligent people of the country doubted the efficacy of vaccination when properly performed, but because in various classes, especially in large towns, not only was there doubt whether it was effectual as a preventitive, but there was an exceedingly great fear that diseases even more to be dreaded than small-pox itself were conveyed by vaccine matter. It would be quite unwise of the House to ignore that opinion. He found it to prevail among the classes lately admitted to the small-poxhospitals, nor were these always the most ignorant, idle, or indigent of the population. Domestic servants, barmaids, men in similar employment, cabmen, busmen, and coachmen, gained admission to these hospitals, and were found unprotected by vaccination; and there were of every grade those who believed that vaccination was not simply no sure protection against small-pox, but the means of introducing serious diseases among the people. He was convinced that, if proper evidence was forthcoming, this fear would be dissipated, and therefore he believed that the House would do wisely and kindly by consenting to the appointment of this Committee. All that was necessary to improve the administration of vaccination, and to carry it more completely into the houses of poorer classes, was to instruct the poorer classes by such literature as would demonstrate to them the folly of the opposition which had been raised up in the large centres of population in this country against vaccination. He hoped there would be no opposition to the nomination of this Committee.

said, that as in 1867 the House had enabled him to pass the Compulsory Vaccination Bill, he might be allowed to say a few words on the subject. He thought the necessity of an inquiry had been proved by the debate. His right hon. Friend who opposed the Motion (Sir Charles Adderley) said that by granting a Committee of Inquiry the House would east doubt upon a matter on which there was no doubt, and that the law of 1867 was complete; but the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) said the law was not complete, because it was not compulsory. He hoped that inquiry would remove this difference of opinion. He thought his right hon. Friend could hardly have read the Motion: — it was for the appointment of a Committee to consider the operation of the Act of 1867, and to inquire whether it required improvement. That was a fair subject for inquiry. He had brought in the Act himself, and he admitted that it was not perfect. He would presently show where the imperfection lay. The fact that this subject had been already considered by a Commission was not a good argument against further inquiry. As much opposition to vaccination existed out-of-doors, it was advisable to inquire whether the law was efficient, and if it was not, then they could consider how it might be improved. The opposition in this country to vaccination had been promoted by persons who inundated the country with writings in which they said that vaccination was the cause of various diseases, and that it was not efficient to prevent small-pox; therefore it was good for the country that a Committee should be appointed in order that there might be an opportunity of inquiring into the truth of the allegations that had been made. He admitted that there was a fault in the law—a fault which he could not avoid when he had charge of the Bill. In Scotland and Ireland the compulsory Acts had been perfectly successful. In Scotland, before 1863, the average number of deaths by small-pox was 2,000; in two years after the passing of the Act the number was reduced to 123. Why, then, was the English Act not so successful? Where was the defect? He believed the reason why it was not successful in England was because registration of births was not compulsory. In Scotland, the registration of births was compulsory; there was, therefore, one list of the children that were born, and another list of the children that had been vaccinated, and, by comparing the two lists, any case of omission to vaccinate could at once be seen. But in England there was not a compulsory registration of births; the law went so far as to impose a fine on the registration of a birth within a certain period, which fine was escaped if the birth was not registered at all. In the case of typhus fever or scarlatina, we could make an epidemic less virulent; but vaccination was a certain specific against small-pox. He believed that, in every case, vaccination prevented small- pox. It was therefore most necessary to take every means to make the law most efficient.

said, the reason why he opposed inquiry last year was because he was afraid of doing anything to shake the confidence of the country in vaccination at a time when he knew a great epidemic was rolling over to this country from the Continent. In London, we were now in the midst of that wave, and it was there felt with the greatest severity; but it had not yet reached its summit, and he thought it had become very important to inquire why vaccination had not been so successful in England as in the two other parts of the United Kingdom. He hoped, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) would withdraw his opposition to the Motion.

also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his opposition. As he had before said, the Government did not propose this Committee with the slightest doubt about the principle of vaccination, or the necessity of compulsory vaccination—and he need not say they had no intention of relaxing the operations of the law during the deliberations of the Committee. But they believed that with the present amount of information possessed by the public, suggestions might be made for amending the law; for making it more effective for removing, he trusted, some of the opposition to the law throughout the country, and, probably, for improving the administration of the law. For all these purposes he believed that a Committee at this time would be of great service.

, in moving that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Merchant Shipping and Navigation, said, he did not propose to trouble the House with any statement upon the merits of a Bill of that magnitude, and containing such a mass of details; but he had been anxious to introduce the Bill at a very early period, in order that a measure which must require so much time for examination even by those who were best acquainted with the subject should be as soon as possible in the hands of hon. Members. He intended to accompany the print of the Bill with a memorandum, which he hoped would be distributed in a few days, explaining the points in which the Bill would effect a change in the present law, and also the points in which, it differed from the Bill introduced last year by his hon. Friend now the Under Secretary for the Home Department. He proposed to move the second reading in a few weeks, and on that occasion he would be ready to give any explanation that might be required. He need not say that it would be quite impossible to pass a Bill like this if details on numerous points were made the subject of contest in that House, or if hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of any great alteration in the present law which was not contained in the Bill were to insist on enforcing their views as against it. On the other hand, if they thought it would be a useful measure of consolidation and amendment he hoped they would give him their support in carrying it into law. No pains should be wanting on his part or on that of his Colleague, the Secretary of the Board of Trade, to facilitate the passing of the measure. He should be happy to confer with hon. Members upon any part of this Bill, which they might feel inclined to criticize or object to, and to meet them as far as his duty allowed. In that spirit, he trusted, it might be possible this year to pass the measure into law. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.

, in moving a Vote of Thanks to Sir Denis Le Marchant, Baronet, upon his resignation of the office of Clerk of the House, said—I rise to propose, in conformity with the past usage of this House, that we should express in a befitting manner to you, Mr. Speaker, as the proper organ of this House, our sense of the manner in which Sir Denis Le Marchant has discharged the duties of Clerk. Sir Denis Le Marchant is a very old public servant, numbering more than 40 years of work in offices all of which were arduous, and the latter part of which have been given to the service of this House—years that certainly have been very remarkable. I imagine that this House has very long enjoyed the honour of being the most laborious, by far, of all the Legislative Assemblies of the world, and, during all the period of the existence of this House, there have been none in which its labours have been more arduous or more unremitting than during the last 20 or 21 years. During the whole of that time Sir Denis Le Marchant has been the Principal Officer at the Table of this House, and every Gentleman who has had any experience of the proceedings in Parliament knows well, from his own observation, how exacting and exhaustive are the labours which the Clerks at the Table undergo, and how kindly and how thoroughly efficient is the assistance which every Member of the House receives at the Table on all occasions in the discharge of his duties. I, therefore, am quite sure that the House will be heartily disposed to join in the tribute which I now propose. It is right that I should also refer to that portion of the duty of the Principal Clerk at the Table which consists in the government of a portion of the large establishment attached, and necessarily attached, to this House for the performance of its varied duties. Though, perhaps, it is not easy for most of us to speak from personal experience of the merits of any particu- lar officer in the discharge of functions such as these, it so happened that, during the time I held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had the opportunity of seeing something of Sir Denis Le Marchant in this capacity, and of learning from those who were most competent to judge how those functions had been discharged. And I believe that in that province—one undoubtedly of great moment to the good conduct of the business of this House—Sir Denis Le Marchant was distinguished by a fair and equitable spirit, and by his great desire to promote the efficiency of the establishment over which he presided by doing justice to all parties concerned. His resignation is undoubtedly matter of regret; it reminds us all of our transitory condition, and that we must submit to the law that governs us; but it is some consolation to be enabled to express a friendly regret, in the terms of a Motion such as this, at the separation when it comes.

I think it is due to an old officer of this House, who has performed public duties, as stated by my right hon. Friend opposite, for 40 years, of which 20 years have been spent in this House, that he should not pass from our service without the testimony borne to his character being conveyed to him from both sides of this House. I agree in every word which has been stated by my right hon. Friend opposite with regard to Sir Denis Le Marchant. One portion of his duties I am, perhaps, better able to speak of from personal observation and experience; I allude to those functions which my right hon. Friend mentioned in the latter part of his observations—the appointment of the officers of this House. I am quite sure that Members who have taken part in the Committees of this House must have been struck with the able manner in which the Clerks of this House performed their duties. All these were under the appointment of Sir Denis Le Marchant; and I think the manner in which these offices are filled, and in which their duties are performed, speaks highly for his soundness of judgment and discretion. My right hon. Friend has spoken of the courtesy which was always shown to Members of this House by Sir Denis Le Marchant. It is, of course, the duty of the Clerks at the Table to render every assistance they can to Members of this House in the performance of their duty to their constituents; but everything depends upon the manner in which this is done; and even in their presence, I will say that our thanks are due, not only to Sir Denis Le Marchant, but to those who have sat beside him for many years past, for the courteous manner in which they have rendered that assistence. I cordially agree in every compliment that has been paid to Sir Denis Le Marchant, and I heartily second the Vote that has been proposed.

moved—

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Norwich, in the room of Jacob Henry Tillett, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."

rose for the purpose of making a very brief explanation in consequence of what occurred in this House last Session, when he took some pains to remove from the list of persons reported as being guilty of corruption a voter named Ray. He now confessed he was entirely taken in, and had he known that Ray was guilty of the shabby bribery now proved against him he certainly would not have said a word in his behalf. He thought, however, it was a grave defect in our election law that such men as Lacy and Ray should, in consequence of the lapse of time, be beyond the reach of the punishment which was inflicted on another briber who was most justly undergoing his punishment for the same offence at the same election. Lapse of time did not protect a Member, and he thought the same rule ought to be extended to all persons reported to the House as being guilty of bribery. He believed Ray was rightly taken out of the Schedule, as he was put into it for being concerned in the show of hands, and Mr. Justice Keating in his Report made no allusion to that subject.

wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government intended to bring in a Bill for the disfranchisement of those Norwich voters who were reported by Mr. Justice Keating to have been guilty of bribery at the last election, and whether such persons would be entitled to record their votes at the next election?

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to assimilate the Law for the relief of the poor in Ireland to that of England, by substituting Union Eating for the present system of Bating by Electoral Divisions, said, as he understood a Committee was to be appointed to inquire into the subject, he would not press the second reading of the Bill until after the Committee had reported.

said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not made that announcement he should have felt it his duty to take the unusual course of opposing the introduction of the Bill, the only object of which was to relieve some rich men, landlords, and towns from certain burdens and spread them over the rural districts of Ireland, to the disadvantage of the enormous majority of the inhabitants. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to ignore the fact of the existence of the head of the Poor Law Board (who was a Member of the Cabinet), a Secretary to the Poor Law Board, and of a Chief Secretary for Ireland, and wished to take any alteration entirely out of their hands. He was quite satisfied that a full inquiry would prove that the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite in the wrong. It was a great mistake to speak of there having been any assimilation of the Irish to the English system, for the former carefully avoided all the errors of the latter; and the introduction of Union rating would not assimilate the two systems. When a question had been submitted to and decided by a Committee of the House, as this question had been, the House ought not hastily to overturn the decision of that Committee. The inquiry was made in 1861; there was a division in the Committee on this question; the voting was 10 to 3; and the names of the 10 showed that this was not a party question, for they were Mr. Monsell, Mr. H. Herbert, Mr. John Browne, Mr. George, Mr. Gregory, Sir Edward Grogan, Lord Naas, Mr. Quin, Mr. Cogan, and himself. Under these circumstances, he decidedly objected to an attempt to effect an alteration by a side-wind.

said, that, but for want of time, it was the intention of the Government last Session to propose a Committee of Inquiry upon this question, which was one of considerable importance, was by no means so clear as the noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Hamilton) seemed to suppose. It was a very proper subject of inquiry which the Government intended to promote. The terms of the Motion of last year, which he should move shortly, were—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the present area of rating within Poor Law Unions in Ireland, with a view of ascertaining whether such area of rating might with advantage be extended."

He did not think the case had been so fully decided upon as the noble Lord wished them to believe. The Committee which investigated the subject of the Poor Law in Ireland did not devote any great part of its time to this particular point, and some of those who were most able to give an opinion on the working of the Poor Law in Ireland were very much in favour of the proposal now made. In agreeing to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. M'Mahon), he expressed a hope that time would be allowed for the Committee to finish its labours before the Bill was put down for a second reading.